57Brave
Well-known member
again with the hostages !!!!
The Iran Deal
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
again with the hostages !!!!
Haha, come on, the jig is up.
With respect to you dismissing fact as conjecture because you don't want to take the time to research an issue you appear to be blindly advocating on behalf of? Sure, whatever you want to call it.
Runnin
Well-known member
All manner of permutations, yes, but this is the way it went. The end, for now. You imply the President took a horrible deal when you have no idea what was or wasn't possible. He's proven to me he has the country's best interest at heart and I give him big kudos for slogging through the process and also for staking out a position different from what Israel wants. I don't share the paranoia and lust for war that runs through your side.
Getting the 4 hostages released would've put a better shine on the deal.
Runnin
Well-known member
This is from the Huffpost but it's an interview with actual names. Discount it if you want, but it hits the points Bedell and Hawk have been making.
How difficult would it have been to actually get tougher sanctions against Iran into place?
Elizabeth Rosenberg: Tougher sanctions require international collaboration. Right now, while there may have been an appetite among a number of policymakers in the United States for tougher sanctions, the appetite is not there among a number of really important international financial jurisdictions. And if they don’t go along, they become weak links or avenues for circumvention for Iran.
Joe DeThomas: I guess you could say, ‘Well, we could have put a full trade embargo on Iran and no oil sales. No sales of any goods of any kind. Some kind of massive economic embargo.’ I don’t know of anybody outside of Israel who would have supported that. I don’t know of any other country who would have gone willingly there.
So when you say tougher sanctions, the only way they could have been done would have been, in effect, unilateral U.S. sanctions that we leveraged the rest of the world into supporting.
Was that possible?
JD: I don’t think it would have been possible to go much farther than the sanctions that exist now without a major confrontation with another major economic player.
Why not maintain the multilateral sanctions regime and make our unilateral sanctions against Iran more aggressive?
ER: That, to me, sounds... symbolic and not necessarily economically effective. Unilateral sanctions on Iran restrict U.S. people and companies from doing business with Iranian entities. But they already can’t do business with those entities, because of the embargo we have had for decades. It is the secondary-effect sanctions that have had a huge economic impact. But imposing more secondary sanctions would come down hard on our allies, including other P5+1 negotiating partners. It wouldn’t have gone over well with them.
JD: If you want to see an example of what could happen, go back to the '90s, when we and the Europeans disagreed about U.S. unilateral sanctions on Iran, and we came very close to a U.S.-European trade war over them. And we ended up having to blink.
How difficult would it have been to actually get tougher sanctions against Iran into place?
Elizabeth Rosenberg: Tougher sanctions require international collaboration. Right now, while there may have been an appetite among a number of policymakers in the United States for tougher sanctions, the appetite is not there among a number of really important international financial jurisdictions. And if they don’t go along, they become weak links or avenues for circumvention for Iran.
Joe DeThomas: I guess you could say, ‘Well, we could have put a full trade embargo on Iran and no oil sales. No sales of any goods of any kind. Some kind of massive economic embargo.’ I don’t know of anybody outside of Israel who would have supported that. I don’t know of any other country who would have gone willingly there.
So when you say tougher sanctions, the only way they could have been done would have been, in effect, unilateral U.S. sanctions that we leveraged the rest of the world into supporting.
Was that possible?
JD: I don’t think it would have been possible to go much farther than the sanctions that exist now without a major confrontation with another major economic player.
Why not maintain the multilateral sanctions regime and make our unilateral sanctions against Iran more aggressive?
ER: That, to me, sounds... symbolic and not necessarily economically effective. Unilateral sanctions on Iran restrict U.S. people and companies from doing business with Iranian entities. But they already can’t do business with those entities, because of the embargo we have had for decades. It is the secondary-effect sanctions that have had a huge economic impact. But imposing more secondary sanctions would come down hard on our allies, including other P5+1 negotiating partners. It wouldn’t have gone over well with them.
JD: If you want to see an example of what could happen, go back to the '90s, when we and the Europeans disagreed about U.S. unilateral sanctions on Iran, and we came very close to a U.S.-European trade war over them. And we ended up having to blink.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Here's my main problem with it beyond the failure to get the hostages released - 4 hostages - just 4 - it addresses no human rights concerns of the international community. None. Why that doesn't trouble liberals I haven't a clue. I never did understand why you guys weren't more supportive of the Green Revolution.
Runnin
Well-known member
It's a decent point: does America really want to get into the sticky area of human rights and feign moral authority? Maybe it's wise that Obama avoided the sanctimonious rhetoric. He says they are still working on getting the prisoners (if that's better) released. I wouldn't be surprised if it happens suddenly without a lot of fanfare.
The preexisting sanctions were tough and effective enough -- not sure that anyone was seeking more rigorous punishment, just taking better advantage of the circumstances. Iran needed to make a deal, but did we? And why? What are Americans gaining here? That's what I'd really like to hear defended.
As to whether or not the United States has a moral high ground? I honestly can't take that question seriously. Yeah, we've done some ****ty things, but we can legitimately claim God status over a country that willingly executes children (despite having agreed not to -- surprised? It doesn't 'align' with Islamic law).
As to whether or not the United States has a moral high ground? I honestly can't take that question seriously. Yeah, we've done some ****ty things, but we can legitimately claim God status over a country that willingly executes children (despite having agreed not to -- surprised? It doesn't 'align' with Islamic law).
U.S. nuclear experts will not be part of the teams inspecting Iran's nuclear sites under the deal agreed with world's powers this week, officials have confirmed.
The inspection teams ensuring that Tehran adheres to the agreement to curb their nuclear program will be made up of experts from countries which has diplomatic relations with Iran.
What a joke.
The inspection teams ensuring that Tehran adheres to the agreement to curb their nuclear program will be made up of experts from countries which has diplomatic relations with Iran.
What a joke.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
You can call them prisoners if you'd like. I know you are a fan of the Iranian regime.
So we execute homosexuals for being homosexual?
Again, I really don't get you liberals. What happened to y'all? You claim to champion the cause of the little guy, minorities and the down-trodden, but only those you like and only here.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
It's better for gold. Though he may prefer "criminals." Gitmo guys - they are "freedom fighters."
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
And for the record, I'm not, and was not calling for tougher sanctions.
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
Are you serious? That shuts out most of the western world.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
That's not what I'm saying. More to the point, though, I'm interested in hearing what a military option short of full-on war would look like.
Yeah.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Well that was what I was arguing against - the homeristic, "it was either this deal or air-land-sea war against Iran, so POTUS is fantastic!" argument.
To answer your question - there are various choices and combinations of limited strikes, proxy war, covert-operations, digital warfare, heightened espionage, etc. Yet, any military option would need to be a part of a fuller and longer term strategy, and not a stand-alone "solution."
Ash Carter is currently in Tel Aviv attempting to placate the Israelis and said today that the agreement didn't preclude the United States from taking military action against Iran. Meanwhile, many believe that the sole purpose of this trip is to lay the groundwork for additional military support to Israel.
So, we have the Secretary of Defense saying that military options are still on the table and we're supplying Israel with more weaponry.
What a vote of confidence. And the ink isn't even dry.
So, we have the Secretary of Defense saying that military options are still on the table and we're supplying Israel with more weaponry.
What a vote of confidence. And the ink isn't even dry.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
When aren't we giving Israel more weapons?