Obama's Iran Nuke Deal

[Larry Gude]

Since our leadership changes every 4-8 years it is hard to keep a coherent and consistent policy.

That said, the question was about Iran being a rational world actor, and you are repeatedly not answering that but rather going after the U.S. why must we keep switching the subject?

Let's start with the easy part; I already said I think Iran is acting rationally; any nation that has the potential resources to have nuclear energy and nuclear weapons would be perfectly rational in trying to achieve both. You, I presume, rejected that by asking if I meant that and, seeings how you'd rejected it once, I tried to use the first step in describing what 'rational' is; context.

In context of the US's behavior the last 25 years, Iran is readily seen as even more rational. In fact, it would be irrational to NOT seek nuclear weapons if another nation keeps sending their military to your region to do a bunch of killing and destroying stuff with no tangible results other than creating instability and chaos.

If you'd like to make excuses for why we have been acting irrationally, that's fine and I'm very much interested in WTF is wrong with us (it sure isn't because we have elections), but that wasn't the question. By asking it I think you support my contention that Iran is behaving rationally, ie, administration after administration, the US acts irrationally. Bush had more than enough time and resources to win a war and establish whatever we chose. He decided not to and I still don't get it. Obama has had more than enough time and resources to do as he sees fit. Both have helped, enormously, to see to it that Iran has the money to do nuke programs.

So, why do you think Iran's behavior is irrational?

 

[Larry Gude]

See, that sounds about the way it seems to me.

If I'm punishing my son, and he wants to make nice, *he* comes to *ME* and says, Dad, I *promise* I won't do it again.
I'll clean up the mess, it'll be better than it was. PROMISE. You can check on me, I'll make good on it.

Until he comes to me with contrition, he gets nothing. The onus is on HIM to make nice, not me.
If he doesn't do that, he's under no such constraint not to do the same damned thing again, except now he knows
that if he holds out long enough, I'll cave.

It looks to me that Iran is doing no such thing - the whole effort begins with us.

Why? What's the urgency?

I think this is a huge part of why we are such miserable failures over there; we DO see them as children. That they have to conform to our expectations. When you first asked the question 'why' I thought you were approaching it from the perfectly reasonable asking of what business is it of ours, not that we had some right or power to expect them to do as we say. Forgive me if you're not asking two different things. However, the answer to both questions lies in that very point;

Our interest is in that we DO see this as our business AND that it is because we see them as having to do as we wish.

If we go back to '53, we betrayed free and fair elections in Iran, a nation that was, at the time, VERY pro US and not pro USSR. We ####ed them over for the sake of our buddies in the UK who'd just been asked ( I recently learned this and it is very interesting how things tie together) to participate it debt forgiveness for West Germany SO THAT they could perform a role as a capitalist society as a bulwark against communist Easter Germany and thence the USSR.

In yet another example of 'follow the money' England didn't want to write off German debt AND then lose their piggy banks in Iranian oil. So, we helped betray the Iranian people, instal the Shah and hand the mullahs everything they needed to say 'See? The west doesn't give a crap about you or freedom or any of the things they say they believe in. They believe in screwing you and anyone else over for money."

Imagine a Middle East today had the US supported Iran instead of ####ing them in '53. No Shah. No mullhas. A balance to help Israel by nurturing a healthy democracy in the region.

So, from that period forward, it's been about the same thing as an arsonist working hand and hand with a fire department; we start the fires, we go put them out, we go start the next one.

As a practical matter, making money off of starting the fires and putting them out, that works for us. As a moral matter, a matter of principal, we've been betraying our stated beliefs since '53. Even when we finally went to make it right, stand of Iraq as a pro West democracy, we did it half assed and in such fashion as to make success impossible.

So, we consider ourselves stuck, that we HAVE to remain engaged BECAUSE we're engaged and keep messing it up. :shrug:

 

[Midnightrider]

I think this is a huge part of why we are such miserable failures over there; we DO see them as children. That they have to conform to our expectations. When you first asked the question 'why' I thought you were approaching it from the perfectly reasonable asking of what business is it of ours, not that we had some right or power to expect them to do as we say. Forgive me if you're not asking two different things. However, the answer to both questions lies in that very point;

Our interest is in that we DO see this as our business AND that it is because we see them as having to do as we wish.

If we go back to '53, we betrayed free and fair elections in Iran, a nation that was, at the time, VERY pro US and not pro USSR. We ####ed them over for the sake of our buddies in the UK who'd just been asked ( I recently learned this and it is very interesting how things tie together) to participate it debt forgiveness for West Germany SO THAT they could perform a role as a capitalist society as a bulwark against communist Easter Germany and thence the USSR.

In yet another example of 'follow the money' England didn't want to write off German debt AND then lose their piggy banks in Iranian oil. So, we helped betray the Iranian people, instal the Shah and hand the mullahs everything they needed to say 'See? The west doesn't give a crap about you or freedom or any of the things they say they believe in. They believe in screwing you and anyone else over for money."

Imagine a Middle East today had the US supported Iran instead of ####ing them in '53. No Shah. No mullhas. A balance to help Israel by nurturing a healthy democracy in the region.

So, from that period forward, it's been about the same thing as an arsonist working hand and hand with a fire department; we start the fires, we go put them out, we go start the next one.

As a practical matter, making money off of starting the fires and putting them out, that works for us. As a moral matter, a matter of principal, we've been betraying our stated beliefs since '53. Even when we finally went to make it right, stand of Iraq as a pro West democracy, we did it half assed and in such fashion as to make success impossible.

So, we consider ourselves stuck, that we HAVE to remain engaged BECAUSE we're engaged and keep messing it up. :shrug:

great post Larry. It gets right to the point. Iran isn't children, or more accurately our child. They are a sovereign nation.

 

[SamSpade]

Forgive me if you're not asking two different things.

I use the child analogy because it's something we can easily understand without stretching the metaphor too far. I understand they're not children.
Some of the reasoning matches, but most of it doesn't. For example, if you punish a child, you may relent because it's not going to do any good to continue.

If you put sanctions in place, the reasonable assumption is that you lift them when a condition is met.

As I understand it, the whole purpose of the sanctions as stated by the State Department was almost entirely to halt the progress of nuclear weapons
and their sale and proliferation of missiles. It's the international community saying, if you develop nukes, we don't intend to play nice with you.
I don't see anything wrong with that - we all do the same on a much, much smaller scale in our daily lives and business.

From what little I observe (because frankly, I haven't followed it extensively and I half expect whatever outcome comes of this, the U.S. is going to get the bad end of it),
it seems to me that Iran is setting more conditions and hasn't complied. It seems to me if we lift the sanctions, they can go full bore into developing weapons and make it to the end of the road before we blink.

 

[Larry Gude]

I use the child analogy because it's something we can easily understand without stretching the metaphor too far. I understand they're not children.
Some of the reasoning matches, but most of it doesn't. For example, if you punish a child, you may relent because it's not going to do any good to continue.

If you put sanctions in place, the reasonable assumption is that you lift them when a condition is met.

As I understand it, the whole purpose of the sanctions as stated by the State Department was almost entirely to halt the progress of nuclear weapons
and their sale and proliferation of missiles. It's the international community saying, if you develop nukes, we don't intend to play nice with you.
I don't see anything wrong with that - we all do the same on a much, much smaller scale in our daily lives and business.

From what little I observe (because frankly, I haven't followed it extensively and I half expect whatever outcome comes of this, the U.S. is going to get the bad end of it),
it seems to me that Iran is setting more conditions and hasn't complied. It seems to me if we lift the sanctions, they can go full bore into developing weapons and make it to the end of the road before we blink.

Bet I guess, to me, the kid analogy gets right to the heart of it; that we see it as our business to 'parent' them and tell them what they can and can't have while at the same time being a HUGE reason why they'd want it. Classic 'do as I say, not as I do' parenting.

Furthermore, the terror that concerns the US is Sunni based, not Shia. One of the stunning absurdities of our regional policy the last 15 years has been to punish everyone BUT Sunni's, ie, Saudi. Like smacking little brother for what big brother did. :shrug:

In any event, I think your original question is the one to focus on as citizens; what does this have to do with US national interests?

 

[Larry Gude]

great post Larry. It gets right to the point. Iran isn't children, or more accurately our child. They are a sovereign nation.

A nation that has done virtually nothing to us compared to what we've done to them while at the same time the Saudi's, our dear friends, are behind virtually every 'terror' problem we have, from the '93 tower attacks, to the Embassies, the Cole and 9/11.

"Sunni's hurt us again!"

"What??? Go smack the Shia's!"

 

[SamSpade]

Bet I guess, to me, the kid analogy gets right to the heart of it; that we see it as our business to 'parent' them and tell them what they can and can't have while at the same time being a HUGE reason why they'd want it. Classic 'do as I say, not as I do' parenting.

???
They signed the NPT - along with most of the world. And they've been found repeatedly over the last couple decades to totally violate it.
THAT makes it the U.N.'s job to halt it.

The rest of the world is complying, and some nations that did not initially have signed on by complying with it.

 

[Larry Gude]

???
They signed the NPT - along with most of the world. And they've been found repeatedly over the last couple decades to totally violate it.
THAT makes it the U.N.'s job to halt it.

The rest of the world is complying, and some nations that did not initially have signed on by complying with it.

I thought your question was what is our interest here? The UN, sure. We can really spend some time discussing how they pick and choose and the fact that they're going to sign off on this farce tells us about all we need to know about their integrity and seriousness.

 

[Larry Gude]

Can someone explain to me why we need to make any kind of deal with Iran at all?

Sorry. I took 'we' to mean us, US, not the UN.

 

[PsyOps]

Can someone explain to me why we need to make any kind of deal with Iran at all?

The ONLY way we can justify going to war with Iran is to set up a 'deal' in which we KNOW they won't honor. It's worked with Iraq.

 

[Larry Gude]

The ONLY way we can justify going to war with Iran is to set up a 'deal' in which we KNOW they won't honor. It's worked with Iraq.

Clarify please.

Our problem with Iraq wasn't going to war. It was in losing. Likewise, the only problem in getting what we insist upon, a 'deal', out of a war with Iran would be if we chose to win or not.

 

[Midnightrider]

The ONLY way we can justify going to war with Iran is to set up a 'deal' in which we KNOW they won't honor. It's worked with Iraq.

:sad:

why would we want to go to war why anyone, let alone Iran?

 

[Amused_despair]

I think any country that has the capability to develop nuclear weapons and the choice whether or not to do so just needs to look at Iraq and Ukraine. If Iraq had developed nuclear weapons does the USA invade them without being attacked first? Probably not. If the Ukraine had not given up their nuclear weapons when the Soviet Union fell, does Russia invade them and take over Crimea? Probably not. It is like the 2nd Amendment argument here. If you have guns and your neighbor doesn't, and the bad guys know, they will rob your neighbor, not you.

 

[Larry Gude]

:sad:

why would we want to go to war why anyone, let alone Iran?

Because of THOSE people attacking OUR embassy back in '79!

So, you zip that up tight and that's your propaganda, that Iranians one day decided they hate America and took over our embassy.

No 'why do they hate us?'.

The way this sort of thing seems to work is, and we see it with Trump right now, you double down on what you want the narrative to be and minimize anything you did to get there.



We hate Iran. Why?

They took over our embassy!

Why did they do that?

Because they hate us!

Why?

Because they took over our embassy, those bastards!!!

Why?

444 days! Bronco Ron showed them!!!




"I prefer people that don't get captured!"


Do you have any idea how inane that is?


"He's been AWFUL for our veterans!"


Which has what to do with being shot down and captured?


"He's been a really, really bad Senator!!! He's a loser!"


We, people, focus on a piece and then justifying it whatever it takes. :shrug:

 

[PsyOps]

Clarify please.

Our problem with Iraq wasn't going to war. It was in losing. Likewise, the only problem in getting what we insist upon, a 'deal', out of a war with Iran would be if we chose to win or not.

I can think of no other reason for making any sort of deal with a country that has proven over and over that they can't be trusted.

 

[Larry Gude]

I can think of no other reason for making any sort of deal with a country that has proven over and over that they can't be trusted.

Trust? The United States, supposedly the beacon of freedom and liberty for all, sabotaged a free and fair election in Iran and then returned them to a monarchy. The US...supported a monarchy. Now, we can say 1953 doesn't matter. That they should have no trust issues with us, at all, or, we can say, yeah, we ####ed them first.



If we're being generous and taking the position that the President thinks this will actually help make the world a better place, then engagement of this sort is better than no engagement, a poor deal is better than no deal, baby steps are better than no steps.

 

[Amused_despair]

I can think of no other reason for making any sort of deal with a country that has proven over and over that they can't be trusted.

So you are saying Iran should not make a deal with us because we have proven over and over they can't trust us????

 

[Gilligan]

So you are saying Iran should not make a deal with us because we have proven over and over they can't trust us????

It's not unreasonable to wonder about the value...or obvious lack thereof..of any deal made with a country that is guaranteed to cheat on it. Kinda reminds me a lot of the good ole days....

 

[Larry Gude]

It's not unreasonable to wonder about the value...or obvious lack thereof..of any deal made with a country that is guaranteed to cheat on it. Kinda reminds me a lot of the good ole days....

Again, to be objective, what SHOULD he have done? War? No engagement? Being purely cynical, Clinton could not care less if his dealings with NK made the world more or less safe just so long as somehow or other it helped him get another blow job.

To be less cynical, if we can agree that he'd want the world to be safer, has that not been the case as far as NK goes? No war so far. I'm asking here as I know very little about NK and there present state in terms of how much actual war figures into their plans.


Let's go to WWII; we stopped sending Japan steel and oil because of their expansion, especially into China. So, we go to war with them and make the largest population in the world safe for Mao to pillage and murder.

Japan was pro West in WWI and pro West up to when we started threatening boycotts. What did that actually serve for us? What if we had stayed friends, kept doing business with them?

I have no goal here other than to explore the ideas. I mean, what if we were to really engage Iran and say "Hey, you want real weapons or that Sov crap? You want state of the art nuke tech or no? Let's do business...."

 

[Amused_despair]

And yet North Korea is still isolated today. What is the alternative? Would you invade North Korea? How many Americans would you sacrifice to ensure that North Korea can't lob an atom bomb at South Korea or Japan? You do a tactical strike and suddenly we are risking war with China. The country that holds the majority of our debt, not to mention the one who chased us down the entire Korean peninsula in the Korean War when General McArthur ignored all of the reports about Chinese armies massing on the border. Seems to me the only choice is either sanctions with the promise of a retaliatory strike if North Korea uses a weapon against us or an ally, or total war with the largest army in the world that no matter what would leave us devastated even if we won.