Well.. considering it's needs to be current, you need to produce them with a quick turnaround. You don't exactly have time to make it perfect.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Historic nuclear deal reached between Iran and world powers
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
Well.. considering it's needs to be current, you need to produce them with a quick turnaround. You don't exactly have time to make it perfect.
johnnyfive
Banned
It's not really an opinion that you have so much as a child's understanding.
helloresolven
Member
Because your opinion was just dropped in the thread without anything to backup why you think that.
Fenderputty
Banned
Forget backing up the opinion, it's more why should we care if Iran is untrustworthy? As the President said, the deal isn't based on trust but verification.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Hell, can the US support itself, besides the theocratic regime stuff?
I am acutely aware of the complexity of the situation in Syria, and quite aware of the forces in play here. Yes, Assad's enemies are varied, and they could hardly be categorized under a common "ISIS-like" umbrella. Yes, Assad has always wanted to stablish himself as a stalwart of "stability" against "foreign terrorists", and that's the narrative in play that he wants to instill.
But let's call a spade as spade: this is a sectarian war, first and foremost. The "Free Syrian army" fantasy was more of a wish rather than a reality. There's no secular opposition against Assad. None. You have a collection of tribal leaders, a bunch of Peshmerga putting a "Irak redux" strategy of isolation in the midst of chaos, and then the brunt of the Assad opposition forces: Sunni guerrillas. No, not ISIS per se (and not all as extreme) but you know the gist: foreign bigots armed by Saudi Arabia that little by little displaces the homegrown non-sectarian rebels. It happened in Lybia, in Irak, in Chechenya and in many, many more places. The endgame of Saudi backed sunni guerrillas is, in the end, increased terrorism and sectarian violence, or even worse, the implementation of a theocratic state far more repressive than any kind of secular dictatorship that it meant to overtrow in the first place.
My support towards a figure as nauseating as Assad does not come from any feeling of sympathy towards a dictator willingly to employ chemical weapons against its own people. It comes from the absolute certainity that sunni extremism supported by Saudi Arabia is, by far, the biggest evil there is the middle east and probably, the world. The overaching goal of fighting and reversing all the gains that wahabbism has been able to get during the last decades of Saudi-republican alliance should supercede any other priority and guide any future middle east policy.
johnnyfive
Banned
It's a real question. When Congress invites a foreign leader to speak, you've got to wonder about loyalty/treason.
Omegasquash
Member
An opinion based on not reading. It's not about trust.
metalslimer
Member
You didn't even explain your opinion
2/3rds would need to vote against it. That, for all intents and purposes, won't happen.
honestrade
Member
Yeah I can see we're going to have an intelligent discussion here.
What is the Iranian government going to do with all of the cash they get from sanctions relief? You don't think Iran is going to use it to develop other military technology or to fund Hezbollah, Houthi rebels, Assad's Syrian regime, and other anti-US interests? The UN weapons ban and restrictions on ballistic missile technology do not extend for the entire 10 year period.
What will happen if Iran doesn't comply with the deal? You can't just snap your fingers and magically put all of the sanctions back into place...it's ignorant to think otherwise. What will happen when Iran blocks UN inspectors from military sites as allowed under the current deal? How can compliance be verified without access to military sites?
Fenderputty
Banned
I think it technically could if congress tries to pass a law preventing the removal of sanctions without congresses approval. This would be vetoed though.
Economically isolating and bleeding an oppressive regime won't make the people suddenly love you. Iran is advanced enough that if their people have access to global culture and trade change will happen. It will be more slow and painful than we would like, but it's the best way to make it happen and make it stick.
Damerman
Member
Ur fucking nuts... And your complete lack of tact in your middle east policy would cause the end of the world. I would never vote for u.
Yes sectarian violence is bad, but when has sectarian violence lead to biochemical weapon use? Those are WMDs used exclusively by dictators placed by the west... And its not a coincidence that these dictators always push for westernization and secularism.
What you are proposing is that we drag the middle easter people kicking and screaming(Which is no different than that "progressive dictator" tactic already employed by the west")... As if they can't come to a solution to wahabism on their own.
Damerman
Member
Ur speculation is unfounded and pretty farfetched.
Omegasquash
Member
So basically saying "Obama is wrong, Iran won't stick with the deal."
It's not an intelligent debate when you assume all these things about the deal won't happen. It's just assumption.
Have you actually researched what's in this deal?
Crimson_Fate
Member
Why read up on complex negotiation when you can spout out warmongering talking points about how Iran is the least trustworthy country in the middle east?
And how the US is entering in this deal based on trust.
johnnyfive
Banned
I don't know, would you like to do more rhetorical speculation?
You just don't like Iran. Go make an Iranian friend.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
See Benji, you aren't the only one reading powerline
Sectarian violence have caused the stagnation of the entire muslim world. It is not coincidence that parts of the world with religious regimes always rank horribly in terms of human development, gender equality and human rights records. Far worse than secular dictatorships, too, with the infamous exception of North Korea (that is, if you want to consider their personality cult as "secular" too).
And yes, muslims came to a solution to wahabism on their own: Strong secular states leaded by clever statesmen (Attaturk, Nasser, Habib Bourguiba) or downright brutal leaders (Saddam). Unfortunately us western powers decided to side with wahabbists instead of said secular states and we're reaping what we sow: The Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS. It is in our best interests to reconsider our failed policies and deal with Iran, the more secular of the two ME power blocs (shiites VS sunnis), and pivot away from our shittiest "ally" (Saudi Arabia). Meanwhile, we should keep supporting the few secular arab regimes that are still in place (Tunis, Lybia) while retiring our support from their richer yet theocratical cousins (Qatar, Barhain) and from any other goverment that turns into religious nuttery for guidance, even if has been democratically ellected (Endrogan's Turkey, Muslim brotherhood's Egypt).
Otherwise, we would be adding fuel to the sectarian fire, which exactly what we have been unwisely doing until now. Republican unwavering support for the most batshit religious lunatics of the Middle East (Netanyahu, the house of Saud) can only be explained in terms of religious fundamentalist sympathies, not any kind of rational, nationalistic decision making. This change in the American foreign policy is not an "alliance" with Iran by any means, but it was damn long overdue.
It's hard to engage intelligently when it is clear one person hasn't actually researched the topic at hand. How can compliance be verified? Are you fucking kidding me? Go pick any major newspapers breakdown on this and just spend 10 minutes of your life educating yourself before you actually make sweeping generalizations and damning speculative conclusions. There is a robust verification process in place that includes inspectors and benchmarks Iran must satisfy. If they fail to comply there are swift penalties that get put into place.
They probably are going to develop other military technology as time marches on. But I would rather then develop that sort of technology as opposed to a nuke. The former is not going to ever threaten the major super powers dominance in any real capacity but a nuke would. America is much safer with an Iran in check and a nuke break out time of 1+ year then an Iran in the dark with a program 1-2 months from obtaining a bomb if they wanted.
America is better off with China and Russia being deeply invested in this strategy as opposed to leaving the table and going back to business as usual with Iran and thus decreasing our leverage and ability to reign in or punish Iran outside of direct military action.
shinobi602
Member
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
My Facebook conservatives already linking to articles and calling the deal a "pinky swearing"
Great rebuttal.
Cheesecakebobby
Banned
After all the leaders and media jumped to conclusions during the negotiation process, I'm interested in seeing what the Iranian (liberal) opposition have to say about this deal. Also how Netanyahu's opposition in Israel sees it. Any reactions yet?
Portugeezer
Member
Iran was like : fuck it, i can't be bothered anymore
Do you really not know how Bibi is going to react? The same rhetoric he's been spewing for a decade about Iran. The bigger question is why the fuck does anyone care what he has to say at this point?
Cheesecakebobby
Banned
I realise my phrasing was unclear; I want to know HOW THE OPPOSITION will react. Of course I know what to expect from Bibi. I want to know if those who ran against him in the last election on a more liberal platform have concerns with the deal or agree with Obama that it is the right course of action.
Salz01
Member
Thanks. This is really good.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive
Herzog and Bibi were relatively similar on the issue of Iran during the election. Have to imagine that hasn't changed. Herzog was just better at dressing up his statements and not intentionally antagonizing or publicly insulting the U.S. Had a much smarter approach then Bibi.
Israel is just one of those countries that the mainstream parties of either side is just not going to engage this subject from any other perspective then hawkish. Just to different degrees.
Ayato Kanzaki
Member
Some of the cash that will be unfrozen is private propriety, whatever those private interest do with it is irrelevant. For the rest, they'll probably use part of it for civilian purposes, and another part to buy weapons. And with an agressive Israel nearby and ISIS, buying weapons is what a responsible, rational governement would do. Your thinking that this cash must be used against US interests is just paranoïa.
It is normal for Iran to get at least some veto power over the sites that the insepctors can visit, if only to prevent some potentially abusive situations. Americans, after all, have an history of collecting data with anti-terrorism programs, and using that data for purposes that have little to do with terrorism. Or maybe you're going to say that Hollande and Merkel were suspects at some point?
You were speaking about trust. Can you be trusted, from an Iranian point of view?
benjipwns
Banned
You say 13, but the link says 12, and then their headline says 13...but you could argue there's actually 15 charts on the page...
RustyNails
Member
You are saying things and using words, but they do not apply to anything resembling reality. To decouple "secular" dictators (lol, we also threw in Attaturk in there because *loud noises*) with the rise of extremism in that part of the world is disengenious at best and blatant rewriting of the past at worst. Americans don't have a horse in the race. Americans support whoever guarantees their interest, whether it's religious King of Saudi Arabia or a secular tyrant Saddam of Iraq. We supported bin laden in the 80s and put a bounty on his head in the 90s. The reason why you see the region engulfed in sectarian strife is partly because we overthrew the democratically elected PM of Iran and installed a sleazy tyrant dictator Shah in his place, which resulted in the violent birth of a very real, very gritty political Islam which up to that point was a thing of political bourgiouse thought salad. Up till the hostage crisis of the US Embassy in Tehran there is hardly any terrorist related activity, despite the two debilitating wars in the region that solidified Israel's place on the map. A violent ideology took center stage within the guise of extremism partly as a response to US hegemony in the region and the squeeze put on any form of political-religious ideology that was driven underground by these secular tyrants.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Interesting article over the FT.
Iran has huge corruption issues. The old guard have become entrenched and their children enjoy a luxurious lifestyle on the backs of a populace severely impoverished since 2012. Scandals have been breaking all over the place for the past few years, so this manah will probably unravel a bit of an internal mess between conservatives/old time officials trying to get some and the current administration using that massive influx of cash to prop the country and secure reelection.
Iran has huge corruption issues. The old guard have become entrenched and their children enjoy a luxurious lifestyle on the backs of a populace severely impoverished since 2012. Scandals have been breaking all over the place for the past few years, so this manah will probably unravel a bit of an internal mess between conservatives/old time officials trying to get some and the current administration using that massive influx of cash to prop the country and secure reelection.
RustyNails
Member
Technically I don't disagree. There is a way to achieve modernization, but before modernization you need to lift people out of poverty and famine. If you're gonna thrust miniskirts, commercialism and booze down the throats of a deeply rural, conservative and poor, agricultural country guess what happens.To be fair to the Shah, one reason they hated him was the secular modernization and womens rights and such he and his dad backed.
Also, say what you will, but this is way snazzier than those cleric robes:
Ah, the old "trying to fight an idea only makes it stronger" fallacy. You're the one that it is re-writting history here. Secular regimes didn't caused a rise of religious extremism. The idiotic US policy during the cold war, which equated foreign left wing regimes (which of course were secular) with communism, did caused a rise of extremism, as it proceeded to use radical sunni guerrillas as proxy fighters against URSS's allys (or even neutral countries) with the help of Saudi Arabia. And of course, this strategy latter backfired on a spectacular way. The arab world used to be far, far more progressive before the rise of the House of Saud and their oil funded mosques.
The American goverment have acted against its own self interest in the middle east in many occasions at the petition of their saudi and israeli allys, Irak's war being the most glaring example of that foolish approach. Hence why I am extremely glad to see that trend reversed by this deal.
Iran is a very unique case in that regard. As you correctly point out, the revolution against the Shah was caused by the US, there's no doubt about it. Overtrowing Mossadeg was a mistake and a travestry, and it gave birth to a quite understandable anti-american sentiment in Iran, which the Ayatollah capitalized.
But the revolution wasn't religious in the first place, as it was carried out mainly by socialist movements, which carried the burden of the SAVAK's repression and casualties (cold war priorities, afterall), only to be betrayed later by their islamic "comrades". It is political religious movements, islamic, christian or otherwise, the ones that lays down the ground for terrorism, not secularism.
RustyNails
Member
I goddamn hate fisking.
AstroNut325
Member
Good. Conservative hard liners need to be removed from power.
- Status