rickyp wrote:fate

France walked away. France says we surrendered our principles to get a deal. We should have walked away. Obama could let the Congress increase sanctions

.


France have agreed to the deal.

We are not completely at the end of the road and the end of the road should be in June,” said French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. "Nothing is signed until everything is signed, but things are going in the right direction.

"

And what would increased sanctions accomplish that this deal hasn't (presuming it is signe.)

http://rt.com/news/246477-iran-nuclear-deal-explained/

More sanctions would further damage the Iranian economy. If things get bad enough, the Iranians will actually have to deal.

The U.S. has maintained sanctions against Iran for more than three decades, but sanctions began to bite only in recent years when they were enforced by countries that traded with Iran. The likes of Russia and China have consented to sanctions in order to give diplomacy a chance to succeed; if Washington is perceived to be acting outside the international consensus on sanctions and diplomacy, there’s little reason to expect that Beijing and Moscow — or even the European Union countries — will allow their Iran policy to be dictated by the U.S. Congress. The foreign ministers of the U.K., France and Germany, along with the EU high representative warned last week that additional pressure now could “fracture the international coalition that has made sanctions effective so far.”

rickyp wrote:fate

More sanctions would further damage the Iranian economy. If things get bad enough, the Iranians will actually have to deal.

First . They are dealing.

Second. What sanctions? And what kind of improvements to the deal would be derived from these sanctions?

And there's the biggest problem. No one else outside of yahoos in congress and Israel are interested in more sanctions...

If other countries believe that Iran made a reasonable offer that the United States turned down, they are unlikely to continue to support a tight sanctions regime. Most studies confirm that it is the multilateral aspect of the sanctions against Iran that has made them effective.
Countries are eager to buy Iran’s oil, which tends to sell at a discount. The key player here is probably Beijing. As the West has shunned Iran, the country has deepened its economic ties with China. A 2012 Rand study notes that, “Over the past several years, China has become Iran’s biggest oil customer and biggest economic partner.” China could view the West’s isolation of Iran as an opportunity to build a special relationship with it and develop that country’s vast energy economy

The French said "we" were caving on everything

Doctor Fate wrote:Boom. I posted the Dennis Ross article in the Iran forum. He is, at least, non-partisan. He may even be a Democrat. In any event, he is a professional Diplomat. He lays out how what "we" are asking for now is not what has been promised in the past--and that it does not prevent a bomb.

So, why not walk away? Let Congress pass more sanctions and see if Iran wants to talk.

danivon wrote:

So, why not walk away? Let Congress pass more sanctions and see if Iran wants to talk.

Because:

1) Getting an agreement that suspends the programme at least is preferable to no agreement which that sees Iran continue trying regardless.

2) "more sanctions" can be held in reserve for any breaches of an agreement. Or for another reason. Using them now reduces future options

3) it would look like you want to punish Iran for dealing if the US did this now. It would also likely create a fair amount of bad faith with the UK, France and Germany to pull the rug.

. . . there is ambiguity about the real access inspectors will have throughout the life of the agreement. While the parameters suggest that inspectors will have access to suspect sites anywhere in the country, will that really apply to military bases and the facilities of the Revolutionary Guard? Will inspectors have it on a timely basis? And what happens if such access is blocked?

President Obama spoke of our being able to detect violations and deal with them. But what are the response mechanisms for violations. The history of compliance with arms control agreements is not good. Will the Russians agree that our intelligence is reliable? Will they insist on prolonged discussion over any alleged violation? Will we get bogged down in negotiations over what is a violation or how to respond to it?

At this point, there is no answer. But if we want to deter the Iranians from cheating and prevent the Iranians from incrementally eroding the baseline in order to reduce the break-out time, the issue of responses and consequences needs to be clear.

In any case, if there is any lesson to be learned from what it took to reach an understanding on the parameters, it is that it will be an ordeal to fill in the details and have the Iranians sign an agreement. Undoubtedly the negotiations will go down to the wire and one should expect that the Iranians may well argue that they have a different interpretation of the some of the key parameters. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, don’t count on this negotiation being over until it is over.

freeman3 wrote:I guess I am coming around to the idea that the deal could be the best of a not great set of options. Leveraging Iran's wanting to get out of sanctions to delaying them getting the bomb for at least 10 years. If the military option is problematic and sanctions (increased or even staying the same) perhaps driving Iran to get the bomb sooner, what option do we have better than this deal?

One of the arguments being voiced against the continuation of the talks is that Iran has a history of lies and cunning, and can thus be expected to breach the agreement and deceive the world. True, the Iranians have a tendency to deceive, but they could do so even if they agreed to zero centrifuges, the closure of all their nuclear facilities, and supervision on the part of the Mossad itself. Loopholes can always be found, so there is no such thing as a "good agreement." The Iranians will uphold an agreement only if it is worth their while

. Obama's speech following the signing of the framework agreement was broadcast live on Iranian state television without any censorship or breaks in the middle. Never before, since the Islamic Revolution, has an American president been afforded such a stage, and on such a sensitive subject to boot.

And thus President Obama could say there is a historical dimension to the agreement that was reached. Anyone who has followed events in Iran in recent decades or has studied the matter has to admit truthfully that he never believed Iran would ever agree to discuss these issues, let alone agree to each of the clauses I have mentioned.

According to the introduction to the understandings reached, "Important implementation details are still subject to negotiation, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

rickyp wrote:Efraim Halevy, former head of israelis intelligence

One of the arguments being voiced against the continuation of the talks is that Iran has a history of lies and cunning, and can thus be expected to breach the agreement and deceive the world. True, the Iranians have a tendency to deceive, but they could do so even if they agreed to zero centrifuges, the closure of all their nuclear facilities, and supervision on the part of the Mossad itself. Loopholes can always be found, so there is no such thing as a "good agreement." The Iranians will uphold an agreement only if it is worth their while

7

. Obama's speech following the signing of the framework agreement was broadcast live on Iranian state television without any censorship or breaks in the middle. Never before, since the Islamic Revolution, has an American president been afforded such a stage, and on such a sensitive subject to boot.

And thus President Obama could say there is a historical dimension to the agreement that was reached. Anyone who has followed events in Iran in recent decades or has studied the matter has to admit truthfully that he never believed Iran would ever agree to discuss these issues, let alone agree to each of the clauses I have mentioned.

According to the introduction to the understandings reached, "Important implementation details are still subject to negotiation, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 91,00.html

rickyp wrote:But of course Fate , your real problem with this agreement is that it has been negotiated under Obama.

It was perhaps the first time that conservatives — in this case mostly young people genuinely disappointed over the compromises Iran has made to reach a nuclear agreement — seemed disconnected from the power structure here.

rickyp wrote:You have much in common with conservatives in Iran Fate

It was perhaps the first time that conservatives — in this case mostly young people genuinely disappointed over the compromises Iran has made to reach a nuclear agreement — seemed disconnected from the power structure here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/world ... .html?_r=0