like_that;1788427 wrote:I get it dude, you studied the science and you are passionate about the subject. I didn't, but you don't need to be a technical expert to understand the deal. You remind me of all the program engineers I deal with that have no concept of anything outside their technical understandings. Some of the flaws:
-What are we going to do after 10-15 years? We will be back at square one.
-What do we do if Iran takes their economic relief (reportedly over 100 billion) and decides to break the deal after a few years?
-Nuclear infrastructure is still mainly intact. The Centrifuges have not been dismantled.
-The deal gives them up to 24 days notice to cheat the inspectors and you want to trust this a legitimate process?
-The same country that has funded Assad, Hezbollah, etc now has more assets to do so.
Overall the deal is short sighted and just a temporary halt on Iran's push for nuclear capable weapons. You don't make that kind of deal with that many questions. It is irresponsible and makes the deal seem rushed. That's what you call half assed. As I said earlier, the deal is just sweeping under the rug that Iran is an international threat, but what does Obama care? It won't be his problem once he is out of the office. Might as well parade everything he does as a resounding success.
Yeah, may seem a little passionate, but the amount of ignorance on the subject is maddening sometimes. It is a highly technical deal so the mechanics may not make sense to the lay person, which is part of the problem.
-Yes, it does "kick the can down the road" for 10-15 years, but in that time at the very least we will gain way more intel on the nature of the Iranian nuclear program that ever before. Plus, if it will be much harder for them to break out in 10-15 years as the IAEA will have a sustained presence there.
-They break the deal, deal is off and full sanctions will start to roll in. Once the IAEA verifies deal is off, they will go back to the UNSC and sanctions will "snap back".
-The nuclear infrastructure does remain. Yes, that was a source of tension for years. That's why it took so long just to get to this point. Iran subscribes to the argument that enrichment is enshrined as a right in the 1968 Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iran is a member. Argument goes that counties that do not have nuclear weapons pledge to not adopt them, but they can still have access to civilian technology. Iran for years has stated they have the right to enrich. So, they were never going to bargain that away. We tried, going all the way to the early Bush years.
So, we settled on ok, you can still enrich, but only to below 5%, you have to ship out the excess to Russia, and have to adopt full scope IAEA safeguards.
-The 24 days thing is one part of it. But, there are multiple layers built in various annexes of the agreement, and more importantly the Additional Protocol that can allow for short term notice of a facility, within 24 hours, not 24 days. Also, even if they did "clean up" a site that they were planning on producing more uranium, the IAEA has tools that can still detect uranium particles in the area. From there, the IAEA can dig deeper and do additional visits to sites, unannounced. They can also go back to the mines and mills as needed.
-The assets are theirs to spend. Now, sure they could go to fund terrorists, but they could also go to fund domestic projects at home. The latest election, were" moderates" and I use that term loosely, won, saw the parliament want to use more funds to domestic issues. So, we shall see.
The deal is not rushed. It has been going on since the early Bush years. It has just been off and on for years, and the details changed over time. But, in the end, highly technical people, way smarter than any of us, sat down and hashed out the agreement. I trust them and the mechanisms in place. It is not sweeping the problem under the rug. It is addressing it with the best actual policy prescription other than bombing. Again, with no deal, Iran still HEU, is building a plutonium plant, and has no IAEA safeguards. Now, that is all reduced and they are under IAEA safeguards.
interest
On your last point, Obama very much cares. In the Jeffrey Goldberg piece from the Atlantic last week, he mentioned how he has a vested interest in making sure it works, cause his name is on it. So, if Iran gets a bomb down the road, it is tied to him. He knows this. So, he is damn well sure to make sure the deal is a good one.
QuakerOats;1788434 wrote:I ask myself, would Mr. Trump make that deal? No.
Well that makes me feel better.
