Kingwood Underground
the heart and soul of our Kingwood, Texas family
Login - Create Account - Help
Clean out your garage on Kingwood bookoo! Or find local garage sales on Yard Sale Search.com
KU Live!

Why accepting the Iran nuclear deal is a no-brainer

who's talking here?

smartypants 3
randyjet 17
SoupIsGoodFood 11
AwesomeTattooedDragon 37
Joe Blow 7
fliptin 1
witchywoman 3
Judas 5
Markster 23
Prolix Raconteur 3
RayofHope 2
FNHO 1
Judge Smails 1
Blow Joe 1

     » send to friend     » save in my favorites     » flag dangerous topic flag as a dangerous topic

Joe Blow --- 3 years ago -

Why accepting the Iran nuclear deal is a no-brainer

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-accepting-the-iran-nuclear-deal-is-a-no-brainer/2015/08/13/06adba26-3c5c-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions

By Harold Brown August 13 at 9:13 PM


My experience as defense secretary during the Iran hostage crisis more than three decades ago tells me that Iran will probably try to circumvent the nuclear deal. My participation in nuclear weapons negotiations with the Soviet Union from 1958 through SALT II in the 1970s ? during very hot points in the Cold War ? reinforces my caution. Yet the United States can only accept or reject the deal, so let me discuss bottom-line pros and cons.

Iran?s nuclear program, its advance suspended during the negotiations, is but two years from a nuclear weapon. That?s an urgent problem demanding immediate attention. Iranian possession of nuclear arms would give other regional powers an irresistible urge to obtain them. The Middle East and Persian Gulf conflicts would escalate. That consideration surely motivated the unicorn-level rarity of a common position among the United States, Britain, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia and China.

Defenders of the deal point out that there are provisions to adequately monitor Iran?s compliance. Opponents note other concerns, including Iran?s ballistic missile program; its misbehavior in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere; its support of terrorists; and its threats and verbal attacks on Israel?s right to exist. These observations, although correct, are irrelevant to the more urgent task of trying to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons by 2017.

Either the United States adheres to the agreement already approved by all participants (except the United States and Iran) or Congress denies U.S. adherence to the deal. If the United States and Iran join the others, Iran must dilute or export its existing enriched uranium so that it does not have enough for a nuclear weapon. The deal also would roll back, for 10 to 15 years, Iran?s capability to enrich enough uranium to be able to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran would have to convert its under-construction nuclear reactor to a form that would not fuel a plutonium-based nuclear weapon. Even if it decided to break out of the agreement this would push Iran, now probably only a few months away from having enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, to a year away. It would take another year to produce the weapon.


How verifiable are these limits? As a physicist and former nuclear lab director, and later as a government official, I participated in other arms-control negotiations. Compared with past agreements with the then-more threatening adversary the Soviet Union, the provisions for oversight are remarkably more intrusive and capable. The chances of detecting Iranian violations that would substantially shrink that one-year estimate are very good.

What?s more, this deal has automatic snap-back provisions for economic sanctions that Western signatories could re-impose if Iran violates the agreement. Hard-nosed inspections and resolute cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency will be vital. The United States retains its sanctions related to terrorism.

Does the agreement decrease pressure on Iran by giving it access to its frozen billions in assets? Yes, but it?s the nature of a deal that adversaries must give up some objectives. We could have devised a more favorable deal, but there would be no chance of an Iranian signature on the document. A ?better deal? without an Iranian signature is worthless.

If congressional action prevents U.S. adherence to the deal, Iran would likely go full bore on its nuclear weapons program. The most informed opinions suggest that Iran could then have nuclear weapons in two years. Opponents of the deal warn that in 10 to 15?years? time, the deal allows Iran to be only a couple of years away from a nuclear weapon. Why does accepting that danger now seem to bother opponents less than coping with a danger that might be 10 years away?

Is there another way to delay the time until Iran is capable of making a nuclear weapon? Not even those itching for war suggest an invasion. And a Special Operations forces attack, as I have learned better than most, is chancy, especially given the dispersed Iranian facilities. A preemptive air attack on nuclear facilities is an option, but a poor ? and probably disastrous ? one. Few if any Western allies would join us. Some Sunni Muslim governments would privately applaud, but not join us, and their respective publics would rage at the United States, however much they dislike the Shiite Iran. At best, a successful strike would probably set the Iranian nuclear program back by only two years, and Iran would rebuild at a site indestructible by conventional military force. Iran would be left with nuclear weapons and a thirst for revenge.

Failure of U.S. adherence to the deal would not slow but would hasten an Iranian nuclear weapon. The Russians and Chinese would certainly not sustain economic sanctions. Sanctions by the other countries would erode as well. With all of this in mind, approving the agreement is a no-brainer. 

SoupIsGoodFood --- 3 years ago -

Because it takes no brain to accept it? 

witchywoman --- 3 years ago -

Fox even has commercials against the Iran deal. Lol 

SoupIsGoodFood --- 3 years ago -

Fox even has commercials against the Iran deal. Lol

You sure it's Fox, and not someone paying for airtime on Fox? 

Judge Smails --- 3 years ago -

What has George Soros ordered us to do? 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

Give away 8 billion dollars in donations? 

SoupIsGoodFood --- 3 years ago -

I thought the Koch Brothers were the evil axis of political money? 

randyjet --- 3 years ago -

I see that there are NO rational comments against the deal. Of course, there are no nuclear physicists here or even speaking out against the deal. So all we have are ignorant politicos spewing crap.

There are two points that are not addressed by opponents of this deal. One is what is the alternative to making sure Iran does NOT get a nuke in the near term? The only real way to do that is to go in and invade Iran and take it over. That will cost more than the two TRILLION DOLLARS Bush spent and did not fund on Iraq. It will also result in bringing back the military draft to get enough troops since Iran is much larger in territory and population.

Then the idea that the existence of Israel is threatened is absurd since they have at last count over ONE HUNDRED NUCLEAR BOMBS and the means to deliver them. Think Iran's leaders wish to become the nuclear waste dump for the rest of the world, minus most of their people? At least if they try and nuke Israel, it will solve the problem of what to do with nuclear waste since there will be few people left to contest establishing it in Iran. It will not cause an environmental problem that the folks there would have to worry about since Iran would already be glowing in the dark. 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

I'm rational, and I think it's a bad deal because they're untrustworthy, and their main goal is still to wipe out Israel, and kill Christians- why don't we make a deal with ISIS, too? 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

Iran isn't worried about Israeli nukes- they'll go to heaven, martyrs- 

Markster --- 3 years ago -

- why don't we make a deal with ISIS, too?

I recognize the above as sarcasm, so I can take this with a grain of salt.

Nevermind Isis isn't a sovereign nation and Iran is a sovereign nation. Instead of our boots on the ground, this president recognizes diplomacy, such as getting other nations to back this deal and sanctions have been enough to get a deal done. That is why it is what it is.
Israel can defend itself. So can the Arab Emirates. So the question becomes. "Why do we need our boots on the ground in another middle east conflict?" If its only to satisfy the wants of a military industrial complex. Then lets admit it and go from there.

I for one am done with being the worlds police. 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

Are you saying we still have sanctions? 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

Also, Mark, no one I saying boots on the ground in Iran. 

Markster --- 3 years ago -

International sanctions on Iran


International Sanctions on Iran

Author: Zachary Laub, Online Writer/Editor
Updated: July 15, 2015 

Markster --- 3 years ago -

Dot Gov link.Iran Sanctions 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

Did you know that part of the deal with them is lifting sanctions? 

Markster --- 3 years ago -

Yes I did. But how many of the sanctions, under what conditions? IDK. But its still better than no deal. Cmon A.T.D. give credit where its due. With out firing a single shot. We got a deal with Iran to stop building nuclear WMD's.

In the big picture. Isn't that a win for all concerned? 

randyjet --- 3 years ago -

Iran isn't worried about Israeli nukes- they'll go to heaven, martyrs

Since many missile officers are Christian evangelical types, then they share the same view of religion, heaven, and martyrdom as the Iranians. Think we should be worried about them? 

randyjet --- 3 years ago -

Also sanctions snap back if the Iranians cheat or violate the treaty. In fact, it is better than the original NPT treaty. which Iran signed. Once again, NO answer as to what the US does without the deal. If you want to stop Iran from getting nukes, the ONLY way to stop it is to INVADE since air strikes cannot come close to doing the job. Rejecting the deal means leaving Iran free to get a nuke, and the US will be the ONLY country putting sanctions on Iran since it will be the US FAULT for the failure. 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

Ok, this is so ridiculous, I'm not even going to bother to answer you. 

Markster --- 3 years ago -

Rejecting the deal means leaving Iran free to get a nuke, and the US will be the ONLY country putting sanctions on Iran since it will be the US FAULT for the failure.

Lots of folks don't get that. 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

Maybe because it's nonsense- 

Markster --- 3 years ago -

Having a deal is better than not having a deal. Rejecting a deal is not the better of the two situations. That is NOT nonsense. Its ok if one thinks it is. But with out an alternative to a deal. I don't understand how having a deal could be considered non-sense, and having "no deal" is rational. 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

A bad deal is in no way better than no deal. 

Markster --- 3 years ago -

Ok. But how is this deal a bad one? Also, how no deal better than this deal? What is the alternative to this deal? Im sure we as the U.S. would like to have a "better" deal. But so would Iran.

The fact is none of us reg. people don't know what all was agreed on or argued. Sort of like the ACA. Its not perfect. But its what we have. 

randyjet --- 3 years ago -

Maybe because it's nonsense

The only nonsense is spouted by you since you cannot make a rational argument that no deal is better than a "bad" deal. All you can do is chant that phrase like a religious chant. Think that will convince people if you chant it loud and long enough? Once again you show your lack of reason. 

witchywoman --- 3 years ago -

A bad deal is in no way better than no deal.?


In this case it absolutely is.

What Randy said. 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

We agree on a lot of things, but this isn't one of them- 

randyjet --- 3 years ago -

We agree on a lot of things, but this isn't one of them

True. It basically boils down to belief and not reason. Now if you can show me some nuclear experts who think your way, I am willing to listen. Virtually all of the ones who have held responsible posts in this field agree that the deal is a good one from the point of view of stopping Irans quest for nukes. I acceed to those who know more than I in this matter since I am not a physicist. I just use common sense. 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

Common sense tells me that Israel would be jumping for joy if it really stopped them from building the bombs- they're so concerned that Netanyahu came here to speak to Congress- you have to ask yourself why- their Intelligence Agency knows exactly what goes on there- 

SoupIsGoodFood --- 3 years ago -

Anyone who trusts Iran is a fool. 

Markster --- 3 years ago -

they're so concerned that Netanyahu came here to speak to Congress- you have to ask yourself why

Why? is because the PM was up for re-election and for that reason he could not meet with the President. Protocol. We also cannot turn a blind eye to the fact the PM and POTUS don't exactly see things eye to eye.

Again. Diplomacy wins the day. The president and Sec Kerry both state "This deal is not built on trust" 

Joe Blow --- 3 years ago -

Anyone who trusts Iran is a fool.



More brilliant input from the contrarian troll. How about all your contrarians offer up what should be done. If it's waiting for a better deal LMFAO,you will die first. 

Markster --- 3 years ago -

More brilliant input from the contrarian troll.

Its all Dr Quack soup has. If he had an original idea. It would die of loneliness. 

Joe Blow --- 3 years ago -

LMFAO! 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

The Mark --- 1 hours ago - quote - hide comments
they're so concerned that Netanyahu came here to speak to Congress- you have to ask yourself why

Why? is because the PM was up for re-election and for that reason he could not meet with the President. Protocol. We also cannot turn a blind eye to the fact the PM and POTUS don't exactly see things eye to eye.

Again. Diplomacy wins the day. The president and Sec Kerry both state "This deal is not built on trust"

Mark, the president doesn't want to talk to him- you didn't answer my question- why doesn't Natanyahu want the deal? He been saying this for a long time- not just because of re-election- the existence of their country depends on a good deal with Iran- 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

The Mark --- 1 hours ago - quote - hide comments
they're so concerned that Netanyahu came here to speak to Congress- you have to ask yourself why

Why? is because the PM was up for re-election and for that reason he could not meet with the President. Protocol. We also cannot turn a blind eye to the fact the PM and POTUS don't exactly see things eye to eye.

Again. Diplomacy wins the day. The president and Sec Kerry both state "This deal is not built on trust"

Mark, the president doesn't want to talk to him- you didn't answer my question- why doesn't Natanyahu want the deal? He been saying this for a long time- not just because of re-election- the existence of their country depends on a good deal with Iran- 

Markster --- 3 years ago -

Mark, the president doesn't want to talk to him- you didn't answer my question

Your ignoring an important detail on U.S. diplomacy. Also you may be turning a blind eye on the fact that Sec. Kerry has spent more time oversees making this deal than any other Sec of State in U.S. History.

Like most of us reg. folks. I don't know the details of the deal. Therefore I cant answer your question "why doesn't Natanyahu want the deal?"

Its important to understand this deal isn't tailor made to satisfy the P.M. I wonder; Was the P.M. even involved with the discussions, negotiations? IDK just asking.

In short. When I consider Israel's interest. I am convinced this deal as it stands, is better than no deal. 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

If it doesn't work, it's a bad deal. Israel has an excellent Intelligence Agency- what's bad for them is bad for us- Kerry took so long because they're so unreasonable-that's not a good thing, they ended up prevailing on some points-Just because Obama wants it, doesn't make it good- 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 3 years ago -

And, NO, he didn't have any input, except with Congress- 

page 1 2 3
Login to add your comments!

see more discussions about...

politics


Online now:
hit counters

Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Ice Box

Kingwood Underground