ray

We do not want one side to be closer to nukes

.
nope.
but if this deal falls through, Iran will be able to get closer to nukes.if it wants to,
because the "option" to enhance sanctions will fall through. (Whatever congress says, they don't control how other countries will respond to their demands...)

If the deal is signed, all signatories, including Russia and china will be bound by its terms and if Iran doesn't follow the terms, sanctions will be renewed.

Ray Jay wrote:Based on what the (Iranian) Supreme Leader is saying it seems that the deal is worse than what Obama and Kerry had described.

That is if you assume that they are saying "what is in" the deal, rather than "what they want to be in" the deal. The current state is that there is a loose framework and an agreement to try to reach a deal later. Until then, the deal is theoretical

I'm also concerned that Russia is providing anti-missile systems to Iran. Presumably this would make destruction of Iranian nuclear equipment much harder.

So am I. Russia is generally a big worry, and I suspect a bigger worry than Iran, given greater reach (impacting Ukraine and Eastern Europe, as well as the Middle East).

rickyp wrote:ray

We do not want one side to be closer to nukes

.
nope.
but if this deal falls through, Iran will be able to get closer to nukes.if it wants to,
because the "option" to enhance sanctions will fall through. (Whatever congress says, they don't control how other countries will respond to their demands...)

This is quite important - as much as the Republican Senators wanted Iran to know the limits of US executive power, be sure that Iran is already well aware of the limits of Congressional power outside US borders.

If the deal is signed, all signatories, including Russia and china will be bound by its terms and if Iran doesn't follow the terms, sanctions will be renewed.

Well, a lack of deal would by no means preclude wider sanctions, and I'd not be too sure that China and Russia would leap to impose sanctions in any circumstances. But an agreement would give all concerned a basis (and so no excuses) for how things go in different eventualities.

rickyp wrote:ray

We do not want one side to be closer to nukes

.
nope.
but if this deal falls through, Iran will be able to get closer to nukes.if it wants to,
because the "option" to enhance sanctions will fall through.

Even if the deal is agreed to AND signed, Iran will be able to get nuclear weapons "if it wants to." "Wants to" includes "is willing to violate the agreement."

The whole premise of negotiating with them is to stop them from getting nuclear weapons, which THEY DENY they want. Has iran ever acknowledged wanting those weapons? In the early days, they always insisted their program was for peaceful purposes only.

That kind of makes this whole thing a sham doesn't it? We're trying to stop them from something they claim they aren't doing. If they agree not to do what they say they weren't going to do, then we're going to trust them to not do what they said they were not going to do.

Erm.

(Whatever congress says, they don't control how other countries will respond to their demands...)

So true, which is why Obama's behavior and statements are so inexplicable. He invited (indirectly) Russia to end weapons sanctions. Brilliant.

Btw, did you notice the 19-0 committee vote (including notable "hawks" like Barbara Boxer) for the Corker-Menendez bill? Now, the White House has gone from threatening a veto to saying it will sign the bill. All it took was an embarrassing bipartisan vote and the probability of being overridden to get Obama to back down.

If the deal is signed, all signatories, including Russia and china will be bound by its terms and if Iran doesn't follow the terms, sanctions will be renewed.

Sanctions are dead if the deal is signed. They're on life-support as it is. Contra Kerry, the Iranians say the sanctions are gone on Day One.

We shall see.

My guess: no deal will be signed. Why not? Because not even Obama is going to give Iran what it wants . . . will he?

Doctor Fate wrote:Sanctions are dead if the deal is signed. They're on life-support as it is. Contra Kerry, the Iranians say the sanctions are gone on Day One.

We shall see.

Indeed. Public pronouncements before and during negotiations don't necessarily tell us what is in any deal.

My guess: no deal will be signed. Why not? Because not even Obama is going to give Iran what it wants . . . will he?

I can't see him, or UK/France/Germany, agreeing to lifting of sanctions.

Of course, the sanctions are in a way useful to Iran (as the ones post-Crimea are against Russia), in that the regime can blame them, rather than government incompetence or policies, for problems on the ground. The people blame us outsiders for punishing them, not the regime for what it did to have the sanctions imposed.

Sanctions are not some kind of golden bullet to solve problems. Where they have worked, it has been through intelligent use of them (in South Africa's case it was the cultural and sporting sanctions that were more effective on SA politics than economic ones - mind you the UK and USA didn't really participate in economic sanctions against Apartheid SA).

danivon

Well, a lack of deal would by no means preclude wider sanctions

No.
But Russia and China have already signaled through their deals with Iran on missile defence/food, and with the Iran-Pakistan pipeline that they'd like to begin normal trade relations with Iran.

fate

That kind of makes this whole thing a sham doesn't it? We're trying to stop them from something they claim they aren't doing. If they agree not to do what they say they weren't going to do, then we're going to trust them to not do what they said they were not going to do

.
That's very perceptive.
Except for the "trust" part. The whole point of inspections is that the trust level is not high.
Without a deal, there will be no inspections, and no commitments to verify via inspections.
In other words, in an attempt to achieve a "perfect deal" that includes demands that have nothing to do with nuclear weapons ... opponents or critics of the framework agreement will forgo immediate commitments and almost immediate inspections and verification.
Instead they will attempt to enforce more sanctions, despite the fact that these sanction won;'t actually provide a means to stop Iranians development of nukes and despite the fact they will almost certainly fall apart because other nations are unlikely to support them if unreasonable demands are part of the "perfect" deal.
For instance Rubio's recent demands about Iran having to assert Israels right to exist... (I see he's already backed off the demands.)

rickyp wrote:That's very perceptive.
Except for the "trust" part. The whole point of inspections is that the trust level is not high.

That's very perceptive, except the "inspections" part. You see, the Iranians believe they should control the inspections, thus making your entire point moot. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -framework

The nuclear deal Iran and world powers are trying to negotiate hit a roadblock Thursday when Iran’s supreme leader said economic sanctions on his country must be lifted as soon as an accord is signed and Iran’s military facilities will remain off-limits to international inspectors.

More:

Allowing international inspectors into Iranian military facilities is key to a credible inspection regime and to resolving questions about what are called the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear research.

For years, Iran has refused to let International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors into a suspect area of the Parchin military complex, southeast of Tehran, where the government allegedly conducted nuclear-weapons related experiments more than a decade ago. Iran denies that it’s carried out any work related to a nuclear device there. . . .

Underscoring the uncertainties, the U.S., Iran and France have issued what each says are the understandings reached in the framework, and the differences and omissions among the three versions have raised questions about how much agreement there really is. U.S. officials have said privately that some commitments by Iranian negotiators haven’t been made public.

The framework was intended to leave just the technical details to be filled in on a complicated accord. Yet the remaining issues are more than “technical,” and Khamenei disputed what the U.S. has said.

“Americans offered a fact sheet that most of it was contrary to what was agreed,” Khamenei said via Twitter. “They always deceive and breach promises.”

State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said Wednesday that the U.S. stands behind its version of the framework.

So, all they disagree about are: sanctions, enrichment, inspections, and weaponization.

Oh soooooo close!

As always, rickyp, you remain entertainingly ill-informed.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Sanctions are dead if the deal is signed. They're on life-support as it is. Contra Kerry, the Iranians say the sanctions are gone on Day One.

We shall see.

Indeed. Public pronouncements before and during negotiations don't necessarily tell us what is in any deal.

True, but in this case, they do show us one thing: there is no "deal."

A framework was announced, but the parties are so far apart on what it represents that there is nothing close to a "deal."

It is not unlike a "framework" to buy a piece of real estate where in Party A and Party B agree that Party B is going to buy Party A's property. All they have to finalize are:

1. The Price.
2. The Size of the Property.
3. The Location of the Property.
4. The Timing of the Purchase.
5. The Fees associated with the Purchase.
6. What will happen to the miscellaneous private property (furnishings, etc.) located on the agreed to property.

Agreeing that a deal should be reached is nothing like reaching a deal.

So there's been no deal, but the framework has enabled some countries to bypass sanctions. As a result, the Iranians have benefited economically and militarily. They have also gained legitimacy. How has the U.S. benefited as a result of the framework?

Ray Jay wrote:So there's been no deal, but the framework has enabled some countries to bypass sanctions. As a result, the Iranians have benefited economically and militarily. They have also gained legitimacy. How has the U.S. benefited as a result of the framework?

(cue the crickets)

Ray Jay wrote:So there's been no deal, but the framework has enabled some countries to bypass sanctions. As a result, the Iranians have benefited economically and militarily. They have also gained legitimacy. How has the U.S. benefited as a result of the framework?

Has it? Or were they going to anyway? Without knowing the inside of Putin's mind, we can only guess.

Russia was selling weapons to Iran back in 2007, when the sanctions were shiny and new. Another way in which sanctions don't necessarily work: Just because you impose the doesn't mean anyone else will.

(DF - 8 minutes? seriously?)

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:So there's been no deal, but the framework has enabled some countries to bypass sanctions. As a result, the Iranians have benefited economically and militarily. They have also gained legitimacy. How has the U.S. benefited as a result of the framework?

Has it? Or were they going to anyway? Without knowing the inside of Putin's mind, we can only guess.

Russia was selling weapons to Iran back in 2007, when the sanctions were shiny and new. Another way in which sanctions don't necessarily work: Just because you impose the doesn't mean anyone else will.

(DF - 8 minutes? seriously?)

The only question RJ posed was " How has the U.S. benefited as a result of the framework?"

There are zero benefits for the US in the "framework."