2013/11/26

"We Have a Deal With Iran. A Good One."

.
The Iranian nuclear deal struck Saturday night is a triumph. It contains nothing that any American, Israeli, or Arab skeptic could reasonably protest. Had George W. Bush negotiated this deal, Republicans would be hailing his diplomatic prowess, and rightly so.

The "bomb, bomb Iran" crowd hates it, but that was predictable. They're missing out on wanking off while the news report that yet another country gets bombarded.
Luckily, this anti-social crowd loses some of its fights, too.

S O
.

18 comments:

  1. My money is still on Sudan and Iran getting bombed after the mess in other countries has been sorted out. Say in the 2020s.

    KRT

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you: ' ... We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.'"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, the old appeasement bullocks.
      Note this time Iran gets almost nothing - and takes nothing from others.

      There's thus no noteworthy parallel. And even if there was a parallel, it would still be an open question if it would be a meaningful one.

      The 80's treaties with the Soviet Union are a better parallel IMO.

      Delete
    2. First class-trolling. I tip my hat to you, sir.

      Delete
  3. TrT,

    the comparison is complete nonsense:

    1) Iran's military abilities and economic power is in comparison to Germany's in 1938 small. The comparison is stupid warmongering.

    2) Interestingly it were the USA, Europe + Israel which have ignored international law in respect to nuclear weapons and fuel enrichment, the position of Iran was both, legally acceptable/correct and consistent.

    If you want the Iran to give up some of his rights on enrichment then offer a good deal but stop this stupid criminalization of Iran's action.

    Ulenspiegel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What law has Israel broken?
      Israel has not signed the NPT, so is free to develop nuclear weapons.
      Iran has signed the NPT, so is not allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

      It arguable that the US and China broke the treaty by dealing with India and Pakistan, but thats about it.

      "Note this time Iran gets almost nothing - and takes nothing from others."
      Iran has occupation forces in three neighboring states, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria.
      Iran gives nothing and gains nothing, whats been changed exactly?
      Its EXACTLY like the pre second world treaties, because it resolves nothing, and simply kicks the can down the road.

      Delete
    2. You don't seem to know much about the actual appeasement treaties of the 1930's.
      The British agreed to German navy growth including the introduction of submarines, agreed to even more growth, and later on agreed that Germany could annex Czechoslovakian border regions.
      Meanwhile, the agreement with Iran gives Iran a small reduction of sanctions in exchange for Iran turning its uranium enrichment back by years and not making any steps forward.
      You need to be very filled up with prejudice to think that's "EXACTLY like the pre second world" war treaties.
      ---------------
      Iran hasn't violated the N(N)PT yet. It has the right to quit the N(N)PT and go for a nuclear munition six months later.

      The problem is that the partial UNSC has judged Iran a threat despite its almost 300 years of not attacking another country. So the UNSC is pressuring Iran based on its own kind of wisdom and that's about the only legal basis that makes Iran look bad.

      Meanwhile, the actual nuclear powers were engaged in very questionable activities of their own (even wars of aggression) in the past decade - without exception.

      This political conflict should be cooled down with diplomatic means, or it'll become more ugly, and more of an entry of hypocrisy in future files about the history of the 21st century.

      Delete
    3. "Iran has occupation forces in three neighboring states, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria."

      That, by the way, is a "pants on fire" 100% lie.
      For starters, neither Lebanon nor Gaza are neighbouring, second Gaza is no state, third there are no Iranian "forces" except maybe some secret agents and some military liaison and training personnel and fourth they do not occupy.
      I'd need a conscious effort to pile up so much wrongness in one sentence.

      Besides, it's off-topic and the West could hardly claim these days that occupation is wrong per se.

      Delete
  4. While I generally appreciate that they managed to find some sort of agreement, against the odds (see Israel and Saudi-Arabia, two countries, that will be named A LOT in the same sentence in the future, which gives food for thought by itself), I do not share the hyperbolic sentiment in some circles. Everything is always great or terrible, it seems, there is no grey area.

    This deal is, in my opinion, so-so. Its certainly no triumph, because it really does not resolve the basic situation, that led to all this hand-wringing. The fundamental issue, which is of course that Iran is seeking a nuclear capability (or the means to get one quickly), cannot be addressed, because that part is principal policy in Teheran, regardless of the perceived change in leadership (leadership and their position really hasnt changed at all, whats gone is that fool Ahmadinejad and his gibberish on Israel etc).

    So it will be interesting, what happens six months down the road. Constructively speaking, I can see only two scenarios regarding the fundamental issue: A) Israel and the West accept, that Iran is having a latent or material nuclear capability or B) There is a fundamental policy change in Teheran on the nuclear issue, limiting themselves to civilian use supported by fuel import or completely dropping it. Not sure, whats more unlikely.

    Whats happening now is that obviously nobody, who matters, finds the existing options very appealing, so the issue is being pushed further and further into the future. That would be nice and well, if could be done indefinitely, but I suspect, there will be some limit to that, even though I dont want to start measuring in Friedman-units.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the most significant error in the parallel TrT tries to make is that in it Obama plays the role of Chamberlain while the actual situation is better described by him playing the other role. It is after all the USA that is threatening invasion, not Iran.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, from that perspective it's indeed similar to appeasement.

      Delete
  6. I concur on this outlook.

    Iran does gain little for giving much and the whole thing is part of ongoing negotiations that can turn around the issue any time! In effect, Iran is just avoiding an imminent bombing campaign against nuclear sites with major environmental hazards by these concessions.

    KRT

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c

    ReplyDelete
  8. Iran is too strong and too weak in the same time.
    It is too large and powerful, so that US can not easily bring democracy to it like they did in Iraq.
    It is also too weak, so that US can forget about bringing democracy to them like is the case of Russia.
    ( I remember a nice press conference when Bush started dreaming about Russia making a progress towards democracy like Iraq did.
    Putin replied that Russians do not want democracy like the one from Iraq.
    Bush answered : " Just wait!"
    It was a funny moment. Funny because the US did not have the capacity to bring Iraqi democracy to Russia, so there were no casualties.)

    We do not know which course of action US will adopt. The very small step which took place now gives us a little hope that peace ( Russian scenario) will prevail.
    It would also be a strategic defeat for the US , so it is not a decision to be taken lightly.
    It all depends on how fast US has to transfer its military power towards the target from your next post.

    For the troll.
    I can see that idiotic " reductio ad Hitlerum" types have managed to crawl even to Sven's blog. If we are to use this type of comparisons then, dear Troll , we are not in 1938 and Iran is not the Nazi state.
    We are rather in 1942, and multiple fronts have become active altogether.
    The empire has to ponder and optimize its actions because even such a powerful entity can not fight the entire planet at once, almost everywhere. Especially if the only allies it can count on are Romania ,Hungary and Estonia. Plus Japan of course.
    Guess who gets to play the evil empire part. Hint : it is not Iran.

    Teo

    Teo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bring "democracy" :D

      Delete