ptown_trojans_1;1788543 wrote:How much money did we give: $0. The funds that were frozen were Iranian to begin with. It was oil and other assets that have been frozen. The sanctions released their own money. So, we didn't give them anything that wasn't already theirs. I love how that always gets misconstrued.
Yes, the sanctions relief is lifted only after the IAEA verifies that Iran is adhering to the deal. There are complex steps in place before the sanctions start to get lifted. Iran wanted the sanctions to end once the deal was signed, but we said no to that. The relief is gradual. That is laid out in the annex of the agreement as well.
It depends on the snapback. If the IAEA comes to the UNSC and says Iran is violating or not adhering to portions of the agreement, then the process goes to the what is laid out in the annex of the agreement, which is pretty complex, but is possible. It is possible if Iran is cheating that sanctions do come back.
Conventional arms are not covered by the deal. It is only a narrow agreement on the nuclear side of things. I would be in favor of additional dialogue on conventional restrictions.
R&D: They cannot enrich above 5%, but can do research on other centrifuges, which is their right under the NPT and the ability to have peaceful nuclear energy.
On the scientists, meh. Sometimes we let those slide for the greater good. But, hey the biggest proliferater in the world is AQ Khan, he should be in a US jail, but is not due to our relationship with Pakistan. So, if some scientist get some sanctions lifted on them as well as long as the IAEA can verify the nuclear program, that outweighs the lifting.
So, we should dictate our foreign policy to if Assad likes it? That doesn't make sense.
Sigh on the last point. That policy has not worked for 15 years. What you all cannot wrap your heads around is Iran is not going to give up its right to enrich. They are not. We have tried since early Bush years and it was not working.
Iran was also close to a plutonium facility, which was a gamechanger. Once that would have become operational, Iran would have had two paths to a bomb. Now, that is gone. Also, Iran would have more HEU now. And, honestly, military force, really? Tell me how that works? Exactly. Then tell me the next steps. Point is, if you cross that bridge, there is no turning back.
Also, Israel's reaction is more nuance and they actually support the deal more than you think. Read up in the Israeli press on that.
I swear sometimes I may have been the only one that read the freaking deal on here.
The lifting of sanctions is a gift to them in terms of money. How much will that provide them? We Have the ability to release or give them that money.
No we shouldn't make decision based on Assad liking them or not but him liking our decisions is an indication of the benefit to those whose actions we are trying to diminish as a De-stabalizing force in the area.
There's no way the level of worldwide sanctions will revert to what they were if Iran does not comply. It being "possible" is not good enough. Certainty of it happening shouldl have been the only consideration.
I have no intention nor desire to turn back if military force is used.
I already said conventional arms weren't covered. That's a negative aspect of this "deal".
Letting the scientists "slide" is a negative aspect to this deal. You asked a previous poster what else he had. These are some of things that came mind influencing the opinion of it being a bad deal.
How much do you think I believe Israel supports the deal. I think you are making an assumption there.
If Iran isn't willing to give up it's willingness to enrich there's no reason to make a deal. Their historical credibility dictates this. There's no reason to release the frozen assets....or give them their money since that verbiage seems to please you more.
These are the things that lend to the opinion of it being a bad deal...not....I hate Obama.
