5 ms·

What makes me sad is just what complete disarray the GOP is in. I'm sure at some point the GOP actually stood for something. Now? It just seems to have been com

by cletus 11y ago

What makes me sad is just what complete disarray the GOP is in. I'm sure at some point the GOP actually stood for something. Now? It just seems to have been completely co-opted by religious conservatives. Presidential candidates are cut from that cloth or, worse, they're just puppets for particular private interests (eg Scott Walker is nothing more than an empty vessel for the Koch brothers). Compounding this is the huge political power that Israel has in US politics. Whatever your opinion about Israel, I think it's fair to say that Israel has been disastrous for US foreign policy in the Middle East for every country's relationship to the US other than Israel. Earlier this week I was reading that the Obama administration may hasten the release of Israeli spy Jonathon Pollard in an effort to appease Israel. Israel has found unlikely allies in the Jewish lobby (who tend to lean left) and religious conservatives. Iran is a problem the US made by repeatedly and disastrously screwing with the region. The support of the Shah fomenting the Iranian Revolution, using Saddam Hussein as a proxy to fight Iran (killing hundreds of thousands on both sides) and invading Iraq a decade ago. The invasion in particular was the last straw. The lesson the "axis of evil" could take away from this was that having nuclear weapons (like North Korea) was the only guarantee of survival. So of course Iran wants the bomb. Whose fault is that? Yet the GOP in particular seems ready to sacrifice everything for a policy that isn't working just to appease Israel. Well, Israel is just going to have to learn to live in that region because someone there getting nuclear weapons is a question of if not when. We've come a long way since Eisenhower could (and did) tell Israel to get out of Sinai. The fact that Obama is even trying to stand up to Israel is amazing to me. I honestly hope he succeeds because I think engagement with Iran is the only sustainable course forward.

gizmo686 11y ago
Not that I understand the heavy opposition we have seen to the deal (beyond the normal partisan politics), but the explanation that the GOP is trying to appease Israel seems lacking. Specifically, that begs the question of why Israel (or rather, Netenyahu et al) oppose the deal. I find it difficult to believe that they would be willingly to obstruct the path to keeping Iran from a bomb just to satisfy their own internal politics, so presumably there is something else to the disagreement.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  The military-industrial complex is not a rational animal. It knows that it wants to manufacture more armaments. It also knows that in the past, "sanctions" were an effective pretext and political cover for its singular purpose, since the marketing story for them was seemingly opposed to that purpose. Now, when "sanctions" are widely imagined to have "worked" in accomplishing the goals publicly claimed for them, the beast is angry that it went along with the marketers and pollsters. The military-industrial complex expresses its anger through retired generals, think-tank analysts, and "conservative" politicians. If we just ignore it and stop feeding it so much, it will quiet somewhat, eventually.
- YZF 11y ago
  Why is it hard to understand? By lifting of the sanctions Iran will have significant more resources and at the same time maintain their ability to get to a bomb. They are not giving up any of their capabilities so why do you think this is the path keeping Iran from the bomb? They can get to a bomb either by violating the agreement (secretly or otherwise) or simply waiting for enough time to elapse. The additional resources will help the regime maintain its power and increase its involvement in various conflicts in the region, in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The deal is effectively a result of the US having no leverage. There is no real military option. The sanctions are eroding anyways. It's really a choice between the lesser of two evils and it's a difficult one.
  - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
    > They can get to a bomb either by violating the agreement Apparently a lot of their material (both the fissile material, as their equipment) is taken away. Meaning to get back to the bomb-producing levels they are at today would take years. If they broke the agreement next year, they'd simply have had years of setback. Apparently there are also mechanisms in place to immediately have sanctions return on Iran if it were found to be working on a bomb. After all, they're a signatory member of the non-proliferation treaty, and the entire world is in support of non-proliferation. If they were found to be working on a bomb, they'd have a much, much weaker moral position than they do today (and it's already pretty abysmal), so the notion that sanctions would return isn't surprising. The notion that all nuclear facilities would be taken away if the agreement was violated, also isn't unrealistic, and that it'd be at the threat of military action, rather than just diplomatic action. Lastly, as far as continuously referenced experts are concerned, it seems you're overstating the ability to simply violate the agreement in secret. Apparently that's pretty damn hard to do on a normal day, but even harder to do with the level of access and transparency, and while we can mock the US at times in its competence, I have very few doubts about its intelligence capacities. The rest of your post is spot on though. (sanctions would erode over time, military option doesn't exist, and Iran has a growing economy and population that will strengthen its influence in the region). A quick overview. Vox is pretty biased and not very technical, but it's still a decent overview on what experts think, how many centrifuges are taken away (70%, leaving only knockoffs of 1970s centrifuges), how much fissile material is taken away (97%), what the limits of enrichment (allowed to enrich to <4%, 20% is necessary for medicine, 90% for a bomb) are, what other requirements will be met (one of its reactor's cores must be replaced with one unable to produce weapon's grade material, spent fuel must be shipped out, inspections and transparency is full) etc: http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good
tsotha 11y ago
I'm not sure why you think the GOP is in disarray. The Republicans don't trust Iran not to build a bomb. To think the Iranians won't is naive to a childish degree. We went down this road with the North Koreans. Are memories that short? And what happened with Democrats and anti-Semitism? When did it become okay to see Evil Jews behind every problem?
- amirmansour 11y ago
  Comparing Iran to North Korea is quite a stretch, and frankly doing so reveals that you are severely misinformed about the Iranian people, culture, government, and history. It's OK, majority of people are, and I would be more than happy to clear up any questions you might have regarding the matter.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    It's not a stretch at all when it comes to nuclear weapons. The Iranians are doing exactly what the North Koreans did. The "people, culture, government, and history" are relevant only to the extent to which they played into the government's decision to acquire nuclear weapons.
    - Gibbon1 11y ago
      For me a big difference between North Korea and Iran is the balance of soft vs hard power in those countries. In Iran the ordinary people tend to push back in a lot of ways and the government gives ground if grudgingly and slowly. And there is a lot of politics going on between factions with real power. Given that I'm willing to be very patient. Seriously, the generals of the Red Army ran the soviet union for 35 years after Stalin died and then they passed on. So too will the Iranian revolutionaries.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    While I do think that the Iranian people and culture are as a rule of thumb non militant (with enough material prosperity comes a time when you prefer to trade with someone and not kill him), it is the ruling theocracy that overrides everything else. Until Saudi Arabia and Iran both get their Kemal Ataturk (with less genocide if possible) that enshrines the secularist nature of the countries for a century (sadly Erdogan was allowed to exist, lets hope that this gets fixed soon) they cannot be viewed as a reliable partners.

by cletus 11y ago

gizmo686 11y ago

Not that I understand the heavy opposition we have seen to the deal (beyond the normal partisan politics), but the explanation that the GOP is trying to appease Israel seems lacking. Specifically, that begs the question of why Israel (or rather, Netenyahu et al) oppose the deal. I find it difficult to believe that they would be willingly to obstruct the path to keeping Iran from a bomb just to satisfy their own internal politics, so presumably there is something else to the disagreement.

jessaustin 11y ago
The military-industrial complex is not a rational animal. It knows that it wants to manufacture more armaments. It also knows that in the past, "sanctions" were an effective pretext and political cover for its singular purpose, since the marketing story for them was seemingly opposed to that purpose. Now, when "sanctions" are widely imagined to have "worked" in accomplishing the goals publicly claimed for them, the beast is angry that it went along with the marketers and pollsters. The military-industrial complex expresses its anger through retired generals, think-tank analysts, and "conservative" politicians. If we just ignore it and stop feeding it so much, it will quiet somewhat, eventually.
YZF 11y ago
Why is it hard to understand? By lifting of the sanctions Iran will have significant more resources and at the same time maintain their ability to get to a bomb. They are not giving up any of their capabilities so why do you think this is the path keeping Iran from the bomb? They can get to a bomb either by violating the agreement (secretly or otherwise) or simply waiting for enough time to elapse. The additional resources will help the regime maintain its power and increase its involvement in various conflicts in the region, in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The deal is effectively a result of the US having no leverage. There is no real military option. The sanctions are eroding anyways. It's really a choice between the lesser of two evils and it's a difficult one.
- IkmoIkmo 11y ago
  > They can get to a bomb either by violating the agreement Apparently a lot of their material (both the fissile material, as their equipment) is taken away. Meaning to get back to the bomb-producing levels they are at today would take years. If they broke the agreement next year, they'd simply have had years of setback. Apparently there are also mechanisms in place to immediately have sanctions return on Iran if it were found to be working on a bomb. After all, they're a signatory member of the non-proliferation treaty, and the entire world is in support of non-proliferation. If they were found to be working on a bomb, they'd have a much, much weaker moral position than they do today (and it's already pretty abysmal), so the notion that sanctions would return isn't surprising. The notion that all nuclear facilities would be taken away if the agreement was violated, also isn't unrealistic, and that it'd be at the threat of military action, rather than just diplomatic action. Lastly, as far as continuously referenced experts are concerned, it seems you're overstating the ability to simply violate the agreement in secret. Apparently that's pretty damn hard to do on a normal day, but even harder to do with the level of access and transparency, and while we can mock the US at times in its competence, I have very few doubts about its intelligence capacities. The rest of your post is spot on though. (sanctions would erode over time, military option doesn't exist, and Iran has a growing economy and population that will strengthen its influence in the region). A quick overview. Vox is pretty biased and not very technical, but it's still a decent overview on what experts think, how many centrifuges are taken away (70%, leaving only knockoffs of 1970s centrifuges), how much fissile material is taken away (97%), what the limits of enrichment (allowed to enrich to <4%, 20% is necessary for medicine, 90% for a bomb) are, what other requirements will be met (one of its reactor's cores must be replaced with one unable to produce weapon's grade material, spent fuel must be shipped out, inspections and transparency is full) etc: http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good

tsotha 11y ago

I'm not sure why you think the GOP is in disarray. The Republicans don't trust Iran not to build a bomb. To think the Iranians won't is naive to a childish degree. We went down this road with the North Koreans. Are memories that short? And what happened with Democrats and anti-Semitism? When did it become okay to see Evil Jews behind every problem?

amirmansour 11y ago
Comparing Iran to North Korea is quite a stretch, and frankly doing so reveals that you are severely misinformed about the Iranian people, culture, government, and history. It's OK, majority of people are, and I would be more than happy to clear up any questions you might have regarding the matter.
- tsotha 11y ago
  It's not a stretch at all when it comes to nuclear weapons. The Iranians are doing exactly what the North Koreans did. The "people, culture, government, and history" are relevant only to the extent to which they played into the government's decision to acquire nuclear weapons.
  - Gibbon1 11y ago
    For me a big difference between North Korea and Iran is the balance of soft vs hard power in those countries. In Iran the ordinary people tend to push back in a lot of ways and the government gives ground if grudgingly and slowly. And there is a lot of politics going on between factions with real power. Given that I'm willing to be very patient. Seriously, the generals of the Red Army ran the soviet union for 35 years after Stalin died and then they passed on. So too will the Iranian revolutionaries.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  While I do think that the Iranian people and culture are as a rule of thumb non militant (with enough material prosperity comes a time when you prefer to trade with someone and not kill him), it is the ruling theocracy that overrides everything else. Until Saudi Arabia and Iran both get their Kemal Ataturk (with less genocide if possible) that enshrines the secularist nature of the countries for a century (sadly Erdogan was allowed to exist, lets hope that this gets fixed soon) they cannot be viewed as a reliable partners.