6 ms·

Am i the only one amazed at the fact that we actually had to wait for iranians to accept to stop going toward nuclear weapons ? I mean, why did EU and US insis

by bsaul 11y ago

Am i the only one amazed at the fact that we actually had to wait for iranians to accept to stop going toward nuclear weapons ? I mean, why did EU and US insist so much on wanting a deal ? It seemed to be that one side has all the leverage in the negociation and the other has none. We could have simply waited for the iranian regime to get so weakened that they'd simply surrender and accept every measure. So I don't understand what's the counterpart that the US and EU wanted from Iran, that could get Iran get leverage in the negociations. Anyone ?

sveme 11y ago
I don't quite understand your question. You are asking what Iran wanted from the EU and US and what they wanted from Iran? EU&US: Don't develop nuclear weapons. Iran: Stop the sanctions, let us sell our oil. Is that what you were asking for?
- bsaul 11y ago
  I don't understand why there were negociation at all. Usually, with such crucial matters, threatening the world peace, there is no discussion. The strongest simply impose its decision. Eu&us: stop or you'll get destroyed ( militarely or economically). Iran : ok. I don't see how it went any other way. The only reason i could imagine was if other big countries ( russia and china mainly) were saying " we disagree". But in that case negociations wouldn't need to be with iran, but directly with china or russia.
  - konradb 11y ago
    Presumably it's an issue of national sovereignty - it is their country, and they are broadly able to do any activities on their land as they see fit, just as the EU and US have seen fit to develop nuclear weapons. Presumably the alternative is to threaten to invade or impose economic sanctions, but that doesn't seem to me like the beginning of a productive conversation. If anything it might increase the urgency of getting weapons, of any type, to be taken seriously.
  - mpoloton 11y ago
    Be sure that if they had a chance with military offensive they would have done it (Israel/US). Like what Israel did with Iraqi and Syrian facilitates. Due to nature of Iran spread facilities, it is extremely difficult to destroy Iran's program with an air strike unless there are boots on the ground and occupation which is clearly not an option. According to best estimates it would only delay the program by one year with the outcome that Iran will actually quit NPT. Moreover, an attack would unite all Iranian to support the government. So in any case, this approach is not going to be toward the objective. It is also partly wrong to think that sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table, Iran has always been negotiating. In fact, most of the development of enrichment was done during UN sanction. Sure, people and economy suffered but again the objective was not the collective punishment it was to reduce Iran program which did not work. What caused Iran to accept to limit its program was the fact that the US accepted peaceful program and research nuclear capabilities which is a matter of pride and recognition. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" However, I totally agree with you if your approach is to create another North Korea.
mahouse 11y ago
How exactly do you expect the iranian regime to get weakened?
joosters 11y ago
Well, Iran has being saying for years that they aren't working towards nuclear weapons, so there's no obvious change there. (No idea if they are lying or not; there's been no clear 'smoking gun' evidence proving them wrong, just lots of potential 'dual use' nuclear research that could be for legitimate nuclear development or otherwise...)
Expeditus419 11y ago
A prolonged weakened economy doesn't necessarily prevent a country from developing a nuclear weapons program. Take a look at North Korea.
- bsaul 11y ago
  North korea is what scares me, because the path seems exactly similar to iran's one. Half-baked embargo , fear of sending soldier or bombing nuclear infrstructures, followed by half-backed agreements, leading to a country lead by insane dictator with nuclear bombs. Only north korea had china to protect it, whereas iran has (to my knowledge) nobody wanting to risk anything for it.
- vixen99 11y ago
  And they are untouchable. Lesson for the rest. Whatever you do, by hook or by crook, get a nuclear weapon.
colinplamondon 11y ago
Right now, there's a lot of bubbling neutral-to-pro-US sentiment in the younger, wealthier segments of Iran. If we purposefully, wantonly destroy their economy without even negotiating, that disappears, and we turn potential allies into absolute enemies. The level of currency devastation they've had since the beginning of these sanctions, and resulting unemployment, have already pushed their finances to the brink. Normally "sane" countries (Germany, Italy, Russia WW1) that go over the brink economically tend to go batshit crazy, and put into power the worst elements from their society, and invest even more control in authoritarian hands. I don't think anyone wants a regional power like Iran, controlling the wealth that it does with the military it has, to go bankrupt, and even worse elements to take power. We may not like their government, but at least they're rational. ISIS shows there's far, far deeper levels of crazy just waiting to be unleashed. TL;DR: Not being callously destructive of another country's economy, whilst negotiating in good faith, is in our national security interests.
- bsaul 11y ago
  "We may not like their government but at least they're rational" Well, a theocracy is almost by definition not rational, in the modern sense. It's based on divine laws, obedience, and absolute faith on an ideology. Not logic, provability, and the scientific method. Dealing with the iranian regime the same way you would deal with an occidental country is the greatest mistake i think. Thinking "sure, they apply shariah, and believe islam is the only true religion, and that god leads them, but deep inside they know things aren't that simple" is applying your own logic to them ( and by them, i mean people with guns who are in power, not young iranians looking the web for Game of Thrones episodes).
  - toyg 11y ago
    > a theocracy is almost by definition not rational Neither it is a monarchy; shall we embargo the Dutch, the Spanish and the Swedes next? As a UK taxpayer, I wholly support your ideas and hope you will accord the same distrust to British governments, removing your NATO bases at once and stopping NSA/GCHQ cooperation. > Thinking "sure, they apply shariah, and believe islam is the only true religion, and that god leads them, but deep inside they know things aren't that simple" is applying your own logic to them I grew up in Italy, where the same mindset applies with Catholicism, word by word (down to and including "people with guns"). Please go ahead and embargo them, it worked so well in the the '20s. Accepting Iranian sovereignty over their own matters would be the first rational move US diplomacy produced in the current millennium.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nabla9 11y ago
1. Iran is now geopolitically stronger than it was before Iraq and Afghan wars. It won just by giving only minimal assistance to it's allies. Iraq is now Iran's ally. 2. Other countries are moving ahead. Approximately 10% of China's oil imports are from Iran. 11% of of India's oil comes from Iran. Iran is selling long term exclusive rights to China.
lentil_soup 11y ago
So you punish an entire group of people by weakening their economy until their government does what an external entity wants them to do?. Seems quite a violent approach.
- bsaul 11y ago
  That's only justified because trying to get a nuclear weapon has an impact on everyone's peace. Especially for a country that's been at war with its neighbours for the last 50 years at least, in a chaotic region filled with international terrorists groups and active war zones right at the moment.
  - lentil_soup 11y ago
    And similar accusations can be made of the US/EU from the other side. Scaling down the political violence is the only way to get out of that mess.
  - threeseed 11y ago
    So maybe we should be thinking about disarming Israel then. It seems to fit all of your criteria.
    - 1stop 11y ago
      Why down vote? It fits the EXACT criteria outlined by the GP? I'd be interested to hear a rational argument for why it's okay for Israel to pursue nuclear weapons but not a neighbouring county? (Please don't resort to some quote about Iran hating Israel, as Israel have said equally extreme things as well).
      - rakoo 11y ago
        > I'd be interested to hear a rational argument for why it's okay for Israel to pursue nuclear weapons but not a neighbouring county? Stupidly naive answer: because Israel didn't sign the NPT and is voluntarily evasive about the subject, while Iran did.
skylan_q 11y ago
You have to realize that Iran is threatened by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. I won't be surprised when they break this deal and have their own nuclear weapons.
- bsaul 11y ago
  ? Are you being sarcastic ? Since when did the US or Israel threatened Iran of anything ? It seems to me you're inversing causes and consequences. Hopefully looking at events chronologically will help you get things back in order.
  - lmm 11y ago
    Israel (whose own illicit nuclear program is far more advanced than Iran's, let's not forget) is widely acknowledged to have assassinated Iranian scientists, no? That goes beyond threats.
  - jballanc 11y ago
    Are you ignorant? or being willingly obtuse? Between the US and Iran, one of these countries supported a successful overthrow of the other country's democratically elected government. I'll let you figure out which country was the aggressor in that situation and then we can reconsider why Iran feels threatened by the US and its allies.
    - bsaul 11y ago
      Are you talking about CIA games dating back to something like 70 years ago, during the cold war, to fight against USSR influence ? I don't think it's that relevant, unless you're willing to accept every pretext told by Iran. The first consequence of having the nuclear bomb would not be for the Iran/US relationship, it will be local for the region. It'll mean that Iran will have an even bigger local military influence, knowing that no one will be able to attack them on their territory. Aka a highway to a full war between shiites and sunnites (which are probably starting their own nuclear program right at the moment). Hearing the declaration of Iranien leader with respect to their neighbors, and seeing what's happening right now in Yemen, i wouldn't be surprised to see a new country vs country war coming in the next 5 years.
user_0001 11y ago
The Iranians (along with the Kurds) are the only ones stopping ISIS in the middle east. I doubt the US really wants to get more involved with troops on the ground (yet again) see as how well that has turned out at every attempt in the last 20 years. With the easing of sanctions, expect to see better cooperation - probably through intermediaries admittedly or Iran taking the fight to ISIS, stopping their progress.
Tiktaalik 11y ago
There's an article in the May issue of Monocle about the luxury fashion market in Iran. There's a vibrantly growing middle class and a surge of interest in luxury clothing and goods. However due to politics, major brands are kept out, and the stock is seasons behind and has to come through non official channels. I can imagine business interests looking at the huge middle class market in Iran and putting pressure on governments to change the approach and open up the market to the west.

by bsaul 11y ago

sveme 11y ago

I don't quite understand your question. You are asking what Iran wanted from the EU and US and what they wanted from Iran? EU&US: Don't develop nuclear weapons. Iran: Stop the sanctions, let us sell our oil. Is that what you were asking for?

bsaul 11y ago
I don't understand why there were negociation at all. Usually, with such crucial matters, threatening the world peace, there is no discussion. The strongest simply impose its decision. Eu&us: stop or you'll get destroyed ( militarely or economically). Iran : ok. I don't see how it went any other way. The only reason i could imagine was if other big countries ( russia and china mainly) were saying " we disagree". But in that case negociations wouldn't need to be with iran, but directly with china or russia.
- konradb 11y ago
  Presumably it's an issue of national sovereignty - it is their country, and they are broadly able to do any activities on their land as they see fit, just as the EU and US have seen fit to develop nuclear weapons. Presumably the alternative is to threaten to invade or impose economic sanctions, but that doesn't seem to me like the beginning of a productive conversation. If anything it might increase the urgency of getting weapons, of any type, to be taken seriously.
- mpoloton 11y ago
  Be sure that if they had a chance with military offensive they would have done it (Israel/US). Like what Israel did with Iraqi and Syrian facilitates. Due to nature of Iran spread facilities, it is extremely difficult to destroy Iran's program with an air strike unless there are boots on the ground and occupation which is clearly not an option. According to best estimates it would only delay the program by one year with the outcome that Iran will actually quit NPT. Moreover, an attack would unite all Iranian to support the government. So in any case, this approach is not going to be toward the objective. It is also partly wrong to think that sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table, Iran has always been negotiating. In fact, most of the development of enrichment was done during UN sanction. Sure, people and economy suffered but again the objective was not the collective punishment it was to reduce Iran program which did not work. What caused Iran to accept to limit its program was the fact that the US accepted peaceful program and research nuclear capabilities which is a matter of pride and recognition. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" However, I totally agree with you if your approach is to create another North Korea.

mahouse 11y ago

How exactly do you expect the iranian regime to get weakened?

joosters 11y ago

Well, Iran has being saying for years that they aren't working towards nuclear weapons, so there's no obvious change there. (No idea if they are lying or not; there's been no clear 'smoking gun' evidence proving them wrong, just lots of potential 'dual use' nuclear research that could be for legitimate nuclear development or otherwise...)

Expeditus419 11y ago

A prolonged weakened economy doesn't necessarily prevent a country from developing a nuclear weapons program. Take a look at North Korea.

bsaul 11y ago
North korea is what scares me, because the path seems exactly similar to iran's one. Half-baked embargo , fear of sending soldier or bombing nuclear infrstructures, followed by half-backed agreements, leading to a country lead by insane dictator with nuclear bombs. Only north korea had china to protect it, whereas iran has (to my knowledge) nobody wanting to risk anything for it.
vixen99 11y ago
And they are untouchable. Lesson for the rest. Whatever you do, by hook or by crook, get a nuclear weapon.

colinplamondon 11y ago

Right now, there's a lot of bubbling neutral-to-pro-US sentiment in the younger, wealthier segments of Iran. If we purposefully, wantonly destroy their economy without even negotiating, that disappears, and we turn potential allies into absolute enemies. The level of currency devastation they've had since the beginning of these sanctions, and resulting unemployment, have already pushed their finances to the brink. Normally "sane" countries (Germany, Italy, Russia WW1) that go over the brink economically tend to go batshit crazy, and put into power the worst elements from their society, and invest even more control in authoritarian hands. I don't think anyone wants a regional power like Iran, controlling the wealth that it does with the military it has, to go bankrupt, and even worse elements to take power. We may not like their government, but at least they're rational. ISIS shows there's far, far deeper levels of crazy just waiting to be unleashed. TL;DR: Not being callously destructive of another country's economy, whilst negotiating in good faith, is in our national security interests.

bsaul 11y ago
"We may not like their government but at least they're rational" Well, a theocracy is almost by definition not rational, in the modern sense. It's based on divine laws, obedience, and absolute faith on an ideology. Not logic, provability, and the scientific method. Dealing with the iranian regime the same way you would deal with an occidental country is the greatest mistake i think. Thinking "sure, they apply shariah, and believe islam is the only true religion, and that god leads them, but deep inside they know things aren't that simple" is applying your own logic to them ( and by them, i mean people with guns who are in power, not young iranians looking the web for Game of Thrones episodes).
- toyg 11y ago
  > a theocracy is almost by definition not rational Neither it is a monarchy; shall we embargo the Dutch, the Spanish and the Swedes next? As a UK taxpayer, I wholly support your ideas and hope you will accord the same distrust to British governments, removing your NATO bases at once and stopping NSA/GCHQ cooperation. > Thinking "sure, they apply shariah, and believe islam is the only true religion, and that god leads them, but deep inside they know things aren't that simple" is applying your own logic to them I grew up in Italy, where the same mindset applies with Catholicism, word by word (down to and including "people with guns"). Please go ahead and embargo them, it worked so well in the the '20s. Accepting Iranian sovereignty over their own matters would be the first rational move US diplomacy produced in the current millennium.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

nabla9 11y ago

1. Iran is now geopolitically stronger than it was before Iraq and Afghan wars. It won just by giving only minimal assistance to it's allies. Iraq is now Iran's ally. 2. Other countries are moving ahead. Approximately 10% of China's oil imports are from Iran. 11% of of India's oil comes from Iran. Iran is selling long term exclusive rights to China.

lentil_soup 11y ago

So you punish an entire group of people by weakening their economy until their government does what an external entity wants them to do?. Seems quite a violent approach.

bsaul 11y ago
That's only justified because trying to get a nuclear weapon has an impact on everyone's peace. Especially for a country that's been at war with its neighbours for the last 50 years at least, in a chaotic region filled with international terrorists groups and active war zones right at the moment.
- lentil_soup 11y ago
  And similar accusations can be made of the US/EU from the other side. Scaling down the political violence is the only way to get out of that mess.
- threeseed 11y ago
  So maybe we should be thinking about disarming Israel then. It seems to fit all of your criteria.
  - 1stop 11y ago
    Why down vote? It fits the EXACT criteria outlined by the GP? I'd be interested to hear a rational argument for why it's okay for Israel to pursue nuclear weapons but not a neighbouring county? (Please don't resort to some quote about Iran hating Israel, as Israel have said equally extreme things as well).
    - rakoo 11y ago
      > I'd be interested to hear a rational argument for why it's okay for Israel to pursue nuclear weapons but not a neighbouring county? Stupidly naive answer: because Israel didn't sign the NPT and is voluntarily evasive about the subject, while Iran did.

skylan_q 11y ago

You have to realize that Iran is threatened by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. I won't be surprised when they break this deal and have their own nuclear weapons.

bsaul 11y ago
? Are you being sarcastic ? Since when did the US or Israel threatened Iran of anything ? It seems to me you're inversing causes and consequences. Hopefully looking at events chronologically will help you get things back in order.
- lmm 11y ago
  Israel (whose own illicit nuclear program is far more advanced than Iran's, let's not forget) is widely acknowledged to have assassinated Iranian scientists, no? That goes beyond threats.
- jballanc 11y ago
  Are you ignorant? or being willingly obtuse? Between the US and Iran, one of these countries supported a successful overthrow of the other country's democratically elected government. I'll let you figure out which country was the aggressor in that situation and then we can reconsider why Iran feels threatened by the US and its allies.
  - bsaul 11y ago
    Are you talking about CIA games dating back to something like 70 years ago, during the cold war, to fight against USSR influence ? I don't think it's that relevant, unless you're willing to accept every pretext told by Iran. The first consequence of having the nuclear bomb would not be for the Iran/US relationship, it will be local for the region. It'll mean that Iran will have an even bigger local military influence, knowing that no one will be able to attack them on their territory. Aka a highway to a full war between shiites and sunnites (which are probably starting their own nuclear program right at the moment). Hearing the declaration of Iranien leader with respect to their neighbors, and seeing what's happening right now in Yemen, i wouldn't be surprised to see a new country vs country war coming in the next 5 years.

user_0001 11y ago

The Iranians (along with the Kurds) are the only ones stopping ISIS in the middle east. I doubt the US really wants to get more involved with troops on the ground (yet again) see as how well that has turned out at every attempt in the last 20 years. With the easing of sanctions, expect to see better cooperation - probably through intermediaries admittedly or Iran taking the fight to ISIS, stopping their progress.

Tiktaalik 11y ago

There's an article in the May issue of Monocle about the luxury fashion market in Iran. There's a vibrantly growing middle class and a surge of interest in luxury clothing and goods. However due to politics, major brands are kept out, and the stock is seasons behind and has to come through non official channels. I can imagine business interests looking at the huge middle class market in Iran and putting pressure on governments to change the approach and open up the market to the west.