3 ms·

> unfortunately later torpedoed by Trump for no reason Not just Trump, but the entire Republican Party and its voter base. And not for no reason: the reason is

by wahern 5y ago

> unfortunately later torpedoed by Trump for no reason Not just Trump, but the entire Republican Party and its voter base. And not for no reason: the reason is that it's easier to keep Iran as a public punching bag than try to deal with real and far more difficult strategic problems like North Korea, Russia, or China, all three of which seized the opportunity to pursue their strategic goals while the U.S. was distracted in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran took that opportunity, too--the wars provided both the impetus and the time to pursue a nuclear program.

giantg2 5y ago
Eh, this isn't exactly true. The three main reasons were that the deal did not have permanent enforcement, Iran is still pursuing ballistic missile development (not covered by the deal), and they provide support to the Hezbollah terrorist group (although this is declining and technically done through a non-government group). I'm curious, what strategic goals did North Korea, Russia, and China achieve during that time that the US should have dealt with, and what could be have done that we haven't already?
- g8oz 5y ago
  This is exactly the short-sighted mindset that torpedoed the deal. It was explicitly designed to deal with nukes not make Iran behave in general. I think the hawks want to keep the dream of regime change alive. It was a win thrown away for ideological reasons.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "It was a win thrown away for ideological reasons." That's one opinion. I think people on both sides are calling the others shortsighted. For example, what enforcement is there after the 10 year period expires? They weren't forced to forfeit or destroy their Arak facility. This means they could just start using it again. In my view, the deal could be beneficial, but could also end poorly. The deal doesn't seem to embrace a systems thinking mindset of how all the pieces fit together. The downside is that if we allow the economy to expand and for Iran to accumulate resources during a 10 year period, then reimposing the sanctions will be less impactful (we can only hope that the people would be upset enough to pressure them goverment). In theory, the deal will benefit Iran in the power dynamics, and only benefit us if they decide to follow through in the long term. So the outcome is almost completely at the discretion of Iran, and provides them guaranteed benefit, with no guarantee to the others. In my general experience, focusing on a single issue, or component of an issue, is the way we come to short sighted solutions. This doesn't mean that we can't do things in an iterative fashion, but we need to have a plan and vision for how that policy will work long term in relation to a variety of other policies and potential events. I don't see that type of strategic thinking with this agreement, and that's even ignoring the terrorist ties.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by wahern 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

Eh, this isn't exactly true. The three main reasons were that the deal did not have permanent enforcement, Iran is still pursuing ballistic missile development (not covered by the deal), and they provide support to the Hezbollah terrorist group (although this is declining and technically done through a non-government group). I'm curious, what strategic goals did North Korea, Russia, and China achieve during that time that the US should have dealt with, and what could be have done that we haven't already?

g8oz 5y ago
This is exactly the short-sighted mindset that torpedoed the deal. It was explicitly designed to deal with nukes not make Iran behave in general. I think the hawks want to keep the dream of regime change alive. It was a win thrown away for ideological reasons.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "It was a win thrown away for ideological reasons." That's one opinion. I think people on both sides are calling the others shortsighted. For example, what enforcement is there after the 10 year period expires? They weren't forced to forfeit or destroy their Arak facility. This means they could just start using it again. In my view, the deal could be beneficial, but could also end poorly. The deal doesn't seem to embrace a systems thinking mindset of how all the pieces fit together. The downside is that if we allow the economy to expand and for Iran to accumulate resources during a 10 year period, then reimposing the sanctions will be less impactful (we can only hope that the people would be upset enough to pressure them goverment). In theory, the deal will benefit Iran in the power dynamics, and only benefit us if they decide to follow through in the long term. So the outcome is almost completely at the discretion of Iran, and provides them guaranteed benefit, with no guarantee to the others. In my general experience, focusing on a single issue, or component of an issue, is the way we come to short sighted solutions. This doesn't mean that we can't do things in an iterative fashion, but we need to have a plan and vision for how that policy will work long term in relation to a variety of other policies and potential events. I don't see that type of strategic thinking with this agreement, and that's even ignoring the terrorist ties.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]