3 ms·

> 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. Me

> 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

YZF 11y ago
The equipment isn't taken away. It's just placed in storage for 10 years. The breakout time period I've heard about getting to a bomb is one year. Some have said it's as short as 3 months. Even if we accept "years" not sure that really matters. Somehow I don't think Iran's regime is very concerned about their moral position in western eyes. They have their own ideas of morality. They also have longer term goals, they don't report quarterly results ;) My current reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac... I think you're also exaggerating the ability of intelligence and inspections to really know what's going on. How long did it take North Korea to go from inspections to a bomb? Iraq? Libya? Syria? Lots of example of the limitations of intelligence gathering. The agreement basically accepts Iran as a "nuclear threshold" state. It is very unlikely to push Iran towards any liberal or democratic reforms. The whole framing around how western powers have meddled with Iran historically somehow justifies what's going on today is ridiculous. Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right. The Shah backed by western powers oppressed the people and the current regime backed by other powers oppresses the people (not to mention what happened to moderate Iranians at the time of the revolution). There is an incredible amount of naivety and ignorance around the discussion. All that said, I tend to agree with Kerry/Obama in that the agreement is perhaps the best we can get right now. It's just not a very good best, kind of an admission of defeat. There is some small chance it will lead to an overall increase in stability but there's also a non-negligible chance of the opposite, less stability and more actors with nuclear weapons.

YZF 11y ago

The equipment isn't taken away. It's just placed in storage for 10 years. The breakout time period I've heard about getting to a bomb is one year. Some have said it's as short as 3 months. Even if we accept "years" not sure that really matters. Somehow I don't think Iran's regime is very concerned about their moral position in western eyes. They have their own ideas of morality. They also have longer term goals, they don't report quarterly results ;) My current reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac... I think you're also exaggerating the ability of intelligence and inspections to really know what's going on. How long did it take North Korea to go from inspections to a bomb? Iraq? Libya? Syria? Lots of example of the limitations of intelligence gathering. The agreement basically accepts Iran as a "nuclear threshold" state. It is very unlikely to push Iran towards any liberal or democratic reforms. The whole framing around how western powers have meddled with Iran historically somehow justifies what's going on today is ridiculous. Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right. The Shah backed by western powers oppressed the people and the current regime backed by other powers oppresses the people (not to mention what happened to moderate Iranians at the time of the revolution). There is an incredible amount of naivety and ignorance around the discussion. All that said, I tend to agree with Kerry/Obama in that the agreement is perhaps the best we can get right now. It's just not a very good best, kind of an admission of defeat. There is some small chance it will lead to an overall increase in stability but there's also a non-negligible chance of the opposite, less stability and more actors with nuclear weapons.