I think the future of the Middle East is a tense balance between Saudi and Iranian poles, with both countries being normalized in the international community. The USA can't bring either country to heel, but it can hopefully prevent the stalemate from being nuclear along Sunni-Shia lines. But what's also changed is that the US needs a normalized partner in Iran to fully isolate ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other far worse actors. I think we can also be encouraged by the demographics in Iran, which are moving younger and more liberal. I'm cautiously optimistic.
Out or curiosity, why does the (religious) iranian regime keeps calling USA "the great devil" then ?
Ps :reading some answers, i know about the history of conflicts between usa and iran. I was just pointing the fact that calling Iran a "natural ally" is a bit of a stretch.
Iranian here , and I am commenting from Iran.Iranian people maybe most pro usa people in middle east. and about government, they just need keep people busy because of they systematic corruption. Thats all. 10 years before , Ali Khamneai said following : "anyone who says we should communicate with USA is or idiot or our enemy/traitor".
and guess what ? today , FM Zarif have record in our history for maximum time negotiation with a USA FM.
Thats about it , they just want money , they don't care about Israel or otherwhere a little bit , they don't care about people either , they just care about themselves. Look at the whole picture . When there was serious threat about Iran regime existence , they negotiate , and they accept what they called 10 years ago a traitor would do.
They just love money.And they only weapon they have for keeping people in iran busy and afraid of any kind of protest, is "imaginary" enemy.That's all.
I cannot find the exact link . But I read a DoD Analysis about Iran , and the first paragraph they mentioned was this : "Iran regime only care about himself" (meaning of the first paragraph) .
As Iranian I can assure you , They don't even care even about Israel/Palestine.They just need imaginary enemy keeping people in scared position.
p.s. sorry for my broken English.
p.s-2: Yes I know and accept this is so simplistic, we have all kind of majority in our society , but If you see the level of corruption in our economy , You will understand nothing can stand against money.Not even supreme leader.At the end at least in my view (I served in high-level military base in my mandatory military service_sadly was two year waste of my life), at the very end alls boils down to money and keeping regime safe. They interfere in Lebanon , Just because they want to propagate , NOT BECAUSE OF ISLAM OR ANYTHING ELSE , they just feel safer if they have more poppet.
It is too simplistic to link all the changes to money or radicals. Every country has all the sides of a normal distribution. You have extremists, and you have general majority, and then many smaller interest groups, leftists etc. In USA even look what the difference between two elections was, clinton and bush and then Obama, and what the world experienced.
What I believe happened is that the remains of the green movement did not die, but thanks to the awareness of folk in Iran, direction of politicians inside, and policy changes of USA and other EU outside (pull out rather than invade), the movement was left to go into direction of democracy rather than anarchy. Despite being hurt in the election I voted for Ruhani, envisioning a slow but necessary passage into democracy, while many people are used to the black and white terms of revolution. The people in power felt this, and saw the movements around them in arabic revolutions, and decided to go on with it rather than against it, with the support of majority.
Today we are not done, but is the day we start seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, that there is hope.
I thought it was very interesting recently when FM Zarif, who seems very wise and pragmatic, discussed the nuclear negotiations as a form of diplomatic jihad, presumably to reassure the religious/political factions that that government had not gone 'soft'. As other people said, we have similar factions here in the USA.
I am curious, is awareness of Persian history a regular part of Iranian cultural life? I mean in day-to-day conversation, not just in school or a museum. Anti-Iranian people in the USA often denounce the country because it is an Islamic republic, but every Iranian person I've ever meet seems very proud of their Persian heritage and history, parallel to their religious heritage.
I'm European (living in the USA) and Iran seems culturally much closer to Europe/USA than a country like Saudi Arabia. It seems like religion is very strict in Saudia Arabia because it is the only thing that holds the country together, whereas Iranian people had a strong national identity before Islam existed. Is this accurate?
I'm wondering if there's been something lost in translation there, though. The word, in Western understanding, means holy war, but a more apt translation is "struggle", in the same connotation that one would struggle with a cigarette addiction or the like. Extremist groups have claimed the word for more violent connotations, but traditionally is more like a burden that one struggles against.
That's why I thought it was astute of Zarif to use the term in a way that would encourage western audiences to re-evaluate the concept outside of the terrorism frame that people try to erect around it. I get the sense that jihad has a great deal in common with Kantian notions of duty.
Traditional Iranian ceremonies always was a great part of our society (at least as far as I can remember , and note that these ceremonies are not approved by Islam most of the time but people kept doing them after revolution).But nationalism became regular part in recent years.I don't think it is dominant part , as far as I see it is important part.
I should mention in recent years Iran became so much wired country in cultural sense. at one side of spectrum we have people who hate religion, at the other side we have people just like Al-Qaeda , but Shia version which are so small in compare the other part , but they have secret regime support)
But despite of regime multi-billion $ media funding and propaganda most people does believe in secularism. and this is the most serious (by far) dead end for this regime will counter in next 20 years.most of people in Iran knows that, regime needs an imaginary enemy. who is better than US, the supporter of Israel (which they believe is root of all evils).by bombing them you just gave them a reason to deceive more people.Give them internet,twitter, porn , facebook,gay tv shows, game of throne, friends tv shows and etc and you will see collapse of regime much much sooner than you can even imagine)
The distance young generation have with religion is far far than most of people outside of Iran can imagine.Despite of 5-6% of hardliners and 25-35% people who make living inside/because of government,in recent years most of people became or atheist or with some kind of their own religion. Majority of young people proud about pre-Islamic history.(personally I don't know about that area and I don't have opinion)
By their "own religion" I mean secular religion, They believe in separation of religion and government at same time they believe on Islam.(some kind of old fashion Shia, before khomeini). At the other hand , we are having (or generating) serious hard liner in other side. People who hates religious, people who hate Islam.(you can search about Shahin Najafi , A singer who sentenced to death by Mullahs like Salman Rushdie)
In Iran despite of west media propaganda you can have every Idea you want in private and most of the time government will not hurt you if you pretend you are normal person in their definition.(You can be an alcoholic , You can be gay) BUT the serious issue here is ,the cost of doing anything other than regime says in PUBLIC is so so so high (most of the time death), and because of that people are afraid of make public their own identity. Just look at the page "My Stealthy Freedom" in facebook.Just imagine the level of government aggressiveness.Taking picture without scarf becomes heroic act here(just imagine , ridiculous thing like this is punishable).Because of this regime. But about saudi arabia , I can assure you Iranian people are far far secular than people at countries like saudi arabia.I can even claim they are secular than Turkye people. Last friday was a demonstration about Israel.The city I live in with population of 2 Million.They only managed to bring ~50,000.Thats all.This is serious defeat for this regime.Because this demonstration is so important for them (all ideology of regime hinges on resistance against US and Israel and for demonstration for showing this , only 1/40 come with all the money the spent).Every Military person have to participate,most of people works for non-military part of regime should too.But that's all , 50 thousands for 2M city.(the important fact here is everybody who believe in regime politic will come to these demonstration , because these are so important for them)
The main problem here is in Iran we have a people-government spectrum , and they both are at other side. One is really aggressive and religious and the other side we have majority people with believe in freedom-secularism. The majority of ordinary and non-educated in people do not believe in religious-regime.
> The city I live in with population of 2 Million.They only managed to bring ~50,000
That's 2.5%. By contrast the biggest protest in British history (against the 2003 invasion of Iraq) was around 1m people, just shy of 2% of the country. I'm afraid I can't see Al Quds days as indicative of anything other than rabid and endemic anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-Western sentiment.
at 2009 june 15 , 4 Million people was at demonstration against regime ( I think it is more than 4 million , but mayor of Tehran (which is hardliner itself _ Mohmmad BagherGhalibaf) mentioned it one time). Bringing 4 Million for a protest , in unsecure situation, I think it shows how much people really want reform, and how small corrupted supporter fraction really is.
Thats is fair question.Does not all of 50,000 get paid. some of them get. some of them really deceived and believe US is evil.(that's one of main point of my main comment,which by bombing we give them a real reason , Obama policy was effective ,I can see in my real life , Obama was far effective than any other US president could have done)
For that 50,000 you (as west) should show the true nature of Iran's regime without giving them real reason (what Obama have exactly done in recent years).
And remember this point , If someone get paid by regime , he have family and close friend.by a simple math you can estimate number of paid people.(maybe 5000-10000)which is reasonable amount.
UPDATE : We are taking this wrong way , this is not about number , this is about money & corruption , and what's going on under the hood.
I can assure you majority of participant just want regime money.They don't care about Israel and US.most of them don't care about Iran either.They just want money.
But yes . We all should admit , Iran have Shia version of Al Qaida.(mostly government keeping them in silence, but they are major threat and resistance against reform)
At the end : the only solution for Iran (at least from my point of view) is the following support "civil society" and make people stronger , Iranian himself can handle these small fraction.Facilitate Iranian and world communication.People in Iran really have wish to integrate to world economy.
That's a fair point. I know Iranian citizens feel far more friendly to the West than many in the Middle East, but "Death to America", "Death to Israel" spoken in parliament is still very disconcerting.
They'd think of America as a far more moral country than Iran. None of the rhetoric of the most abhorrent US politician gets anywhere near that of the Iranian mullahs.
> They just love money.And they only weapon they have for keeping people in iran busy and afraid of any kind of protest, is "imaginary" enemy.That's all.
American here, commenting from America. We have almost the exact same situation here with our political "leadership".
Really, the difference here is trust and competence. The Iranian government doesn't seem to have the trust of it's people (that is, trust it has their best intentions at heart), or the competence to adequately hide the corruption. The U.S. is fairly competent at hiding the corruption, and thus has garnered quite a bit of trust. In the U.S. we know we have corruption, but we don't really know how much, because the politicians and the system are fairly competent and providing alternative narratives that make it hard to come to a definitive answer.
Thing is, this is also why America is enemies with Iran - without such an enemy, there is no justification for the $Trillions spent on American war hegemony.
So I think we've found the source of the problem: people want to kill each other because its profitable.
I'm not very versed in ME politics but I think the US's stance is more ideological than pragmatic. The us does not need Iran as imaginary enemy when it has real enemies elsewhere -factions in Pakistan, isil, etc. Even Putin is a bigger threat to US political clout in the world.
On the other hand, because of political history, the U.S. is a very convenient enemy and israel is a good distraction too. But as we know from British and french history, the designation of foe and friend and ally can change when it makes politics sense.
Isn't it the case though that the population is pretty supportive of the government, including its religious policies? Iranian elections aren't exactly free but polls suggest that free elections would give basically the same results.
'And they only weapon they have for keeping people in iran busy and afraid of any kind of protest, is "imaginary" enemy.'
Similar dynamic at work here in the USA, with political leaders stoking the fears of terror, then providing authoritarian 'solutions' like the Patriot Act.
“The people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. All you have to do is tell them that they are in danger of being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” Hermann Goering
This was the impression I got from another Iranian friend. Actually Iranians have a lot of Western ideas and he was totally chill until we tried to get him to watch Bruno which he vehemently protested but asides I felt kinda embarrassed at how ignorant I was about Iran. It's nothing like what's being shown in the media, Iranian cuisine is fantastic, I love hearing Farsi (it's like French but better), women are really beautiful.
edit: wow somebody really doesn't like the fact that I don't view Iran as terrorist that American media loves to paint.
It's worth reading up on the structure of the government of Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran. The Iranian President or Ayatollah is often portrayed as a dictator, but the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that. Iran has a functional civil service, with the office of the President, a parliament, and independent judiciary. Presidential candidates are vetted by the theocracy, but are elected in pretty legitimate elections. Though the theocracy pulls a lot of strings, the civil government has significant autonomy in areas such as economic policy and the routine administration of justice. And theocracy itself at least as elements that could evolve into a more liberal system. The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, who are themselves elected by public vote.
Most importantly, Iranians are used to and expect those hallmarks of modern civilization. That makes them very different from the people who live in the other Middle Eastern theocracies, who, prior to establishment of the monarchies, did not have nations with functioning national governments and civil services. Those attitudes towards government are what enable friendships between countries, moreso than relatively transitory conflicts. For example, the U.K., France, and Germany live relatively harmoniously within the structure of the EU, even though as recently as 70 years ago, they killed millions of each others' people.
I don't want to whitewash Iran (it's still a place that executes homosexuals, after all). But I think it's important to look at the example of England, the originator of modern western democracy. It evolved very methodically from a divine-right monarchy into a liberal democracy. It did so because it had the political structures in place to enable that transition. Long before the monarch was relegated to ceremonial status, the civil government was actually running the show. Countries like Saudi Arabia do not have that. Their governments are intimately tied up in their monarchies. Iran, on the other hand, does have the structures in place to enable a successful transition into democracy.
> Presidential candidates are vetted by the theocracy, but are elected in pretty legitimate elections.
First of all, I wouldn't call any election in a country without free press and with severe censorship legitimate or fair.
Secondly, around a hundred people got killed protesting contested election results in 2009. The democracy Index ranks Iran among the 10 least democratic countries on the planet.
Partly because we once overthrew their democratically-elected prime minister out of fear he would align with the USSR. In our defense, China had just become communist and Britain was convincing us this would happen because their PM was saying he would nationalize the Anglo-Iranian oil company (now known as BP). Have a CrashCourse video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4Ku6l7OEI
It is also worth noting that Mohammad Pahlavi (aka 'the Shah' and the person we backed after the coup) was a really, really heinous individual who did some incredibly nasty shit over a couple of decades as he clung to power. Like many revolutionaries of that period, the people who overthrew him had a lot of very legitimate grievances.
Furthermore, as most of the student leaders and politicians opposed to the Shah were leftists, the US continued to undermine efforts for them to organize (lest they side with the USSR). So that, when a popular uprising finally did occur, the clergy were the only group with sufficient organizational structure left that they could form a new administration...thus bringing us to today.
My understanding is that it was exactly the opposite: the Shah was too meek to assert himself and reign in his courtiers, some of whom were up to some very evil stuff. And of course, it didn't help that people really were after him (remember, he was the rightful emperor whom Mossadegh served; it really doesn't deserve to be called a coup when the emperor fires his Prime Minister, as was his constitutional right), and so his government felt justified in searching for people…out to overthrow him.
oh come on. That was not the fear (although perhaps "portrayed" as that, but it was never the fear by those who commanded the action. The fear was he wanted to use the profits of the resources of their country to benefit the people of the country. This would never do as the profits were being directed to Britain and the US.
It is like China overthrowing the US government because they wanted the control of the oil and profits from the surge in the US oil industry due to fracking.
Then framing the attack and overthrow of a sovereign, elected government as something to do with US being aligned with a fictitious enemy
I meet with a lot of people from that region. From my personal experience almost every Iranian in the US is very Westernized including women who dresses like any other American. But most other Arabs including Saudis I know are still very traditional. Most of Arab women in the US still wear scarves or even burkas. This is just what I have observed, I have no idea how they really think.
Not sure if this translates to larger population or not though.
The thing with Iranians is that most of them are ethnically and linguistically Persian. They are mostly Muslim, but then they're Shia, not Sunni; it's the Sunni extremist that tend to go nuts for scarves and burqas.
For similar reasons that the USA is the great pariah in Cuba. In both cases the USA was a primary supporter of a repressive totalitarian government kicked out by a popular revolution. It's just that in Cuba the revolution was communist while in Iran it had a strongly religious dimension. Other than the Iranian's support of the Palestinian cause, there's really no particular reason for them to be a great enemy of the west, except that we totally screwed them over repeatedly for a few generations.
>For similar reasons that the USA is the great pariah in Cuba.
That should probably read "the great pariah in Latin America". Is there a country in the whole region the US hasn't overthrown, tried to overthrow, propped up a right wing dictator, funded death squads in the last 70 years?
In both cases the USA was a primary supporter of a repressive totalitarian government kicked out by a popular revolution.
You're missing the other side of the equation. The USSR used Cuba (and Cuba used the USSR) to repress the people of Cuba. Cuba was just a superpower pawn.
Because they are used to do so and because they are completely detached from the reality of their people. For the average Iranian, USA is the land to go. And you can't image how similar things look! Highways, signs, style of buildings all look like a slightly cheaper copy of the USA. Except for the roads, which are worse in the USA.
Because that's what their supporting base wants to hear.
Must be said that such supporting base wasn't much big, and was losing people very fast until the second Bush said he'd invade the country. Then things changed overnight.
I've thought that for years, but I'm undergoing a rapid change of opinion in my geopolitical views. Strategically it makes much more sense for Iran to be aligned with Russia and China right now, which puts it into an oppositional relationship with the US.
Oil strikes again. The CIA / MI6 butt-buddy backed, Oil industry demanded Iranian '53 coup has been resonating through American geo-political policy and ramifications for decades now and has weakened the USA in the long run by, like you mentioned, pushing Iran in the direction of Russia and China, but also the other members of the BRICS block that really are the future.
I think you need to read more of the leaked cables and dig deeper into foreign policy journals.
The US policy in the middle east is one of destabilization. ISIS is not a threat to American interests, it's a tool created by America to keep the region destabilized. Once energy is either no longer the limit to economic growth, or no longer economically efficient from oil, then the Americans / NATO and the Chinese can allow a more stable middle east. But the threat of foreign control over a very important and wildly swinging energy input, as well as a strategic launching point to many threats, leads to US / NATO foreign policy in the region that leans towards destabilization and fracturing interests in the region.
What journals do you read? I find it hard to believe you are reading mainstream foreign policy journals. Is there an issue of Foreign Affairs that supports your take?
To support your argument I think you'd best be served by referring to history books, not foreign policy journals. I think your argument generally fits with a dated foreign policy regime where weaker nations were seen along lines of resource extraction (see colonialism all the way to the first Gulf War) and ideological domination (see '53 Iran coup, Bay of Pigs attempted coup, VOA).
Fast-forward a few decades and energy security for NATO states has become quite strong primarily due to fracking. Key threats consist primarily in non-state actors radicalizing people abroad and anarchic environments abroad enabling the export of terrorism. Key opportunities consist in stable energy prices and opening new markets for goods/services. It's a lot easier to square the recent Iran deal with that world view.
Greenspan's autobiography goes over this. US DoS/DoD define Middle East "stability" as the stability of the energy markets, not the stability of Middle Eastern national polities.
Foreign Affairs treats this as an implicit assumption. FA wouldn't tarnish their place in the NATO clerk vetting process by making a claim like this explicit. Their profit model depends on it.
In case you missed it, OPEC dumped on the market months ago and US shale production well counts have plummeted.
Saudi is throwing returning ISIS volunteers in jail and people like al-Maqdisi and al-Odeh have heaped criticism upon ISIS for being an illegitimate caliphate and violating the obligation to obey 'ulu al 'amr
I've read plenty of cables. I remember them bitching about Syria and listening to Saudi but I can't recall besides maybe giving some sort of ambitious April Glaspie type green light to Saudi Arabia (to support ISIS) anything like what the poster above is saying about ISIS.
The US very publicly supported the FSA, and while under the advisement and training of the CIA, the FSA fizzled out and most anti-Assad fighters left and joined Daesh or al Nusra.
This is the most correct interpretation. Keeping the region unstable is a matter of policy for the US government, for various reasons. Instability brings certain circumstances which benefit the US greatly at this time.
Sceptical Iranian here. There are groups that profit from an ongoing tension and conflict on both sides. This time around it seems they have lost the hand, but we would be a fool to think that this agreement settles things for good.
This has always been and will always be a fluid situation. I think the work has just begun now, let's hope the sane people inc charge on both sides will keep things positive. Otherwise it only takes one delayed inspection permit, or an angry military general to take things back right to the start.
I'm interested to hear what the general young Iranian sentiment is towards the Iranian government, the US government, and the agreement.
I worked in Afghanistan at a telecom provider last summer. A lot of my coworkers were young 20-somethings whose parents had fled Afghanistan when the Taliban came to power from 1996-2001. The majority of them had been raised in Iran; the minority, in Pakistan.
The ones who had been raised in Iran were happy for the most part to have been able to return to Afghanistan. They told me stories of a paradoxical society that was quite forward-thinking while at the same time, extremely authoritarian and oppressive, especially with regards to youth education and expression. I kind of started to equate Iran with Singapore in my mind.
majority of young people are happy! to tell you the troth sanctions were a real pain for us, imagine every time i use internet and i forget to connect VPN i get the "Unavailable in your country message" while visiting Unity or Google Code websites.
but on the other hand there are some who are not that happy they think with this agreement we have lost decades of effort toward peacefull nuclear energy.
there is one thing for sure nobody in iran wants a nuclear weapon.
Speaking as somebody with no interest in the region, if I was an Iranian I'd want a nuclear weapon. Nobody invades a nuclear power. Nuclear powers get propped up instead of sabotaged.
It's too late for that now, though. The 5 nations that have them are the only five that will have them, if the 5 nations that have them have anything to say about it (and they do).
And it's generally understood that some other countries are only "non-nuclear" because the question hasn't come up yet. Does anyone doubt that Japan could have a nuke in three months or less if it really wanted to? Or Canada?
I am doubting the last sentence. Iran clearly has a nuclear weapons program and clearly that program has a constituency within Iran, although I am sure lots of Iranians don't want it or need it, but that's not the same as saying that nobody wants it
The ones raised in Pakistan (in general) enjoyed going back more often to visit family/friends who were still in Pakistan and didn't have too much to say about the governance of the country.
Also, I definitely want to reiterate that both groups were happy to have been raised outside of Afghanistan because they probably would've been persecuted/killed under the Taliban as the majority of them belonged to an ethnic minority group, the Hazara. The Hazara have more Asian blood than the Pashtun (majority group, typically what you would think of as "Afghan") -- I recommend that you do a quick google image search, you might be surprised at what some Afghans look like. I think I worked with mostly Iran-raised Hazara because the wealthier families fled to Iran and the children received a better education there than those who went to Pakistan, allowing them to get a relatively good job at this telecom.
As the US/EU troops have closed down bases and have all but exited the country, many Hazara are looking to leave again due to the increasing prevalence of the Taliban.
If I had to guess it's probably because they look a lot different than most Pakistani's...looks are usually the strongest influencer when it comes to discrimination.
I wonder why more of them don't go to Tajikistan/Uzbekistan/Kyrgyzstan where they would fit in ethnically. Probably because the socio-economic conditions there are still pretty poor, and the majority of their (usually very large) families are in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran.
> If I had to guess it's probably because they look a lot different than most Pakistani's...looks are usually the strongest influencer when it comes to discrimination.
A large majority of Hazaras identify themselves as 'shia muslim'[1]. While those, who target and kill Hazaras in Pakistan, belong to different sunni[2] militant/terrorist groups (for example, taliban, lashkar-e-jhangvi[3], their affiliated groups and offshoots in Pakistan) as they consider all 'shia muslim' heretics and fair to be killed. Since Hazaras look different and easily recognizable from a typical Pakistani, they are easy targets for their terrorist activities.
> I wonder why more of them don't go to Tajikistan/Uzbekistan/Kyrgyzstan where they would fit in ethnically. Probably because the socio-economic conditions there are still pretty poor, and the majority of their (usually very large) families are in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran.
I think you are not very far off the mark in your assumption here. :)
---
[1] I'm a Hazara from Baluchistan, Pakistan.
[2] Btw, not all sunni muslims are extremist and after shia muslim. It's mostly follower of one particular sunni muslim sect (in Pakistan particularly): Deobandi ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deobandi)
Of course, life is hard and all that. Still, whenever two old foes sit down and agree on how to move forward, it's a good day for the world. Please keep supporting the "sane" elements.
If Iran can benefit economically from the removed sanctions then the quality of life will go up and hopefully override the hawkish sides that desire warring.
Iran is better off more like Japan/S. Korea/Israel in terms of commerce with us rather than shut down and sanctioned. This is also a boon for oil prices for consumers. The oil production also balances against Saudi/Russia power in the region.
Iranians are very great, smart, innovative people and they have lots to share and innovate in. It is saddening that sanctions have happened for so long when speaking about the good people there being overridden by extremes.
I just hope that the economic benefits overpower the hawks on either side via market solutions and shared quality of life increases.
It's extremely likely to pass. Since this isn't technically a "treaty", Congress can only pass a bill to disapprove of it [1]. Obama can then veto the disapproval, and there are enough Democrats to override the veto.
Congress must pass a bill to revoke the US sanctions, which is a separate act of legislation from assenting to this deal. There are several Executive Orders which Obama can revoke but the embargo proper is embedded in US legislation.
I'm in the middle of reading "Countdown to Zero Day", the book about Stuxnet. It contains a very good summary of how Iran started enriching Uranium, where they acquired the technology to build the centrifuges, and how most countries that signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons attempted to reason with Iran to stop enriching Uranium.
I highly recommend it for anyone interested in this topic. And of course the detailed analysis of Stuxnet is great as well.
That agreement put up seals and cameras on their existing reactor to prevent them from reprocessing without us knowing. When W Bush began laying his case to invade Iraq, NK saw that compliance with inspections wasn't a guarantee of safety so they broke the seals. Bush and the UN knew immediately and simply declined to act. Opting instead to pursue mythical WMDs in Iraq.
There is no universal healthcare in the U.S. There's a tax penalty if you don't buy insurance. There are subsidies for buying insurance, but no fundamental change unless higher premiums and higher taxes are considered fundamental change.
How can you claim universal healthcare, with 12% [1] of the population not covered by any form of health insurance?
The US system has very little in common with European style universal healthcare. To say nothing of the extreme cost most Americans still pay for their health insurance, or the bankruptcies that are still overwhelming in the system.
Universal healthcare that bankrupts millions of people? That's an inherently ridiculous premise.
The US system is just mandatory national insurance, which is also the model found in some European countries, for example Switzerland. Single-payer is not the only way to achieve universal healthcare, nor even the only way it's done in Europe.
Maybe it doesn't work as well, but that's down to the details, not because it's inherently different in how it works.
If you test positive for AIDS you can after the fact buy health insurance long before you need significant medical care. That implies a defacto basic level of coverage for long term chronic conditions which is by far the largest issue.
PS: As to the 11.9% figure, that does not include large numbers of people with significant access to health care that’s not based on insurance. EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White_Care_Act 'improve availability of care for low-income, uninsured and under-insured victims of AIDS and their families.'
The VA also provides a lot of free healthcare for people without insurance. Not to mention prisoners getting free healthcare.
If universal is not total, then we've always had universal healthcare. Oh, and you might want to inform all dictionaries they have the incorrect definition of universal.
The legislation signed by Obama is not universal healthcare in any sense. Maybe universal health insurance, but certainly not healthcare. Insurance does not make healthcare affordable.
Universal is all people. (x axis) Total as in covering all conditions. (y axis)
"Universal health care is not a one-size-fits-all concept and does not imply coverage for all people for everything." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care Note from that page: "The Swiss Healthcare system and US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are based on compulsory insurance."
PS: Hospitals are required to treat some life threating heath conditions like gunshot wounds without asking about payment. So, that also counts as a limited (some conditions) form of universal (all people) heath care.
Arguably, free speech would be universal but not total as there are limits on nonpolitical speech.
Edit: IMO, the implementation was terrible, but it's still a huge improvement.
It was his pen, that was his biggest contribution to it. His involvement in crafting the legislation, and getting the necessary votes, was almost non-existent. It was the super majority Democratic Congress that was responsible for making the ACA happen. Both in terms of wrangling the votes together, and reaching the countless compromises necessary to get it through by the slim margin it ultimately passed by.
You are focused on the mechanics of how it got passed. But it was clearly his major priority and wouldn't have happened without him being in office. So, I apologize, but your statement seems at best completely inaccurate to me
Hmmmm, Hillary tried to do the same thing a long time ago and failed. But more importantly, even if you are correct, that is totally irrelevant to whether or not Obama had anything to do with it.
> So Hillary couldn't or wouldn't have done the same thing?
Its obviously not demonstrable, but perhaps not; while the attacks that were thrown at the effort Clinton spearheaded as First Lady were largely unjustified, and since the style of plan both Clinton and Obama supported (of which the ACA is an instantiation) isn't much like the effort Clinton spearheaded (and is, in fact, more like what a number of insurers proposed in response to that), there were a lot of political negative associations with Clinton and healthcare that Obama didn't have.
> Personally, I think it would have sailed through much more easily had she been in office.
Anecdote here - I know people who used to be able to afford to go to the doctor, but now they are paying so much in premiums that they can't afford to pay the deductible (also significantly increased), so they don't go to the doctor anymore.
Obama didn't do that, and I don't think I would support ACA if it were universal healthcare.
ACA provides tax-deduction bonuses to people who purchase "high-deductable" plans to encourage people to actually _look_ at the bills they get from the doctor, instead of thinking "My Insurance pays for this anyway. I don't care".
That's... about it. Granted, these high-deductable plans have various standards (no preexisting conditions) on them, but at the end of the day, its a mechanism to attempt to bring the free market back into the health care system.
Health care remains broken, but at least it is more obvious to consumers now.
Have you read the Iran deal? The Iranians were happy about it, this it likely wasn't a good deal for the rest of us. The Iranians can't be trusted. If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution; instead those protestors were executed, tortured or imprisioned. Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup. Honestly, Obama doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to foreign policy. He sort of waddles along weakening the U.S. position whenever possible.
National stereotypes, pillars of pragmatic diplomacy ever since 2000 BC and the clear mark of logical thinkers the world over.
> If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution
How do you know he didn't? Because he didn't send in bombers to "support demonstrations"?
> Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup
... when the alternative would have been much more Iran-friendly; yeah, how strange, right? Honestly, how do you make these random mental associations?
> He sort of waddles along weakening the U.S. position whenever possible.
A comprehensive Iran-US 'peace deal' (or even a strategic partnership going forward) would immensely strengthen US standing around the world, dramatically reducing tensions in the Middle East and providing a balance to the uncritical reliance on Saudi Arabia and Turkey that so much pain has brought since the '90s (from Al Qaeda to IS). So uhm, there is that.
But yeah, I agree that it weakens fearmongers' positions, both in US, Israel and Iran.
In a country where US = "bad", public US support would have been hindrance, not help. We don't know what was going on behind the scenes. Note also that the de-facto sponsor was Rafsanjani, somebody a bit too skillful to "marry unconditionally".
Obama is not a saint (he relies on the same corporate interests and even the same personnel a Clinton would), but it's hard to fault him for his moves regarding Iran.
> US reliance on Turkey is just a strategic position against Russia.
It's a strategic position against everyone. Look at the map and tell me what other NATO bases you can use to dominate Middle-Eastern airspace if you lose Turkey (after having basically lost Saudi Arabia without gaining really-secure positions in Iraq and Afghanistan). Until we invent bombers with unlimited mileage, Turkey is a required ally in the region.
> You're a fool [...] Your blind faith is incredibly disturbing.
That's ironic, considering faith is the one thing I've always sorely lacked. But thanks for the name-calling.
> Look at the map and tell me what other NATO bases you can use to dominate Middle-Eastern airspace
I think this is precisely why there's been such a huge buildup of the airbase in Erbil. Granted, that wasn't a viable option a little while ago. It's going to be interesting watching the US try to pull the "roommate swap" between Turkey and the Kurds.
Revolution is almost always a bad thing for liberal democracy. See, e.g., the Arab Spring, the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Had those protestors been successful, there is a significant possibility would have been co-opted by elements that executed, tortured, and imprisoned a lot more people. See, e.g., the French Revolution.
Iran, in contrast, is well on its way to having a functional democracy. The power of the ayatollah wanes every year, and every new generation of young Iranians is more liberal than before. The best thing the U.S. can do is be friendly and wait for that to play out. Because if there is any hope for another democracy in the Middle East, it's in a place where people are already accustomed to the benefits of having a functioning government with significant and growing public participation.
Are the republicans really that dumb that if they see Iran telling their people "It is a great deal for us" they think they are telling them the truth.
Guess what, they have to spin deals to their public too.
I don't know if capitulating to theocratic regime in their attempts at nuclear proliferation (which will likely set off a regional nuclear arms race) is something to be proud of.
Well, since the US didn't capitulate and the regional nuclear arms race was already in progress I guess it goes back into the things to be proud of column; although, really the only ones who are upset with this deal are hardliners in Iran and Israel and the fact that they are upset is a stronger indicator that this is "a good thing"(tm) than any punditry we will hear over the next few weeks.
Frankly, the theocratic regime with attempts at nuclear proliferation we should be afraid of is Saudi Arabia. They'd likely buy bombs from Pakistan in short order if they decided they wanted one.
If Israel having nukes hasn't set off a nuclear arms race I'm really confused as to how Iran not having them is supposed to.
Not sure how this benefits the US at all. Iran reaps billions in frozen assets and the end to their oil embargo. Plus, the US caved on giving the Iranians a 14 day windows to prep for UN inspections which is more than enough time to cover up their non-compliance.
This is a huge win for the Iranians, not sure what we get out of it besides a shaky ally in the region who's never backed us up and essentially undermined everything we've attempted to do in the region.
As others have said, the US will get support in fighting ISIS. Also this will go a long way in building up relations with Iran in the hopes of one day counting them as a reliable ally.
Am i the only one amazed at the fact that we actually had to wait for iranians to accept to stop going toward nuclear weapons ?
I mean, why did EU and US insist so much on wanting a deal ? It seemed to be that one side has all the leverage in the negociation and the other has none. We could have simply waited for the iranian regime to get so weakened that they'd simply surrender and accept every measure.
So I don't understand what's the counterpart that the US and EU wanted from Iran, that could get Iran get leverage in the negociations. Anyone ?
Right now, there's a lot of bubbling neutral-to-pro-US sentiment in the younger, wealthier segments of Iran.
If we purposefully, wantonly destroy their economy without even negotiating, that disappears, and we turn potential allies into absolute enemies.
The level of currency devastation they've had since the beginning of these sanctions, and resulting unemployment, have already pushed their finances to the brink.
Normally "sane" countries (Germany, Italy, Russia WW1) that go over the brink economically tend to go batshit crazy, and put into power the worst elements from their society, and invest even more control in authoritarian hands.
I don't think anyone wants a regional power like Iran, controlling the wealth that it does with the military it has, to go bankrupt, and even worse elements to take power.
We may not like their government, but at least they're rational. ISIS shows there's far, far deeper levels of crazy just waiting to be unleashed.
TL;DR: Not being callously destructive of another country's economy, whilst negotiating in good faith, is in our national security interests.
"We may not like their government but at least they're rational"
Well, a theocracy is almost by definition not rational, in the modern sense. It's based on divine laws, obedience, and absolute faith on an ideology. Not logic, provability, and the scientific method.
Dealing with the iranian regime the same way you would deal with an occidental country is the greatest mistake i think.
Thinking "sure, they apply shariah, and believe islam is the only true religion, and that god leads them, but deep inside they know things aren't that simple" is applying your own logic to them ( and by them, i mean people with guns who are in power, not young iranians looking the web for Game of Thrones episodes).
> a theocracy is almost by definition not rational
Neither it is a monarchy; shall we embargo the Dutch, the Spanish and the Swedes next? As a UK taxpayer, I wholly support your ideas and hope you will accord the same distrust to British governments, removing your NATO bases at once and stopping NSA/GCHQ cooperation.
> Thinking "sure, they apply shariah, and believe islam is the only true religion, and that god leads them, but deep inside they know things aren't that simple" is applying your own logic to them
I grew up in Italy, where the same mindset applies with Catholicism, word by word (down to and including "people with guns"). Please go ahead and embargo them, it worked so well in the the '20s.
Accepting Iranian sovereignty over their own matters would be the first rational move US diplomacy produced in the current millennium.
You will find that Italian legislation on subjects like biological research and homosexual unions is dictated by Catholic positions. Even abortion is technically legal but increasingly unavailable, because in the last 30 years the Church adopted a clear policy of helping and promoting friendly medical students in exchange for "conscience objection" when they are supposed to deliver the procedure. The Pope's economic power has been significantly reduced in recent years (the entire country is stagnating) but until the '90s he could influence local politics over large swaths of the country, and basically held unofficial veto powers over the nomination of the local equivalent of Prime Ministers. And I could go on...
Also, look up the "black spider memos" for recent examples of royal influence in UK matters, or the Duchy of Cornwall situation, or the status of land ownership records in Scotland. I expect every European monarchy will have its "quirks" and its "red lines" determining who is really in charge, but it's a fact that aristocracy still holds a certain degree of power without any real justification to do so.
Regarding Iranian authorities, I know they have their problems; however, a lot of executive power resides with elected figures, and the Green Revolution proved that fixing elections is becoming increasingly difficult. The old guard of fanatics is slowly dying, and their anointed successors are very unpopular. Removing sanctions will bolster those sectors closest to real economic activity and reduce the influence of hardliners. This is true for the other side as well: as memories of the Revolution fade, old grudges start to look increasingly irrelevant to generations who didn't witness them. This is similar to what is happening with Cuba, with the additional bonus that Iran is a much more relevant key player in the most critical region.
Democracy don't inherently have any of the traits you flag as rational either. Democracies tend to be based on a constitution which are generally as hard as divine laws to change, require obedience (does it really matter if God or the judge/police hands out the punishment) and absolute faith on an ideology (democracy).
Nothing about democracy is provability optimal, and North American democratic discourse spirals away from logic and scientific method based thinking every day.
Your point that it would be a mistake to approach them exactly as another western democracy is absolutely valid, but it would be mistake to swing too far to the other side. Iran is more like us than the majority of powers in the region.
Iran is not as theocratic as Saudi Arabia or other Mid-Eastern states. The ayatollah is a religious dictator, yes, but the civil government is more powerful in Iran than in many of its neighbors.
From what I read, it sounded like the Green Revolution ended with what amounted to a military coup, and the military holds far more of the cards than they did beforehand.
That's just a casual, amateur take, though. I'm sure there's folks here who have a more detailed opinion.
> Thinking "sure, they apply shariah, and believe islam is the only true religion, and that god leads them, but deep inside they know things aren't that simple" is applying your own logic to them
Oh, I think I misunderstood your wording. But in reality, the theocracy in Iran doesn't hold absolute power.. there is some semblance of a democracy and at the end of the day the government does face the scrutiny of its people and the international community, just like every other nation.. saying they are completely devoid of logic is just foolish.
My main point is regarding matters of life and death. You can't be sure how someone who truely sincerely believe he's going to heaven for spreading islam via murder is going to handle nuclear power.
The Iranians (along with the Kurds) are the only ones stopping ISIS in the middle east.
I doubt the US really wants to get more involved with troops on the ground (yet again) see as how well that has turned out at every attempt in the last 20 years.
With the easing of sanctions, expect to see better cooperation - probably through intermediaries admittedly or Iran taking the fight to ISIS, stopping their progress.
I don't understand why there were negociation at all. Usually, with such crucial matters, threatening the world peace, there is no discussion. The strongest simply impose its decision.
Eu&us: stop or you'll get destroyed ( militarely or economically). Iran : ok.
I don't see how it went any other way. The only reason i could imagine was if other big countries ( russia and china mainly) were saying " we disagree".
But in that case negociations wouldn't need to be with iran, but directly with china or russia.
Be sure that if they had a chance with military offensive they would have done it (Israel/US). Like what Israel did with Iraqi and Syrian facilitates. Due to nature of Iran spread facilities, it is extremely difficult to destroy Iran's program with an air strike unless there are boots on the ground and occupation which is clearly not an option. According to best estimates it would only delay the program by one year with the outcome that Iran will actually quit NPT. Moreover, an attack would unite all Iranian to support the government. So in any case, this approach is not going to be toward the objective.
It is also partly wrong to think that sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table, Iran has always been negotiating. In fact, most of the development of enrichment was done during UN sanction. Sure, people and economy suffered but again the objective was not the collective punishment it was to reduce Iran program which did not work. What caused Iran to accept to limit its program was the fact that the US accepted peaceful program and research nuclear capabilities which is a matter of pride and recognition.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
However, I totally agree with you if your approach is to create another North Korea.
Presumably it's an issue of national sovereignty - it is their country, and they are broadly able to do any activities on their land as they see fit, just as the EU and US have seen fit to develop nuclear weapons.
Presumably the alternative is to threaten to invade or impose economic sanctions, but that doesn't seem to me like the beginning of a productive conversation. If anything it might increase the urgency of getting weapons, of any type, to be taken seriously.
North korea is what scares me, because the path seems exactly similar to iran's one. Half-baked embargo , fear of sending soldier or bombing nuclear infrstructures, followed by half-backed agreements, leading to a country lead by insane dictator with nuclear bombs.
Only north korea had china to protect it, whereas iran has (to my knowledge) nobody wanting to risk anything for it.
There's an article in the May issue of Monocle about the luxury fashion market in Iran. There's a vibrantly growing middle class and a surge of interest in luxury clothing and goods. However due to politics, major brands are kept out, and the stock is seasons behind and has to come through non official channels.
I can imagine business interests looking at the huge middle class market in Iran and putting pressure on governments to change the approach and open up the market to the west.
1. Iran is now geopolitically stronger than it was before Iraq and Afghan wars. It won just by giving only minimal assistance to it's allies. Iraq is now Iran's ally.
2. Other countries are moving ahead. Approximately 10% of China's oil imports are from Iran. 11% of of India's oil comes from Iran. Iran is selling long term exclusive rights to China.
So you punish an entire group of people by weakening their economy until their government does what an external entity wants them to do?. Seems quite a violent approach.
Every country has a right to forbid business relations with another country due to its government's policy. As an Israeli I think the boycott on Israel is a legitimate way to try influencing our policies even though the boycott hurts me as a citizen that oppose the occupation. You pay a price for having a dumb government.
Just to clarify: I'm all for the deal with Iran, hoping for a better future for the Iranians.
That's only justified because trying to get a nuclear weapon has an impact on everyone's peace.
Especially for a country that's been at war with its neighbours for the last 50 years at least, in a chaotic region filled with international terrorists groups and active war zones right at the moment.
Please list all wars initiated by Iran during the last 50 years. As that will probably not take too long, maybe you can also tell us with which neighbours Iran has been at war during the last 50 years.
In the past year, Iraq and Syria. Possibly Palestine/Israel, Yemen, and Afghanistan, depending on your definitions. Beyond that, I know they did do the Iraq-Iran war several years back, and I think they were involved in the Lebanese civil war as well.
I don't actually consider myself a particularly knowledgeable individual when it comes to Middle Eastern history. But when people say things like this, they usually include all the marginal entries the US is involved in while ignoring all of the marginal entries other countries, presumably mostly out of ignorance. Particularly if you include "little" conflicts, you'll find that most countries spend most of their time in armed conflict with somebody, and the US isn't particularly abnormal in this regard.
Why down vote? It fits the EXACT criteria outlined by the GP?
I'd be interested to hear a rational argument for why it's okay for Israel to pursue nuclear weapons but not a neighbouring county? (Please don't resort to some quote about Iran hating Israel, as Israel have said equally extreme things as well).
show me a high ranking Israeli that says that the entire Iranian nation should be wiped off the map. I can find many quotes of people like shimon Peres that call the Iranian people friends and that Israel wishes no hostility with Iran. on the other side the highest ranking Iranian officials repeatedly call for the total annihilation of the 'Zionist entity' which is Israel.
Your claim that the situation symmetric in this respect is just false.
further more there is a huge geographical difference between Israel and iran. the entire area of Israel can be conquered in a day. its tiny compared to Iran, checkout the maps. Combine that with the extremely aggressive rhetorics of israels neighbours that don't even consider Israel as enemy but as an evil entity that should be "wiped off the map" and you might understand Israel's need for a strategic weapon.
on the contrary Iran doesn't have any viable enemies that seek to literally destroy it. The only people who need a nuclear weapon in Iran are the leaders of the theocratic regime inorder to cement their rule. this is more similiar to the nuclear ambitions of north Korean leaders.
in short, the situation of the two countries is far from being symmetric due to huge geopolitical differences.
funny that your response was exactly what i cautioned against.
Japan actually invaded half the world, they have nuclear technology and capability to produce weapons. Same as Germany, Russia, and of course the US. You have countries like Pakistan that is a known host to "terrorists", and India that have them. Why is there a special club?
Iran have violent "rhetoric". What violence against israel has Iran actually perpetrated? The israel situation is a controversial one, and there have been threats, and wars. But Israel has generally been the more aggressive one, and always because they are facing "total annihilation" (for fifty+ years, in which their borders have increased rather than decreased)...
Didn't downvote, but since someone asked : Israel is the target of said terrorists group and hostility, not the initiator or sponsor (like Iran). That's why it's an ally and not an opponent.
I really didn't think i'd ever have to make such obvious statements.
I don't think that Iran has ever invaded another country in modern history, right?
I must admit some bias here: I am a U.S. Citizen and I firmly believe that better relations with Iran are in my country's best interest. I am biased in my country's best interest!
I really wonder what advantage you think iran will bring to the US. Unless you think that radical islamism is a good ideology to spread around the world, and that the shariah may be a good basis for civil laws, because that's certainly where all the oil dollars earned by iran are going in the coming years ( just like saudi arabia spread its vision of islam in the past 30 years).
Right now, there are many young Iranians who are neutral or slightly pro-USA (they are too young to remember that we helped overthrown their democratically elected premier in the 1950s and installed the Shaw of Iran - we rememebr how that turned out for the Iranian people).
So, yes some risk, but for the USA I think the risk is very worthwhile.
Well, Iran has being saying for years that they aren't working towards nuclear weapons, so there's no obvious change there.
(No idea if they are lying or not; there's been no clear 'smoking gun' evidence proving them wrong, just lots of potential 'dual use' nuclear research that could be for legitimate nuclear development or otherwise...)
You have to realize that Iran is threatened by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. I won't be surprised when they break this deal and have their own nuclear weapons.
As with most nation-states, the Iranian ruling regime is threatened mostly by its own subjects/citizens. As long as their eyes point outward, they won't as easily see the corruption going on behind their backs.
The biggest actual external threat to Iran is the US becoming a net oil exporter.
Are you ignorant? or being willingly obtuse? Between the US and Iran, one of these countries supported a successful overthrow of the other country's democratically elected government. I'll let you figure out which country was the aggressor in that situation and then we can reconsider why Iran feels threatened by the US and its allies.
Are you talking about CIA games dating back to something like 70 years ago, during the cold war, to fight against USSR influence ?
I don't think it's that relevant, unless you're willing to accept every pretext told by Iran.
The first consequence of having the nuclear bomb would not be for the Iran/US relationship, it will be local for the region. It'll mean that Iran will have an even bigger local military influence, knowing that no one will be able to attack them on their territory. Aka a highway to a full war between shiites and sunnites (which are probably starting their own nuclear program right at the moment).
Hearing the declaration of Iranien leader with respect to their neighbors, and seeing what's happening right now in Yemen, i wouldn't be surprised to see a new country vs country war coming in the next 5 years.
Well, it's not as if the CIA participated in the coup in Iran, had a change of heart, and decided to change its ways. Quite the opposite! The CIA has shown a continued willingness to intervene and overthrow regimes that don't toe the line. Here's a list you might be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_r...
Notice the last item on the list: Bush authorized the CIA to carry out operations aimed at destabilizing the government of Iran. So, yeah...Iran's probably not crazy to be worried about US aggression.
Not only that, but remember when Bush called out the "Axis of Evil"? Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Of those three, one had nuclear weapons at the time, one was in the process of developing them, and one had disassembled its WMD programs under UN supervision. Since then, one of those three has been invaded by the US, one has only received sanctions from the US, and one has received food and fuel aid from the US.
I think the axis of evil was designated after 9/11 ( world's biggest terrorist act) and both Iran and Iraq rejoiced, after having spread anti-american ideology in their countries and outside for decades, while commiting terrorist actions for decades throughout the world. It didn't come from nowhere.
Now, to answer the question of why is usa being called the great evil by the iranian regime ( and not why you would find it logical) you simply have to listen to their spiritual leaders : they just hate western values, period. They think our sexual and political behaviors makes us close to the devil.
And that, unfortunately, is not going to change anytime soon.
Israel (whose own illicit nuclear program is far more advanced than Iran's, let's not forget) is widely acknowledged to have assassinated Iranian scientists, no? That goes beyond threats.
Don't know about chronologically, but: Between the US and Iran, one country regularly has large groups in the streets, chanting about death to the other country. Which way does that flow, again?
Lack of access to military sites could be a reason this deal fails as the agreement provides stipulation for inspectors to press for military locations although the access is not guaranteed.
On the key point of low enriched Uranium, here's the text from the agreement:
> During the 15 year period, and as Iran gradually moves to meet international qualification standards for nuclear fuel produced in Iran, it will keep its uranium stockpile under 300 kg of up to 3.67% enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) or the equivalent in other chemical forms. The excess quantities are to be sold based on international prices and delivered to the international buyer in return for natural uranium delivered to Iran, or are to be down-blended to natural uranium level. Enriched uranium in fabricated fuel assemblies from Russia or other sources for use in Iran's nuclear reactors will not be counted against the above stated 300 kg UF6 stockpile, if the criteria set out in Annex I are met with regard to other sources. The Joint Commission will support assistance to Iran, including through IAEA technical cooperation as appropriate, in meeting international qualification standards for nuclear fuel produced in Iran. All remaining uranium oxide enriched to between 5% and 20% will be fabricated into fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). Any additional fuel needed for the TRR will be made available to Iran at international market prices.
That would seem to add 2 months to the breakout time. i.e. It would be 5 to 6 months based on Kuperman's reckoning (as opposed to Obama's claimed 12 months). Whether they can divert or reconstitute some of the 20% material during or after fuel conversion is unclear. Some scenarios are discussed here:
If there's one thing we learned from the invasion of Iraq, it's that access for inspections doesn't matter. Iraq complied, the UN reports all indicated that there were no WMDs, the people who wanted to invade just made up some nonsense bullshit anyway.
Hans Blix, Jan 2003: "...access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect... cooperated rather well".
Iran just watched a neighbour get invaded and seriously screwed over for basically no reason. Access for inspections is irrelevant.
Access most certainly matters, we wouldn't have made that mistake with Iraq had we had reliable access.
If you recall, one of the "smoking guns" that the administration used to move into Iraq were intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi Republican Guard members.
Those conversations mentioned "hiding" something before the inspectors got to a site. Since Iraq (like Iran) was allowed a few days before any visit, it was believed at the time that they were shifting materials whenever the inspectors came. I recall even liberal media organizations poking fun at the inspectors -- about how they were playing a game of chase with the Iraqis.
Had no such rule been in place, they could have moved that day to inspect the site, and would have realized there was nothing to be found.
Hans Blix also said, in December 2012, (from wikipedia:)
that the Iraqi weapons declaration filed on December 7 "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997, and that it "is not enough to create confidence" that Iraq has abandoned its WMD efforts. So the US was not alone in that position.
and
Hans Blix states that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation. Specifically, Iraq has refused to destroy its al-Samoud 2 long range missiles. (These are not a WMD, and Iraq is permitted "battlefield" missiles. However, Iraq's missiles were limited by UN instruction to a diameter of 600mm, and the Al-Samoud II has a diameter of 760mm). These missiles are deployed and mobile. Also, an R-400 aerial bomb was found that could possibly contain biological agents. Given this find, the UN Inspectors have requested access to the Al-Aziziyah weapons range to verify that all 155 R-400 bombs can be accounted for and proven destroyed. Blix also expresses skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said
Not forgetting the US uncessingly trying to undermine the weapon inspections to their own end, according to Blix [1]
Before Blix was sent in, again the cover of "International" weapons inspection (note, not US inspections) were subverted by the US spying and constant attempts to discredit the results if they were wrong (wrong as in not the US version of events) [2]
[1] Blix didn't say the US "uncessingly" tried to undermine the inspectors. He said that he believed there had been a single leak from someone in the US Government about Blix's failure to report two weapons, and was unable to say who did it -- "Also disturbing, he said, was the question of who was responsible for the falsification."
It's messier even than that. Iraq didn't have WMDs, but they wanted their neighbors to think that they did. But they wanted the inspectors to think that they didn't. So they couldn't have the inspections be unambiguously clear that Iraq had nothing, because then Iraq's neighbors wouldn't fear Iraq as much. So they tried to play this game of doubt, and the US reached the conclusion that Iraq wanted its neighbors to reach.
The bullshit made up nonsense about mobile WMD factories? Yes. I recall that the thinking was that there were entire convoys of these driving around in deserts somewhere. They had to exist, right, because that explains why we can't find the WMDs.
The decision had been made. Access was irrelevant because the invasion was going to happen anyway. Any number of "smoking guns" could have been found, or just plain fabricated as necessary.
Just about everyone thought there were WMDs. The decision had been made, yes, but because we thought there were hidden caches and moving caches that the weapons inspectors were ill-equipped to find, and Saddam was comfortable with everyone (Iran especially) believing that.
(I mean, people are still digging up 1980s-era WMDs in Iraq. They're pretty easy to hide, they're not large. It wasn't an insane thing to believe.)
Saddam just made a bad bet when he thought we would go back to inspections the last time, he had played his little good guy/bad guy game too long.
And in the end, good riddance, we should have taken him out WMDs or not -- the problem wasn't an invasion in Iraq, but a poorly planned invasion in Iraq.
That is just plain not true. Loud voices shouted over and over that it was true, it was true, here's a bullshit report we made up, believe us believe us. That's not the same as just about everyone.
I read the UN inspection summary myself. It was pretty clear that there was no decent evidence of WMDs (barring some leftover materials from the discontinued productions), or a continuing program to make them. Many of the intelligence people involved agreed. That we were lied to very loudly doesn't mean everyone thought it was true. There was a predetermined agenda; justify an invasion. Make up whatever bullshit we have to. You've got this "curveball" guy making up nonsense bullshit stories that no intelligence analyst in his right mind would believe? Just order the intelligence guys to shut up and get on with invading.
And in the end, good riddance, we should have taken him out WMDs or not -- the problem wasn't an invasion in Iraq, but a poorly planned invasion in Iraq.
Why should we have taken him out? We did it, and it made things worse. A lot, lot worse. How can you possibly, with the benefit of hindsight, maintain that invading Iraq was a good thing to do? Have you seen the state of the place now?
I'm not saying the war was free, no war is. Iraq took 116,000 people.
That being said, that number could have been much lower had the initial surge been stronger.
And we knew that Hussein was willing to risk great civilian casualties. We had seen 800,000 deaths as the result of his war with Iran, an estimated half a million killed by his secret police, 180,000 kurds, and so on.
What's more, his policies bankrupted the country, putting many into poverty.
Iraq has now seen a 600% increase in nominal GDP. They now have a national government with representatives from Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish groups. There is now twice as much electricity produced in their country. Graduation rates are up from 50% to 80% of students. The long-term benefits will be significant.
Source? I've seen the opposite, that the IAEA and others will have unfettered access wherever they want, otherwise the sanctions come back into effect immediately.
The big difference being that Iraq had started a war (violated UN rules) and so was bound to the treaty while Iran has not violated UN rules and "volunteers" to this treaty.
I'm pleased to hear this news and I think it's a good thing. However I do think that if Iran and the USA are re-establishing relations then the USA should apologize for killing 290 civilians by shooting down a passenger jet. I don't think I can really think highly of a country that could do such a thing without apologizing.
>(besides Israel, obviously)
Out of interest, why obviously? The unfaltering support given to Israel seems strange (to most outside of the US who I have spoken to).
Israel has it's religious fundamentalists (just like the rest of the region).
Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other countries to at least abstain from votes), has actual developed the nuclear bomb, is destabilising to the region, discusses attacking their neighbours (sorry not attacking - pre-emptive...
Yet this is never questioned, nor discussed from what I can tell. They are "the good guys" so the rules are different for them.
> Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other countries to at least abstain from votes),
Israel is our ally not because they're the "good guys" but because they share, and can help spread, our basic values about democratic government. You can have militarily aggressive democracies (e.g. the Roman Republic). Democracy is not a matter of being the "good guy" or the "bad guy" but a matter of how people relate to each other and the government.
... because a large number of donors to the Republican (and Democratic) parties are wealthy Jewish folk. And we know that in the US, money talks when it comes to policy.
While the partition plan was ostensibly created by the UN, it was more or less completely designed and pushed through by the US. Israel, for all intents and purposes, is a US created state. Not only would the failure of Israel leave a huge black eye on US foreign policy, but Israel is also one of our most publicized allies. If we were to allow Israel to be overrun by an Arab consortium we would have zero soft power left when trying to convince states in hostile areas to side with us. We've doubled down on Israel so much in the past we've essentially backed ourselves into a corner, a corner that was tightened significantly when we lost "control" of Iran in '79. Israel is also the most heavily armed nuclear power in the middle east, and has one of the most advanced militaries in the world (although that's mostly thanks to us). That is why we continue to support Israel.
I'm not saying these are good reasons, but they're at least actual reasons as opposed to the politicized tripe that's in your linked articles.
is it fair to say that Israel was created as sort of a proxy to impose cold war ideology on the Middle East to counter Soviet Union cozying up and supply arms to the rest of hte middle east?
No, it's not fair to say that. Israel was created as the result of jews struggling for around 70 years to found a homeland. They deemed a homeland necessary in the light of a couple of thousand years of murderous persecution they have faced pretty much anywhere they have lived (especially Europe and the Middle East).
The creation of Israel is pretty much nothing to do with the US.
> No, it's not fair to say that. Israel was created as the result of jews struggling for around 70 years to found a homeland.
Why did the Palestenians have to pay the price and get kicked out of their homes then? If anything, Germany should have offered them a home given what the Nazi regime did to them.
Well that's a separate question which I don't have a complete answer for, but I will note that the number of displaced people at the formation of Israel is not particularly notable given the sizes of population transfers that happened around that time for the formation, or reformation, of nation states.
That makes it right then? What about the number of people killed since that time? And the complete destabilization and polarization of the region due to what happened?
This is very much off-topic, but briefly: Iraq vs ISIS vs Assad vs Al Nusra vs Hezbollah has absolutely nothing to do with Israel. Qadafi, Saddam and Khomenei had absolutely nothing to do with Israel. The destabilization and polarization of the Middle East has nothing to do with Israel. If anything, Israel unites the arabs in hatred against it.
I agree to some extent. At the same time though, ISIS and AlNusra arose because Iraq was invaded and their government destroyed, and the existence of Israel played a big role in facilitating that. The US had to step in to defend its ally in the region.
Look today at how everyone wants to stop the Iranian (and previously, the Iraqi) regime from acquiring nuclear arms, whereas North Korea is getting away with whatever they want. Even though their government is arguably much, much worse in practically every front than the Iranian and Iraqi regimes.
And yet the President of the United States (and a member of the Democratic Party) just negotiated a deal entirely without the help of the Israel, in fact with a lot of hand-wringing and public protest from Israel and its leadership, a deal which Israel is very publicly angry about despite it being arguably in their self-interest to defuse tension within the Middle East.
Doesn't seem so much like we're in the pocket of Israel, at least not anymore.
Most of the _politicians_ in this country give undue importance to Israel. cf, Hillary's recent statement that she'll be better for Israel. They seem to fall over themselves to out-hawk the hawkish Israelis.
As far as the Iran deal is concerned: many top Israelis are actually in favor of this deal. See:
Yes. When I say "us" and "Israel" I'm referring to politicians who make up the leadership of both countries, and therefore are in the position to make decisions on behalf of both countries. I do not mean to generalize about the many diverse viewpoints that the people of both countries hold.
>> "despite it being arguably in [Israel's] best self-interest to defuse tension within the Middle East."
Israel and its backers don't like the Iran deal because it enables the Islamic Republic to gain nuclear weapons, which its powerful religious leaders hope to use on Israel.
And history has taught Jews to take threats to our existence seriously.
Hm. So you're saying that a state disregarding tens of UN resolutions, that is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that periodically massacres thousands of civilians, that faces mounting accusations of being an apartheid regime, that keeps creating civilian settlements in an occupied territory, that has secret nuclear weapons, that incarcerates people without accusation or trial - this state "shares and can help spread our basic values about democratic government".
Good luck with that! You couldn't have given a better explanation for the rise of fundamentalism and terrorism in the ME.
Yes, Democracy has nothing to do with how a country uses its military power to further its interests, or how a country cooperates or does not within an international framework. Arguably, a country that ignores resolutions of unelected bodies like the UN in response to the popular will is more democratic, not less.
Historically the US has done all of that. Remember, we developed nuclear weapons and are the only country that has actually used them in warfare.
We have also developed and used biological and chemical weapons. Hell, for a recent example after signing a convention banning using laser weapons to blind people we got rid of our prototype laser weapons to blind people.
That's actually exactly why US and Israel make great allies. Both have great interest in aggressive imperialist foreign policies with little international oversight. I think the best chance of the US breaking away from Israel internationally is to change foreign policy in the US, versus specifically targeting Israel.
Edit: I'd like to add that I am not trying to make value judgements here. I'm not arguing that either the US or Israel foreign policy is bad or good, just very similar.
Really, I think they're our ally because we guarantee their security and they function as a counterbalance to other nations int he region which might more naturally align with Russia.
Israel is democratic but I feel only about 10% more than Iran. I'm really not sure how well they promulgate our basic values about democracy, or to the extent that they do, whether those basic values are good ones - one could view democracy in both countries as being a figleaf for militarist expansionism, for example. I feel it's more informative to look on our relationship with Israel from a pragmatic rather than an idealist perspective.
That said, both Israel and Iran have a great deal more in common with the US than a country like Saudi Arabia does. I continue to wonder how long we can thread that particular needle.
> The unfaltering support given to Israel seems strange
There's nothing strange about it. Yes, it is militarily aggressive and has to be considering the neighborhood.
The support given is purely selfish as Israel is the only nation in the region which mirrors the values the US wishes to promote in the region, provides military support when needed, and a plethora of other various benefits which none of the other players in the region are able to provide.
As far as the "strangeness" is concerned, with rampant antisemitism in Europe, I supposed it would look strange when that hobby isn't shared elsewhere?
> The support given is purely selfish as Israel is the only nation in the region which mirrors the values the US wishes to promote
Call me cynical but I think it has more to do with the million of dollars that an organisation like AIPAC contribute to American politicians than that the same values are in play.
>> with rampant antisemitism in Europe
The problem is that any criticism on Israel is automatically classified as antisemitic. Have something to say about the illegal settlements ? It's antisemitic. Say something about the constant war mongering ? It's antisemitic. Don't like netanyahu wardrobe? antisemitic.
You have jewish organisations literal stating that any criticism against the state of Israel is automatically antisemitic of nature. In those circumstances it isn't that difficult to have "rampant antisemitism" in Europe.
Some – not all – take it also extremely far. I remember a couple of years ago there was a big uproar here in Belgium because a cooking show was presenting Hitlers favorite dish, a trout. You guessed it...the show was suddenly antisemitic.
When I was younger a surviver of the holocaust visited my class to speak about the things he have witnessed and the hardship he encountered. He talked about how we should value peace and our freedom. 20 years later I still remember his testimony as it had a big positive impact on my life. I honestly don't think he had these things in mind.
It sickens me how antisemitism or the WW2 atrocities are abused sometimes just to have no healthy discussion.
Both Arabs and the tribes of Israel are Semitic people.
I think you mean anti-Israeli. One can be opposed to the actions and policies of a state without referencing its inhabitants or their religious notions.
No, I think I mean anti-Jew. I don't think they care where the Jew comes from.
> One can be opposed to the actions and policies of a state without referencing its inhabitants or their religious notions.
Absolutely.
But when those same actions and policies are undertaken by numerous other regimes in the region to a far worse degree and those same actions and policies are not criticized when coming from those other regimes ... one must wonder what motivates those pointing the finger.
Seriously, few people are critical of people in other countries but many people are properly critical of governments. There are dozens of governments around the world that I disapprove of, but I wish blessings and a good life to the people in those countries.
Because Israel isn't escalating this at all with the palestine conflict...
Netanyahu is a warmongerer that keeps the conflict alive, because it serves his interests, in increasing antisemitism, resulting in jews feeling increasingly threatened, and starts to consider relocation to Israel, increasing support for Netanyahu.
To be fair, this is not all the Israel government's fault.
USA defense contractors make a ton of money, that originates with the U.S. tax payer, by selling weapon systems to Israel. Powerful economic interests in the USA want the unfortunate situation in that area to continue. There is a lot of money to be made in war, unfortunately.
Jews don't feel threatened because of netanyahu, but because of antisemites ( this word has an historical meaning, which is why i'm using it).
And unfortunately, antisemitism doesn't take its root in the palestinian conflict, but in religious books ( both christian and muslims). Which are much older than Israel, and won't change no matter the number of square kilometers of the palestinian state.
> Yes, it is militarily aggressive and has to be considering the neighborhood.
Citation needed. If we grant Israel its claimed borders, it has only ever witnessed domestic terrorism, never territorial aggression from neighboring states.
Of course it has experienced territorial aggression from its neighbours. Israel has fought three wars against its total annihilation in its 70 years of existence. If the arabs had won one of those wars there wouldn't be an Israel anymore.
rampant bullshit. The only antisemitism in Europe is that which is cried out loud by Israelis and Jewish lobbies every time Israel's actions are criticized. It's frankly sickening.
Oooh, the guy walked with a kippah on his head through the muslim quarters of Paris for 10 hours, and what he got? A few mocking comments from the racaille, and a "Vive Palestine!". That's really a Kristallnacht situation here. Given what Israel is doing in Palestine, I'd have expected more.
You might want to repeat the exercise in one of the black quarters of New York, with a white guy walking alone through them for 10 hours, and check the level of dangerous anti-caucasianism in the USA. Much higher, I suspect.
That was a terrorist attack, not racism. I'd never say that in the US there is a rampant racism just because a teenager went to a church full of black people and opened fire on them. That would add insult to injury. The whole France has been victim of that terrorist attack, just as the whole USA was victim of the Charleston shooting.
Terrorism, eh? Ok. Well, here's a comprehensive list of "terrorism" against Jews in Europe from the beginning of civilization until today, with a special focus on recent events:
It is. The vast majority of the recent events described in that page are either of political nature and directed towards Israel (a random one: "In January 2009, group of members of ruling Social Democrats (former Communists party) demanded a boycott of Israeli products because of the Gaza war") or completely trivial (some teenager writing something against Jews on a wall) or simply imaginary ("In 1998, Ignatz Bubis said that Jews could not live freely in Germany.") [pffft].
The fact is, Europeans are much stronger critics of Israel's actions than Americans are. And for very good reasons. The rhetoric of the supporters of Israel is to delegitimize political criticism labelling it as racism. That's why that WP page you just linked is full of trivial events, mixed with political statements, mixed with unverifiable opinion polls that purport to demonstrate that Europeans are evil racists. I'm sick of this bullshit.
Oh that's cute, so when Jews are killed it's terrorism, but when they're not, it's trivial?
Europe used to have a population of Jews numbering in the millions. You killed most of them off and chased the rest out.
But oh, how you've changed!
> The fact is, Europeans are much stronger critics of Israel's actions than Americans are.
What I find fascinating is that Israel's neighbors are guilty of far, far worse. But people like you ignore the slaughter in Syria, the suppression in Egypt, and all the other crazy that happens in virtually every country in the Middle East ... and point your finger at ... Israel.
I don't see you ranting and raving about any other country in the Middle East, guilty of far worse ... only Israel.
It wouldn't be because you're an "evil racist" would it?
To be honest I find your idiotic remark disrespectful. I live in a country that suffered a lot under two world wars. While I certainly acknowledge that jewish people suffered a lot it certainly wasn't the case that the rest was living a trouble free life. I know from my grandfather that in my family there was also a cost regarding lost lives.
And them I'm ignoring the fact how you could make me personally responsible for something that happened 40 years before I even was born and even in another country.
>> But people like you ignore the slaughter in Syria, the suppression in Egypt, and all the other crazy that happens in virtually every country in the Middle East
ALL events where people suffer are critiqued that is even the fact for normal Israeli-an people that suffer from terroristic actions. We are critiques of any form om terrorism being religious or state terrorism.
But it is not that because middle eastern countries are doing despicable stuff that Israel should get a free pass. While you can't be blind for those thing that is also the case for the illegal settlements, the "collective punishment" mantra, the constant war mongering, etc.
>> It wouldn't be because you're an "evil racist" would it?
There seems to be only one clearly uninformed bigot... .
Haha, haven't been around many black people eh? I've lived in and walked around in many black neighbourhoods, and I have never had any bad experiences.
What an utter bunch of nonsense. Israel's military takes the most care to protect civilian lives of any military, probably any military ever in history. But if you want to castigate Israel for responding at all to rocket attacks on its civilians then please go ahead and do so.
>Giving Mullahs access to create nuclear weapons. Taking their word for it that they won't.
The whole point of the deal is to NOT LET THEM create nuclear weapons. No one is taking anyone's word, there is a verification regime that will be imposed and executed by the IAEA, which is as good as any entity that exists today at detecting illicit nuclear activity.
>Just yesterday their Iranian proxies in Baghdad were burning American and Israeli flags. Vowing to destroy The Great Satan(s), why do we downplay that?
No one is downplaying that. Iran is an adversary of the US and adversaries do nasty things to each other. Diplomacy is how you get your adversaries to be a little less adversarial, and stop doing those nasty things.
>I simply just loooooove how (western) leftists are so accepting of this.
Why do you assume it's only "leftists" that are in favor?
>But killing apostates, hanging "sodomites", that's all good.
Kissinger, hardly a leftist, said "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests." Yeah some elements of Iran are nasty but we don't have to be besties. We want things from them, they want things from us, neither can wish the other into non-existence, so we hold or nose and act like grownups.
> I simply just loooooove how (western) leftists are so accepting of this. You shit yourself when Christians don't want to bake cakes. But killing apostates, hanging "sodomites", that's all good.
My God, why didn't Roosevelt and Churchill think of giving billions in relief to the Third Reich. That would have solved everything. Chamberlain was a forgotten hero!
They would have, but they gave it to the Soviets instead.
Soviet sent 8,668,400 of their own to the grave for that. That should cover it, not that I am condoning the totalitarian communist regime. There weren't better alternatives back then. There are now.
There are plenty of countries in the world that have questionable human rights records. Many of whom the "West" has quite strong relationships with e.g. China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia.
Putting a blindfold on and pretending you can just contain or ignore certain countries has failed as a strategy and will continue to fail. So unless you want to do something about Iran militarily (not feasible) then you are looking at diplomacy.
You're right. Israel has such a questionable human rights record that it has been condemned more by the UNHRC than all other countries combined[1]. That UNHRC currently contains such paragons as Saudi Arabia, China and Cuba.
What? We can kick pretty much any country's ass six ways from Sunday. We admittedly have trouble with having the political fortitude to fully break our adversary's will to fight back, but I think that is a systemic issue with a faster flow of information (starting with Vietnam). It's not necessarily a US-specific problem, and it certainly doesn't mean the US is not "good at war".
While we can agree to disagree on the feasibility of a military solution, I can assure you that it's the threat of that possibility that drives diplomacy. Diplomacy without the threat of war to back it is more akin to begging than anything else.
It's the way things are. You have to subdue the opposing side completely, or the war never ends. Doing this means essentially beating them mercilessly until they have no choice to fully capitulate. It's not that we lack the capability, it's that soccer moms don't want to see that shit on CNN. War is an ugly business, and we seem to have lost our stomach for it. Time will tell if it is to our benefit or determent.
Well, ask the soviets how it worked out for them. I'm sorry, but your military is nowhere near as badass when it comes to subduction and ruthlessness. And the soviets failed spectacularly.
Oh really, so those Iraqi franc-tireurs and IEDs were just simulations then then? Maybe Baudrillard is still alive....winning a war involves having an endgame in line with victory objectives, and the US can't rule over countries that don't have a coherent political structure in place to dicker over costs and benefits upon exit.
