Done Deal

[RLENT]

What an odd and incorrect statement.

That's your opinion and is easily debatable.

Bush took a strong position on Iran not being able to get a nuclear weapon and brought a lot of attention to it.

Yes - but he was unable to obtain anything from them ... possibly because he refused to speak with them, and any "negotiations" that may have been taking place thru 3rd parties were of the "our way or the highway" preconditions variety ...

That's not really a negotiation - it's a demand to capitulate and surrender. Same thing as what Nut-and-Yahoo wanted. Not realistic.

The Iranians told him to go chuck off ...

The really odd part of the statement is that Bush is to blame for the economy and everything bad several years later but yet gets no credit for everything he did to stop Iran.

You need to brush up on your comprehension skills:

1. There was nothing whatsoever in my statement you quote about the economy, much less blaming Bush for it.

2. The statement addressed what Bush was able to obtain from the Iranians - which was nothing - not anything else. That is a fact ... I'm sorry if you find it an uncomfortable to confront.

So it's a straw man of your own invention.

Obama has nothing, zip, zilch, zero other than the word of a country that has lied numerous times before about their nuclear program that they will just slow down, not stop.

Well, typically, when one forges an agreement with someone, that is what you wind up with: their word and commitment, as defined in the agreement.

Then of course you have the statements from Iran that said the deal means that everyone now recognizes the right of Iran to enrich uranium.

That's their opinion - others may disagree (and apparently do)

 

[RLENT]

Obama: Nuclear deal blocks Iran's path to bomb...

Obama: The private sector is doing fine.

Obama: If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance...doctor you can keep your doctor...

Obama: There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.

Obama: I did not set a red line on Syria.

Anyone notice a pattern here?

I really do appreciate the point - but one could probably do essentially the same thing with any politician by being selective on what one cites.

 

[LDB]

And any improvement - however small - is better than no improvement

See if you can remember that until election day and cause others to understand and follow the concept.

 

[RLENT]

I hope there is some good to come of the Done Deal, but here is another of history's done deals:

Godwin achieved ... and only 15 posts in ... outstanding !

While I appreciate your attempt at analogy, it isn't necessarily analogous, nor are the implied conclusions that flow from it necessarily correct.

Here's another take on Chamberlain's actions - and the actual strategy behind it - by Richard Sale:

Munich Appeasement and Iran By Richard Sale

Once again and again and even again, the term "Munich appeasement" is being used by people who should know better, using the phrase as a vulgar tool to attack any American effort to achieve an agreement with Iran on its nuclear enrichment program.

Unfortunately, much of the popular understanding of Munich Agreement is entirely mistaken. "Munich appeasement" is a merely label plastered on a bottle that had in most cases never been opened much less tasted.

In the late 1930s, Germany had clearly rearmed, its intentions were clearly aggressive, and clearly, the British, like the French, had not. Their countries had no heart for rearmament. But before the meeting with Hitler, Prime Minister Chamberlin in fact had set in motion a secret policy to confront Hitler, the object of which was to "inject resisting power" into those states neighboring Germany that Hitler clearly wanted to turn into "vassals."

Chamberlin's design was to increase financial and economic aid into possible "vassal states" that would make them less dependent on Germany aims. Its goal was to "ensure that Germany's style was "cramped in every way possible, with a minimum of any provocation" that might be a cause for war. This secret intent to increase anti-German resistance would be buttressed by the public declaration that the French and British were united in resisting Hitler's designs.

This of course was false posturing. The French generals were muddled ad confused and wanted to avoid war at all costs, and the British were basically unarmed.

The secret British policy was to secretly play for time. It is to Chamberlin's credit that he did this. Why then all this footwork? At his meeting with Hitler on Sept. 29, Chamberlin permitted the German reoccupation of the Sudetenland, and the agreement enabled Chamberlin to return to London and announce he had secured "peace in our time."

But the reality was far different. Chamberlin had secured peace for 12 months, just in time for the British Air Ministry to introduce the fast, eight-gun Spitfire fighter into squadron service. A biographer of British intelligence said, "That stay of war proved to be decisive in the defense of the United Kingdom –the Battle of Britain which took place in the summer of 1940 and which resulted not only in victory but ended Hitler’s plan for an invasion."

The lesson of course, was to stall in the face of military weakness until you had gained some position of strength. John Kennedy took that lesson to heart – that without military strength you could do little in foreign policy.

Sic Semper Tyrannis : Munich Appeasement and Iran By Richard Sale

On Pearl Harbor and the Japanese, the US (FDR) intentionally provoked that.

 

[RLENT]

What can go wrong? Plenty, but what other sensible options are there?

None ...

When a country is determined to get nucs they seem to find a way.

That's probably true - and if it it, then the question becomes: What can be done to ensure the country doesn't, and what is to be avoided that increases their motivation to do so ?

I would suggest that no dialog whatsoever and/or outright belligerence might be counter-productive.

I dunno about anyone else, but if someone were threatening me - particularly someone who is a lot bigger and badder than I am - I might be inclined to find a way to discourage them from attacking me.

For instance didn't we work out a deal with North Korea in 2004 or 2005 that ended their pursuit of the bomb? In 2006 they exploded a nuclear warhead.

That's a good point - but it cuts both ways: one could argue that having been once biten, one is twice shy and will be inclined to ensure it doesn't happen a second time.

The current Intelligence Community assessment is that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons:

U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb

I suppose we could blame W but wouldn't that be a little unfair?

Why would it be unfair - after all, it happened on his watch ?

We can't monitor every nook and cranny in a foreign country.

True enough ... but it is far better in my estimation to have the IAEA functioning to execute a more aggressive and intrusive inspections regime than not.

 

[RLENT]

See if you can remember that until election day and cause others to understand and follow the concept.

Sure, no problem ... but I have to warn you, it might not produce the result that you would be seeking at that time.

 

[davekc]

As mentioned, I would give it the six months and see what happens. Very easy to adjust in that small of time frame.
And of course, the bad news. Bad news? Bad news for Hilliary.
She had a chance while secretary to do something and came up empty just like she did with Bengazi.
Of course some could say she had to deal with "Akmed I'm a nut job", but a ignorant electorate won't care.
All they will see is she couldn't get the job done and Kerry did.
If there was any damage done by this short agreement? I think it is more internal than external.

 

[LDB]

Done sincerely it can have no other result than opting for the least worst viable choice. I'm sure some will find a way to screw it up though. Our current regime proves that.

 

[davekc]

Done sincerely it can have no other result than opting for the least worst viable choice. I'm sure some will find a way to screw it up though. Our current regime proves that.

Very true. On the up side, it is only a six month agreement. Much can happen through that period and after.

 

[RLENT]

As mentioned, I would give it the six months and see what happens. Very easy to adjust in that small of time frame.

Exactly - much better to try and fail, than to not have tried at all.

And of course, the bad news. Bad news? Bad news for Hilliary.
She had a chance while secretary to do something and came up empty just like she did with Bengazi.

Yup ...

Of course some could say she had to deal with "Akmed I'm a nut job",

There might be some validity to that as a premise - but it ain't an ironclad case either. Without know exactly what happened it's hard to say whether Dinner-jacket was the real problem ... or whether it was the approach that Hill took ...

Anne Marie Slaughter is now gone from State as well ... which may be a good thing.

but a ignorant electorate won't care. All they will see is she couldn't get the job done and Kerry did.

President Kerry ?

If there was any damage done by this short agreement? I think it is more internal than external.

Obama will pay a price for this, in terms of political capital ...

The political opposition, the hawks, those in thrall to the Israel Lobby, and the Lobby itself are likely to scream bloody murder for quite some time to come ... it will be the new "Benghazi" ...

Expect much gnashing of teeth.

And expect the opposition to try and sabotage the deal in any way they can ... no matter what might be in the best interests of the US as a country. It's all about campaign contributions, not pizzing off the Lobby (and avoiding becoming a target of theirs), and acquisition of political power.

Bottomline:

The "Special Relationship" with Israel is being redefined, which isn't necessarily a bad thing - if it results in less external political influence and actual US interests being looked after - rather than being ignored or sacrificed on behalf of a State who interests are not only not identical to ours, but at times actually conflict with our own interests.

It's a good bet that unilateral action on the part of the Israelis to commit unprovoked acts of war against Iran has been minimized, if not actually completely closed off ...

There may well be political fallout for Bibi in terms of how he's handled things with Israel's primary patron - he dramatically overplayed his hand - which might result in a less extremist government coming to power in Israel (one can only hope) ... which increases the possibility (if only slightly) that there would be a real (Israeli) partner for the peace process with the Palestinians.

Over the long term, bringing Iran back from pariah status into the fold of being a responsible member of the international community has all sorts of potential benefits for the US and the international community, aside from just eliminating a threat and source of instability in the region.

Keep an eye on fuel prices

 

[RLENT]

Analysis: Iran deal leaves Israel few options

 

[RLENT]

Haven't read it yet, but this is apparently the actual agreement:

Iran nuclear deal: joint plan of action - full document | World news | theguardian.com

 

[RLENT]

Immediate effects:

Iran deal knocks oil lower, bolsters risk appetite | Reuters

 

[RLENT]

Party.

Of.

Stupid.

This senile old GOP idiot appears to be functionally blind ... and possibly in some sort of Viagra-induced haze ... fire hydrants beware:

Chambliss: Time for tougher Iran sanctions | TheHill

 

[RLENT]

But, of course, stupidity is often bi-partisan:

Schumer, Menendez Renew Calls for New Iran Sanctions | The World's Greatest Deliberative Body

 

[RLENT]

Not just lower fuel prices:

Israeli stock market reaches record high: Share prices love Iranian nuclear deal.

 

[RLENT]

Fallout, political (not nuclear):

Stung By Iranian Nuclear Deal, Netanyahu Prepares For Fallout At Home

 

[skyraider]

Godwin achieved ... and only 15 posts in ... outstanding !

While I appreciate your attempt at analogy, it isn't necessarily analogous, nor are the implied conclusions that flow from it necessarily correct.

Here's another take on Chamberlain's actions - and the actual strategy behind it - by Richard Sale:


Sic Semper Tyrannis : Munich Appeasement and Iran By Richard Sale

On Pearl Harbor and the Japanese, the US (FDR) intentionally provoked that.

** Point will taken. I did read several articles on FDR and our entry into WW2. There are still some documents that need to be released to make a firm conclusion. Lots of good info and lots on inconclusive info, but a great read overall. IMHO- FDR knew more then we shall ever know-- that cable to Pearl Harbor on an immanent attack, gave no date, but hey,,Pearl Harbor could have gone into high alert ( general quarters so to speak ) asap. History is a funny thing, ideas of what ,who ,where and who knew what are easily to assess after the fact... I will read more on FDR soon.

 

[witness23]

Looking forward to more visual aids from Netanhayu.

 

[paullud]

That's your opinion and is easily debatable.

No it was incorrect.

Yes - but he was unable to obtain anything from them ... possibly because he refused to speak with them, and any "negotiations" that may have been taking place thru 3rd parties were of the "our way or the highway" preconditions variety ...

That's not really a negotiation - it's a demand to capitulate and surrender. Same thing as what Nut-and-Yahoo wanted. Not realistic.


The Iranians told him to go chuck off ...

We aren't supposed to negotiate with terrorists which we know their leader has a hardline anti-American stance.

You need to brush up on your comprehension skills:

1. There was nothing whatsoever in my statement you quote about the economy, much less blaming Bush for it.

2. The statement addressed what Bush was able to obtain from the Iranians - which was nothing - not anything else. That is a fact ... I'm sorry if you find it an uncomfortable to confront.

So it's a straw man of your own invention.

Not sure how you didn't understand the point that Obama and his minions constantly blame the poor economy and anything bad on Bush but when it comes to this deal he gets no credit. Obviously the Iranians were interested in having the sanctions eased, getting the Iranians to this point wasn't Obama's doing.

Well, typically, when one forges an agreement with someone, that is what you wind up with: their word and commitment, as defined in the agreement.

Correct but the word of a liar, terrorist, and extremist has no value so there is no reason to celebrate or claim Obama has done anything at all other than fall for the same type of BS promises that they broken before. Oh and hand these extremists and terrorists several billion dollars like a complete idiot.

That's their opinion - others may disagree (and apparently do)

They are the important ones.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app