In the case of Iran there is another complexity that has to be overcome and that is the GOP and Israeli opposition to this deal.
6
The question is not whether we can trust Iran, but whether Iran can trust us. I am unaware that Iran ever engineered and carried out a coup that removed our freely elected and popular leader leader and replaced him with someone who ended up torturing his opponents.
7
Iran has a long history of breaking international agreements. It did so in 2003 and 2006 over monitoring deals and it will do so again with this agreement. There are a myriad ways to do it and Iran's mullahs are banking the West doesn't have the stomach to do more than complain about it. All you have to do is look at North Korea and all the deals reached and broken. Even with international monitoring, North Korea was still able to build nukes. The only real solution to Iran is regime change and tossing the mullahs out.
3
So that 'accord' with North Korea was 'not a failure'? So what's a few nuclear firecrackers and missiles, here and there? If they handled our Regents exams that same way, back when I was one of New York's many students, we'd never have needed to study. Just show up, sign in, be able to fog a mirror, and we'd have passed.
Perhaps I need to get with today's values. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, the accord with North Korea was not a failure, and 2+2=5.
Perhaps I need to get with today's values. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, the accord with North Korea was not a failure, and 2+2=5.
4
Yes, the deal with North Korea collapsed because North Korea was cheating. But the punishment was greater than the crime. From our side we stopped aid ( which is as should be ) but we also put boa-constrictor like sanctions in place, made N. Korea a pariah belonging in the Axis of Evil. Since they were cornered like a trapped animal, they went into overdrive with the nuclear activity fearing for their own safety. If they had this great nuclear capability as they claim or we claim they would have blown up S.Korea .They Have'nt! I am definitely not sticking up for N.Korea. No way! But Iran and N.Korea equivalence? No way! It is a stable country with their limited Democracy ( but a Democracy, nevertheless ), with an educated, young middle class, friendly towards us As Netanyahu warns ominously about an Iran Bomb just a couple of months away,then Iran has shown tremendous restraint. iIt's time WE gave them the benefit of the doubt and make a deal with Iran and not give into Israel's false warnings. If we keep getting more and more intrusive, Iran is sure to back off because which sovereign country would allow such passive-aggression? Unlike N.Korea, Iran has natural resources which can withstand any amount of sanction which it has for the past 30 years. If we push them too hard, they will back out of any deal and get a bomb a.s.a.p. - way faster than N.Korea and they might just use it, something we, Israel, Saudi Arabia and countries in the Middle East do not want.
3
This entire discussion of making a deal makes no sense. If we make a deal going in knowing that Iran may cheat or wait us out then why bother making a deal? How does waiting 5-10 years of believing we slowed them down make any difference?
The problem for us going forward is what do we, as a great nation with interest in the world outside our borders really want? Do we wish to maintain our status as a leader in the Middle East or retreat from our responsibilities? If we don't toughen sanctions and inspections Iran gives up nothing.
Iran leaves the table no matter what a winner. We have elevated them to superpower status and diminished ourselves and our allies in the process.
Iran like Russia and China have a long view of history we don't. In each instance these world powers have used the threat atomic weapons use to obtain their goals. Iran will do the same. China is now pushing to advance into the Pacific threatening our allies like Japan. See its expansion into the South China Sea. Look at Russia. It grabs Crimea and threatens to take back its old satellites.
All the while we let it happen doing nothing substantial to block these expansionist moves.
Now Iran flexes its muscles expanding its influence over its Arab neighbors threatening the West and Israel. It moves war ships to critical oil choke points, it supplies weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas.
,
Our new policy "speak softly & carry no stick at all". Our old policy, "speak softly but carry a big stick".
The problem for us going forward is what do we, as a great nation with interest in the world outside our borders really want? Do we wish to maintain our status as a leader in the Middle East or retreat from our responsibilities? If we don't toughen sanctions and inspections Iran gives up nothing.
Iran leaves the table no matter what a winner. We have elevated them to superpower status and diminished ourselves and our allies in the process.
Iran like Russia and China have a long view of history we don't. In each instance these world powers have used the threat atomic weapons use to obtain their goals. Iran will do the same. China is now pushing to advance into the Pacific threatening our allies like Japan. See its expansion into the South China Sea. Look at Russia. It grabs Crimea and threatens to take back its old satellites.
All the while we let it happen doing nothing substantial to block these expansionist moves.
Now Iran flexes its muscles expanding its influence over its Arab neighbors threatening the West and Israel. It moves war ships to critical oil choke points, it supplies weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas.
,
Our new policy "speak softly & carry no stick at all". Our old policy, "speak softly but carry a big stick".
3
The depth and intensity of preventing a small possibility of more positive relationship with Iran, demonstrates the true agenda of our devotes of war. Capitalism at it’s worst.
5
[T]he only litmus test that matters is whether an agreement serves our national interest, is better than having no deal at all, and is preferable to military force.
Amen
Amen
3
Apart from Robert L. Gallucci and Joel S. Wit, two of the negotiators for the 1994 nuclear deal with North Korea, Kevin Veal, a nuclear physicist, with many years' of experience at Los Alamos, was also on board. He had travelled 10 times to North Korea, and spent a total of five months there.
He is also involved in the nuclear deal with Iran. It's unclear what he thinks and reports to his political masters.
He is also involved in the nuclear deal with Iran. It's unclear what he thinks and reports to his political masters.
3
The real lesson is Iran will get nuclear weapons with or without a nuclear agreement. Rather than working on a treaty that will not stop them from getting nukes we should be working on restoring our embassy and full diplomatic relations with Iran.
People in India and Pakistan are proud that they are nuclear armed nations. It isn't just about defense or offense it's about being a powerful modern nation just like the US.
I have never been proud of our nuclear capability or military capability. Landing a man on the moon, being the first to get aid into Indonesia's isolated Islands after the devastating Tsunami wiped out entire villages, integrating millions of displaced people from war, famine, political injustice into productive US citizens. These are the things that make me proud and these are the American values we need to export through diplomatic channels.
We need to stand down from the notion that we can force others through power to bend to our will. It is an example that imperils our entire species.
People in India and Pakistan are proud that they are nuclear armed nations. It isn't just about defense or offense it's about being a powerful modern nation just like the US.
I have never been proud of our nuclear capability or military capability. Landing a man on the moon, being the first to get aid into Indonesia's isolated Islands after the devastating Tsunami wiped out entire villages, integrating millions of displaced people from war, famine, political injustice into productive US citizens. These are the things that make me proud and these are the American values we need to export through diplomatic channels.
We need to stand down from the notion that we can force others through power to bend to our will. It is an example that imperils our entire species.
11
"But they should ignore the critics who say that the lesson is to abandon diplomacy."
The "critics" are not advocating abandoning diplomacy. They are advocating using the economic leverage we currently enjoy to extract further concessions out of the Iranians. Opponents of this approach claim to be fearful that if we do so, the Iranians will walk away from the negotiations and the end result will be military conflict.
Why would there be military conflict? Because the Iranians would act irrationally and proceed to develop a nuclear weapon?
Nonsense! The Iranians are not insane. And neither, as Mr. Gallucci notes, are the North Koreans.
The "critics" are not advocating abandoning diplomacy. They are advocating using the economic leverage we currently enjoy to extract further concessions out of the Iranians. Opponents of this approach claim to be fearful that if we do so, the Iranians will walk away from the negotiations and the end result will be military conflict.
Why would there be military conflict? Because the Iranians would act irrationally and proceed to develop a nuclear weapon?
Nonsense! The Iranians are not insane. And neither, as Mr. Gallucci notes, are the North Koreans.
4
"The "critics" are not advocating abandoning diplomacy. They are advocating using the economic leverage we currently enjoy to extract further concessions"
No. That is not true. Read Bolton. Listen to McCain sing. They want war.
No. That is not true. Read Bolton. Listen to McCain sing. They want war.
13
Iran can do what West wants but :
Iran would support the placement of Russian nuclear weapons on its territory once such a decision is made in Moscow, for benefiting both countries.
For Russia that would be one move against NATO .
For Iran that would insure there would be no war against Iran and no war at all.
Look at north Korea as rude and provocative they are, they do not attack and nobody dares to attack them 'cos of nukes.
Iran would support the placement of Russian nuclear weapons on its territory once such a decision is made in Moscow, for benefiting both countries.
For Russia that would be one move against NATO .
For Iran that would insure there would be no war against Iran and no war at all.
Look at north Korea as rude and provocative they are, they do not attack and nobody dares to attack them 'cos of nukes.
3
If the objective of those who negotiated with North Korea was to prevent that nation from obtaining a nuclear weapon...
...Their negotiation was an abject failure no matter what spin they want to put on it.
...Their negotiation was an abject failure no matter what spin they want to put on it.
4
The article says: "Although our policy ultimately failed, the agreement did not. Without the 1994 deal, North Korea would have built the bomb sooner, stockpiled weapons more quickly and amassed a much larger arsenal by now.
This is really, to me anyway, so self serving. Policy failed agreement did not. Yes it , the agreement, did fail as well. What difference does it make if it took them 2, 3 or 4 extra years to build it? THEY HAVE It.
It seems to me that, since the Irani's are now making new demands, that should not be met, that they too will continue to work on their weapon. It is even conceivable that the Irani's are doing (pure speculation on my part) work on their bomb in North Korea
As much as I prefer a negotiated settlement to problems like this, it seems to me that the final outcome will be an Arms Race in the Middle East. There is NOTHING that can convince me that Sunni Saudia Arabia and it's allies will allow Shi'i Iran and it's allies to possess Nuclear weapons while they do not.
So, my suggestion is that we make really nice with the Israeli's, Jordanians, Turks, and the Saudi's and create something akin to NATO in the Middle East.
This is really, to me anyway, so self serving. Policy failed agreement did not. Yes it , the agreement, did fail as well. What difference does it make if it took them 2, 3 or 4 extra years to build it? THEY HAVE It.
It seems to me that, since the Irani's are now making new demands, that should not be met, that they too will continue to work on their weapon. It is even conceivable that the Irani's are doing (pure speculation on my part) work on their bomb in North Korea
As much as I prefer a negotiated settlement to problems like this, it seems to me that the final outcome will be an Arms Race in the Middle East. There is NOTHING that can convince me that Sunni Saudia Arabia and it's allies will allow Shi'i Iran and it's allies to possess Nuclear weapons while they do not.
So, my suggestion is that we make really nice with the Israeli's, Jordanians, Turks, and the Saudi's and create something akin to NATO in the Middle East.
2
Saudis do not have the smarts or the scientists to build them a bomb, they do have the money to buy them. Attention should be paid to prevent that from happening. This can be done by ensuring countries like Pakistan which has the bomb succeed in their attempts to have a democratic society, buy not bypassing the civil government and dealing with the army directly. Look at the latest move by the Pakistani parliament to stay neutral in the Yemeni conflict in spite of a great deal of pressure in the Saudi conflict.
1
And so, the architect and the administrator of the failed North Korea deal explain that it wasn't their fault. Right!
1
I agree with much of what Gallucci and Wit say, but I am somewhat perplexed by their suggestion that we should have responded to North Korea "with an opportunity rather than an accusation" that would involve "offering the North more progress in building better relations in return for stopping its threatening activities, including its cheating." That sounds to me an awfully lot like rewarding North Korea for cheating on the agreement.
2
N Korea did not cheat on the agreement until after the US cheated on the agreement. The North's "cheating" was its response to US failure to honor its promises, small as they were. Then the US got all outraged, righteously indignant that it couldn't get whatever it wanted by demanding and bluster.
6
The most important lesson that North Korea--and Iraq--teaches is that countries with nuclear weapons don't get invaded and overthrown by the United States.
8
Right. And don't forget, Iran *has already been overthrown* by the US, in 1953, when we and the UK helped overthrow the democratically elected PM and installed the tyrannical dictator, the Shah. So their desire for a bomb is extremely rational.
2
The writers, by common consent, did yeoman service with North Korea nuke negotiations, which worked. as they say, until North Korea cheated.
Not sure why the authors didn't write more clearly about the Bush administration's huff and puff North Korea diplomacy. By canning the Clinton agreement in order to present an image of Bush toughness, in favor of some new, presumably hard nosed negotiating formula, which never went anywhere, the Bush administration let North Korea off the hook, let the DPRK say "the Bush people don't like the Clinton formula any more than we do, so don't don't criticize us for dumping it.
The crack about "low level bureaucrats" is wrong. Diplomacy is a team effort and I am sure the authors recognize their own success depended on support they got from lower ranking professionals from State. CIA and DOD. It is at least an even bet "low ranking" officials did their job, tried to get the highest levels of the USG to face up to the collapse of our deterrent strategy vis a vis North Korea development of nukes.
A modest suggestion about their crucial observation: Making agreements stick is harder than reaching them. Structure matters: If there is a final nuclear accord, establish a special office for Oversight, directly reporting to President Obama and Secretary Kerry, headed not by a usual suspect, but a person of their personal confidence. Force State. CIA and DOD, to assign their best low level bureaucrats (experts) to it.
Not sure why the authors didn't write more clearly about the Bush administration's huff and puff North Korea diplomacy. By canning the Clinton agreement in order to present an image of Bush toughness, in favor of some new, presumably hard nosed negotiating formula, which never went anywhere, the Bush administration let North Korea off the hook, let the DPRK say "the Bush people don't like the Clinton formula any more than we do, so don't don't criticize us for dumping it.
The crack about "low level bureaucrats" is wrong. Diplomacy is a team effort and I am sure the authors recognize their own success depended on support they got from lower ranking professionals from State. CIA and DOD. It is at least an even bet "low ranking" officials did their job, tried to get the highest levels of the USG to face up to the collapse of our deterrent strategy vis a vis North Korea development of nukes.
A modest suggestion about their crucial observation: Making agreements stick is harder than reaching them. Structure matters: If there is a final nuclear accord, establish a special office for Oversight, directly reporting to President Obama and Secretary Kerry, headed not by a usual suspect, but a person of their personal confidence. Force State. CIA and DOD, to assign their best low level bureaucrats (experts) to it.
7
Keep Iran under our thumb. Let Barry fade away as a lame duck. Look forward to a new world in 2017.
2
Iran is not "under our thumb." If it was, we wouldn't have these concerns.
7
Thank goodness for Obama. He's probably one of the few who can recognize Netanyahu and not cave into his and AIPAC's pressure.
The US must make its own policies. Yes, it is wise to consult and form agreements with other friendly nations, such as the group of 5+1. However, at the end of the day it is important to keep on good terms with more countries and apply sanctions only to those that are true problems--N Korea and at times China and Pakistan.
The US must make its own policies. Yes, it is wise to consult and form agreements with other friendly nations, such as the group of 5+1. However, at the end of the day it is important to keep on good terms with more countries and apply sanctions only to those that are true problems--N Korea and at times China and Pakistan.
15
Netanyahu has it right. Apply sanctions to those that are true problems--IRAN, N Korea, China and Pakistan (and the rest of the Arabs).
2
"Netanyahu has it right. Apply sanctions to those that are true problems"
Netanyahu would be high on that list, very high.
Netanyahu would be high on that list, very high.
7
"IRAN, N Korea, China and Pakistan (and the rest of the Arabs)," of course, none of the cultures/countries you list above are arabic. But you knew that, right?
2
Why is it easier to bang the drums of war than create an honorable peace? Well destruction is naturally easier than building something of value, but the long term effects of destruction poison the well of creation for decades and lead to vast suffering which politicians do not share in living in their ivory towers. That is why the way of the statesman is so difficult as agreements seem to fall apart and must constantly be rebuilt and maintained.
In the face of 9/11 many were excited to take action any action that might seem to make us feel better and create a scape goat in Saddam Hussein. But our shock and awe tactics created nothing but chaos and have led to only more confrontations with ISIS and Iran.
Mr. Obama's true difficulty is shifting mind sets from destruction which has been our policy for so long to that of creation which is fraught with endless difficulties and tedious oversight , but is the only path that can lead to new possibilities. It took cowardly terrorists only a few hours to destroy the World Trade Center and three thousand lives. But it took over a dozen years to recreate that part of Manhattan after endless negotiations and it may take decades to defuse the forces that led to the original attack. Do we have the wisdom or patience to create rather than destroy which is what civilized people try to do in the face of barbarity.
In the face of 9/11 many were excited to take action any action that might seem to make us feel better and create a scape goat in Saddam Hussein. But our shock and awe tactics created nothing but chaos and have led to only more confrontations with ISIS and Iran.
Mr. Obama's true difficulty is shifting mind sets from destruction which has been our policy for so long to that of creation which is fraught with endless difficulties and tedious oversight , but is the only path that can lead to new possibilities. It took cowardly terrorists only a few hours to destroy the World Trade Center and three thousand lives. But it took over a dozen years to recreate that part of Manhattan after endless negotiations and it may take decades to defuse the forces that led to the original attack. Do we have the wisdom or patience to create rather than destroy which is what civilized people try to do in the face of barbarity.
11
So basically the North Korea nuclear policy failed, and the Democratic People's Republic will soon be able to sell nuclear weapons on the black market. Did the author really need more than a dozen paragraphs to make that point, or were lame excuses the real reason for carrying on?
What Mr. Gallucci failed to mention is the fact Iran is actively, and militantly, spreading their revolutionary philosophy all over the Middle East. That the Supreme Leader in Tehran has declared any location they classify as a military base is off limits to inspectors, that the enriched materials they have accumulated will be kept at home, and that the US is probably too untrustworthy to complete a final agreement with.
The fact President Obama has labeled this burgeoning misadventure as a "best bet" makes it seem quite likely the term, failure, with regards to this matter, will eventually be superseded by the phrase, world class failure of world altering scale.
What Mr. Gallucci failed to mention is the fact Iran is actively, and militantly, spreading their revolutionary philosophy all over the Middle East. That the Supreme Leader in Tehran has declared any location they classify as a military base is off limits to inspectors, that the enriched materials they have accumulated will be kept at home, and that the US is probably too untrustworthy to complete a final agreement with.
The fact President Obama has labeled this burgeoning misadventure as a "best bet" makes it seem quite likely the term, failure, with regards to this matter, will eventually be superseded by the phrase, world class failure of world altering scale.
4
The NK policy failed, and continues to fail, because of China.
Iran has no protector like that. These negotiations are to insure that everyone--including and especially Russia and China--continue to be on board with sanctions if they are ever needed again.
Iran has no protector like that. These negotiations are to insure that everyone--including and especially Russia and China--continue to be on board with sanctions if they are ever needed again.
1
Better relations works both ways. Iran must acknowledge to its people that the Allies protected Iran from the Nazis during WWII, and that our support for the Shah was to keep the Soviets from taking over Iran, both of which were successful. Also that Jews are basically good people, and that the religious fanaticism and resultant discrimination and attacks against them in places like Iran are good reason for the establishment of the Jewish state.
3
The sanctions aren't preventing Iran from making a bomb. Their GDP is 40x higher than N. Korea with a much more functional government and educated population. If Iran really wanted a bomb, they, like N Korea, would already have a bomb. Iran is showing restraint, as they know if they test a bomb on Monday, Israel will test one on Tuesday - just like India and Pakistan.
Normalizing relations with Iran is they best way to prevent global catastrophe. If we stop chanting "Regime Change" and "Terrorist State" they may stop chanting "Death to America". We needn't forgive the 444 days they held our diplomats hostage anymore than they should forgive us for propping up the Shah as he gunned down 88 students in 1978, or the 290 civilians we killed by shooting down their passenger jet (Flight 655).
History is full of wrongs on both sides, but sanctions and continued hostilities won't prevent nuclear war. Like family, you can't pick the governments of the world as much as we try, but we have but one planet. Kicking Cuba, Iran and North Korea off the island isn't an option, and hostility will only be met with hostility. Isolation and starving the population with sanctions won't stabilize the situation.
Normalizing relations with Iran is they best way to prevent global catastrophe. If we stop chanting "Regime Change" and "Terrorist State" they may stop chanting "Death to America". We needn't forgive the 444 days they held our diplomats hostage anymore than they should forgive us for propping up the Shah as he gunned down 88 students in 1978, or the 290 civilians we killed by shooting down their passenger jet (Flight 655).
History is full of wrongs on both sides, but sanctions and continued hostilities won't prevent nuclear war. Like family, you can't pick the governments of the world as much as we try, but we have but one planet. Kicking Cuba, Iran and North Korea off the island isn't an option, and hostility will only be met with hostility. Isolation and starving the population with sanctions won't stabilize the situation.
9
"If Iran really wanted a bomb, they, like N Korea, would already have a bomb."
It would be nice if that would sink in. This is 70 year old technology, and Iran has mass produced a million cars per year and its own aircraft and weapons. If they meant to cross that line, they'd have crossed it by now. It would be easier for them than it was for Israel in the 60's.
They haven't. We can deal with that.
It would be nice if that would sink in. This is 70 year old technology, and Iran has mass produced a million cars per year and its own aircraft and weapons. If they meant to cross that line, they'd have crossed it by now. It would be easier for them than it was for Israel in the 60's.
They haven't. We can deal with that.
9
"If we stop chanting "Regime Change" and "Terrorist State" they may stop chanting "Death to America"."
Probably not.
Probably not.
I fully agree with both of these comments - we need to break out of the hubris laden mold in which we see ourselves as the righteous of the righteous. Whether at home or to the world we need to be able to agree to disagree, it is a first building block of report, dialog and compromise, a virtue our polis seems to have lost.
3
N. Korean agreement failed because USA didn't implement
its part of the agreement- lifting sanctions and improving
relations. Actually N. Korea had dismantled its nuclear
plant. Its realization that the agreement is one way
street led them to rebuild the plant and produce a
bomb. Did USA intend to implement its part of the
bargain? Probably not, because George W Bush simply
didn't want any thing to do with N. Korea which was
dubbed as axis of evil. Had Clinton been around to
implement it the agreement would have held up. The
lesson for state department is don't renege on your part
of the agreement. Iran also doesn't trust USA given its historical experience with regime change in 1953 and
exploitation of oil resources and "capitulation agreement"
which was humiliating for Iran. If USA tries to keep its leverage
the agreement will collapse.
its part of the agreement- lifting sanctions and improving
relations. Actually N. Korea had dismantled its nuclear
plant. Its realization that the agreement is one way
street led them to rebuild the plant and produce a
bomb. Did USA intend to implement its part of the
bargain? Probably not, because George W Bush simply
didn't want any thing to do with N. Korea which was
dubbed as axis of evil. Had Clinton been around to
implement it the agreement would have held up. The
lesson for state department is don't renege on your part
of the agreement. Iran also doesn't trust USA given its historical experience with regime change in 1953 and
exploitation of oil resources and "capitulation agreement"
which was humiliating for Iran. If USA tries to keep its leverage
the agreement will collapse.
5
The message I get from reading this article is that if a country wants to explore or make nuclear weapons within its own borders, then with or without agreement or sanctions, somehow it will. But in any true negotiations, there must be a degree of trust and a recognition of each party of their truths, needs and their history.In this case, Im sure that the combined powers of EU, Russia, China, Germany,US and France are more than capable of putting in place measures to observe and limit expansion beyond that which is Irans right to have-to provide nuclear power for its population; and also to recognise that there are valid reasons why Iran might not fully trust the Western powers given their mutual history, especially over the last seven decades. The calls by certain parties and politicians for bombing, for increased sanctions&isolation not only tear up any lessons to be learned from the past, but move the whole process,history, trust and truths back by decades.
8
atombrennan:
"In this case, Im sure that the combined powers of EU, Russia, China, Germany,US and France are more than capable of putting in place measures to observe and limit expansion beyond that which is Irans right to have-to provide nuclear power for its population."
But that is the problem, not the solution. If "containing" Iran requires the cooperation of "EU, Russia, China, Germany,US and France" (notice the double-counting there?) then we are doomed.
"In this case, Im sure that the combined powers of EU, Russia, China, Germany,US and France are more than capable of putting in place measures to observe and limit expansion beyond that which is Irans right to have-to provide nuclear power for its population."
But that is the problem, not the solution. If "containing" Iran requires the cooperation of "EU, Russia, China, Germany,US and France" (notice the double-counting there?) then we are doomed.
If the North Koreans were able to continue developing nuclear weapons from 1994 when Clinton made a deal with them to 2002 when they were caught, then the agreement with the DPRK failed in its entirety because the paramount objective was to prevent the North Koreans from getting the bomb. As the negotiator and coordinator of the deal, it is self serving to assert that the 1994 accord was somehow successful because it set the DPRK nuclear program back a number of years when the North Koreans ultimately did produce nuclear weapons. The assertion also cannot be proven or disproven unless you can get the North Koreans involved to talk about it which is not likely to happen.
Contrary to your assertions, the case of North Korea does prove the futility of inspections in stopping countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. The inspectors are dependent on their hosts who can easily hoodwink them or at the very least act as an early warning system that places the country's weapons development efforts one step ahead of any effort to uncover it.
Contrary to your assertions, the case of North Korea does prove the futility of inspections in stopping countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. The inspectors are dependent on their hosts who can easily hoodwink them or at the very least act as an early warning system that places the country's weapons development efforts one step ahead of any effort to uncover it.
7
Very well stated. There are so many confounding reasoning errors and false assumptions in the given opinion piece that one almost doesn't know where to begin.
Now Iranian leaders are seeking immediate cancellation of sanctions, rather than a step by step easing as negotiated.
Once the sanctions are removed, Iran can do whatever pleases their leaders. It would be very difficult to assemble a coalition to reinstate these measures. Diplomatic cooperation with key player, Russia, are at a low. Other nations in need of open commerce would balk. The USA and Western allies have seen their international influence continue to decline.
NK, on the other hand, has nothing to offer the rest of the world, so continued sanctions are relatively easy to maintain. China offers a degree of support for NK primarily because that state is a buffer to SK, and because China fears an influx of many millions of starving, uneducated, unskilled refugees if the NK government/economy completely fail.
Russia has been a bit more cooperative with NK of late, but they do not need an economic albatross now when their own resources are strained by sanctions.
Once the sanctions are removed, Iran can do whatever pleases their leaders. It would be very difficult to assemble a coalition to reinstate these measures. Diplomatic cooperation with key player, Russia, are at a low. Other nations in need of open commerce would balk. The USA and Western allies have seen their international influence continue to decline.
NK, on the other hand, has nothing to offer the rest of the world, so continued sanctions are relatively easy to maintain. China offers a degree of support for NK primarily because that state is a buffer to SK, and because China fears an influx of many millions of starving, uneducated, unskilled refugees if the NK government/economy completely fail.
Russia has been a bit more cooperative with NK of late, but they do not need an economic albatross now when their own resources are strained by sanctions.
A major difference between Iran and the PDRK is that Korea is essentially a client state of China. If China chose to do so, it could nullify any economic sanctions imposed by the US. Although the country's overall situation is dismal (from our point of view), the Korean government knows that as long as they do not upset the Chinese, their position is secure - which is all that counts!
On the other hand, Iran does not have sponsor and is dependent on world trade and multilateral good will to maintain the government's legitimacy. A deal with the West is in everyone's interests.
On the other hand, Iran does not have sponsor and is dependent on world trade and multilateral good will to maintain the government's legitimacy. A deal with the West is in everyone's interests.
13
This dispute is not about sponsors nor dependencies nor nuclear technology. It is about socioeconomics, politics and ethnic sectarian conflicts.
India has nuclear weapons and is the world's #1 buyer of arms. India is the world's second most populous nation with the most Hindus and 3rd most Muslims in the largest civil secular plural egalitarian democracy on Earth.
Unlike Iran, neither India nor Pakistan are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation and both have massive military-industrial complexes. Australia is selling uranium to India. France is selling war planes to India. Iran has way more fossil fuel reserves than either India or Pakistan and occupies a strategic geographic Middle Eastern location. Nor have India and Pakistan been the targets of American overt and covert war.
Iran has enemies in America, Israel, Turkey, Kurdistan and the Sunni Muslim Arab nation states. Neither China nor Russia are part of the West.
India has nuclear weapons and is the world's #1 buyer of arms. India is the world's second most populous nation with the most Hindus and 3rd most Muslims in the largest civil secular plural egalitarian democracy on Earth.
Unlike Iran, neither India nor Pakistan are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation and both have massive military-industrial complexes. Australia is selling uranium to India. France is selling war planes to India. Iran has way more fossil fuel reserves than either India or Pakistan and occupies a strategic geographic Middle Eastern location. Nor have India and Pakistan been the targets of American overt and covert war.
Iran has enemies in America, Israel, Turkey, Kurdistan and the Sunni Muslim Arab nation states. Neither China nor Russia are part of the West.
1
Rightly stated; N Korea is a client state of China. Countries that do not want NKorea to have nuclear capability will not go to war with it because of the huge big brother lurking in the background, China. We tried that once and found it was a very bad idea.
Iran is very different. Its population is well educated, serious about education. Many speak English, especially among the educated ones. Iran has a long history that is closely tied to the West. Its culture dates back many centuries. Many Americans and Europeans would like to visit and trade with Iran freely without the current rules of having to travel with an organized group--often a group that wants to move at the pace suited to 20 year olds instead of seniors.
Israel is like the gossipy girl in school who wants each of the other girls to be her friend only, and spreads ruinous gossip about all the other girls to encourage them to shun others.
The biggest difference: Iran does not have a nearby Big Brother that is also a closed society.
Iran is very different. Its population is well educated, serious about education. Many speak English, especially among the educated ones. Iran has a long history that is closely tied to the West. Its culture dates back many centuries. Many Americans and Europeans would like to visit and trade with Iran freely without the current rules of having to travel with an organized group--often a group that wants to move at the pace suited to 20 year olds instead of seniors.
Israel is like the gossipy girl in school who wants each of the other girls to be her friend only, and spreads ruinous gossip about all the other girls to encourage them to shun others.
The biggest difference: Iran does not have a nearby Big Brother that is also a closed society.
3
Iran needs to be able to re-enter the leading nations. It needs to be able to defend itself from other nearby neighbors,plus India, Pakistan, and quite possibly Israel.
6
There are majors difference North Korea and Iran: North Korea is a veiled, isolationist country governed for three generations by one family unlike Iran who wants to return to the international community and have sanctions lifted. Iran is more westernised than North Korea with a highly educated population and given the opportunity has much to offer.
Iran is facing one country, Israel , which wants dominance in the region and led by a congenital liar who has shown himself to be no friend of America and has allied himself with the Republican Party.
Times have changed and the comparisons between the two countries are inaccurate. I believe that Iran does feel threatened by a nuclear armed Israel which has never allowed its nuclear facilities to be inspected. Across the Straits of Hormuz lies another threat to Iran in the shape of Saudi Arabia.
It's time to leave the politicians at home and leave diplomacy to the diplomats to work out the finer details and hope for a successful outcome.
Iran is facing one country, Israel , which wants dominance in the region and led by a congenital liar who has shown himself to be no friend of America and has allied himself with the Republican Party.
Times have changed and the comparisons between the two countries are inaccurate. I believe that Iran does feel threatened by a nuclear armed Israel which has never allowed its nuclear facilities to be inspected. Across the Straits of Hormuz lies another threat to Iran in the shape of Saudi Arabia.
It's time to leave the politicians at home and leave diplomacy to the diplomats to work out the finer details and hope for a successful outcome.
35
I suppose the author of this also feels the Tibetans are seeking dominance over China.
2
Whether the Iran deal should be done or not, it's important that Congress keeps its hands off the issue. Our Congress fusses and fumes, but does nothing. It has fussed and fumed about illegal immigration, and done nothing; and when Obama acts, Congress fusses and fumes more, but does nothing and offers no solutions. They're doing the same dance with Iran - they try to undermine the negotiations and want to be the naysayer over any deal, but offer nothing affirmative. Special interests are pressuring members of Congress to muck up the works by limiting the executive authority to enter into international agreements short of treaties, as though we need to expand gridlock.
9
President Obama could just declare himself dictator, and have Congress arrested to prevent them from exercising their Constitutional duty.
1
Argued like a true technocrat, full of reasons and excuses. There were two failures with North Korea, they were allowed to develop a bomb, and when they broke the agreement there were no penalties. The only thing those wackos respect is a really big stick and the willingness to use it. Everything else is posturing.
The same applies to Iran. We have negotiated a meaningless agreement, Iran will cheat, they will have to be whacked, failure to do so will only encourage the next rogue state to start their own nuclear program. Sooner or later one of these crazies will use their new toy on a neighbor and it will be our fault for not stopping things sooner.
In general, I do not favor foreign intervention, but this is a case where our national interest is clearly at stake. Stop messing around with ISIS and pay attention to this. Our distraction with meaningless warlords is putting our future peace at risk.
The same applies to Iran. We have negotiated a meaningless agreement, Iran will cheat, they will have to be whacked, failure to do so will only encourage the next rogue state to start their own nuclear program. Sooner or later one of these crazies will use their new toy on a neighbor and it will be our fault for not stopping things sooner.
In general, I do not favor foreign intervention, but this is a case where our national interest is clearly at stake. Stop messing around with ISIS and pay attention to this. Our distraction with meaningless warlords is putting our future peace at risk.
2
"Whacking" has not served our interests very well in the past few decades has it?
3
There is a huge difference between N Korea and Iran--Iran does not have a Big Brother, China, to make certain that no one decides to invade N Korea when it fails to keep its side of the bargain.
The other huge difference not mentioned is that Iran is westernized, well educated, and outward looking for trade, travel, and relationships. Iran has a highly developed culture that dates back many centuries and is home to a mono-thristic religion that may well predate Judaism.
The other huge difference not mentioned is that Iran is westernized, well educated, and outward looking for trade, travel, and relationships. Iran has a highly developed culture that dates back many centuries and is home to a mono-thristic religion that may well predate Judaism.
1
The emerging nuclear agreement should be seen as a milestone and vehicle to better relations and nothing more. Even the most ironclad agreement will not trump Iran's sovereign right to do is it pleases within it's own borders. And that's the reality critics of the emerging agreement fail to see-Iran can enter or withdraw from the agreement as it sees fit... just as any other nation can. While the details of an eventual agreement are indeed important in curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions only better relations can change the calculus of Tehran's leadership. And even then Iran, having poured out blood and treasure to achieve their current level of nuclear technology, is unlikely to completely abandon an eventual nuclear weapons capability. This is the brutal truth. So Washington is left with a choice-seek better relations to lesson the dangers of nuclear armed Iran or go down a path the may well lead to a catastrophic war... that would probably still never fully stop Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Washington's interest here are clear-better relations are the only way forward. Overly strict provisions of an agreement and hawk-like monitoring may be necessary to satiate domestic critics... but don't really further the objective of a more stable relationship between the west and Iran. Seal the deal and let the world move forward.
3
I'm always amazed at our "holier than thou" attitude towards other countries. We are so moralistic when other countries violate their neighbors borders and independence but don't see the same behavior we exhibited in Panama, Haiti, Iraq, etc. We are so righteous in regards to other countries holding to treaties and agreements yet we violate the Geneva Accords, bilateral agreements by spying on allies, etc. We are so very pious about other countries and how they treat the poor while the oligarchy grows even more wealthy even though we have greater income disparity than most industrial nations. Perhaps we would do better to remember the "glass house" moral story. Is Iran's meddling in the Middle East any better or worse than ours?
8
Or Israel's continuous settlement building on Palestinian land?
3
The authors assume that "the establishment of better political relations and the lifting of economic sanctions" might have persuaded North Korea to continue in compliance. Given the DPRK's history of trading partial compliance in various fields for hefty material advantage, it seems more plausible that it would have pocketed the sanctions lift and continued to develop its nuclear program with stealth and ambiguity. The current Defense Secretary was among those advocating serious consideration of a military option in 1994. That now appears to be off the table in any conceivable scenario, given the North's progress toward miniaturized warheads and mobile ICBMs.
The Iranian pattern of nuclear deceit over the past twenty years is fully comparable to the DPRK's. They have driven their truck through a long list of "redlines", and now ask for full lift of sanctions in return for promised forbearance.
We appear to be going down the same road again.
The Iranian pattern of nuclear deceit over the past twenty years is fully comparable to the DPRK's. They have driven their truck through a long list of "redlines", and now ask for full lift of sanctions in return for promised forbearance.
We appear to be going down the same road again.
4
"The Iranian pattern of nuclear deceit over the past twenty years is fully comparable to the DPRK's."....There are a few similarities, but the differences are much greater. North Korea has always had China at its back meaning that sanctions could never be fully effective, and there was never even a potential military option. North Korea is China's idiot step child and only China can resolve any issues with North Korea. In contrast the sanctions and the negotiations with Iran have been carried out with the cooperation of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China as partners. No one has Iran's back. As long as you hold the coalition together the chances of an effective agreement with Iran are far greater. It is not even close to being the same road as you suggest.
4
So Arnild, what would you do? Everyone seems to complain about the deal but never offers any alternatives, so what would you do?
3
Implying that the failed policy with DRNK is a reason to do the same with Iran is incomprehensible. Ir Iran wants nuclear weapons they separate themselves from the community of nations and continuing or increasing sanctions is the price they must pay. Let Israel, the nation most at risk of Iran's nuclear weapons insanity, use force if needed. The question is whether the US should include Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, and other under a US nuclear shield.
The lesson that Iran learned from the North Korea experience is that if you are categorized as a terrorist state & you do not possess a nuclear weapon then you are high on the list for "regime change" by the U.S. government. And when you decide to give up your nuclear weapons programs, as was the case with Khaddaffi in Libya, then you are making yourself extremely vulnerable to a regime change.
Consequently, we can spend the next 50 years negotiating & inspecting but in the final analysis you can bet the farm that Iran is going to have a nuke sooner rather than later. They simply view the possession of a nuclear deterrent as the key to their long term survival.
Consequently, we can spend the next 50 years negotiating & inspecting but in the final analysis you can bet the farm that Iran is going to have a nuke sooner rather than later. They simply view the possession of a nuclear deterrent as the key to their long term survival.
5
A terrorist state need not stop at deterrence as their key to long term survival.
1
Comparing Iran with North Korea is like comparing apple with oranges. The Boy president of North Korea is totally immature and insane but Iran's Khamenei is not stupid at all. The people of Iran are educated , sophisticated , has history and very proud people. I am more worried about the nuclear bomb in Pakistan and Israel and human rights are nonexistent for minorities in both of these countries. These countries have history of wars . Our senior senators like McCain, Cotton and Graham have only one solution and that is more war (may be bomb Iran). They scare me really more than anything. The presidential candidates like Scott Walker talk nonsense. If there is no deal and more sanctions, Iran will have nuclear bomb much sooner than we think. Some of our politicians talk like naïve and stupid (rhetoric) only to please Netanyahu and AIPAC. That is the threat for our future. America First and should be above all politics and own interest.
14
Some in our government and who are vying to enter government in the US would like to let Netanyahu dictate our foreign policy in the Middle East. This must not happen!
1
What I've read about the Iranian side is that they won't accept any "deal" that hampers their nuclear program. What they want are the sanctions lifted as a concession to that reality. Therefore, the Obama Administration's insistence that a signed agreement will stall the Iranian nuclear drive for a bomb is pure PR designed to generate blind allegiance to the Administration's politically focused policy.
... (may be bomb Iran).
My guess is that so much of Iran's infrastructure for developing an nuclear bomb is in hardened sites. And bombing would most likely have very little effect on their their program.
So think it can be argued that should Iran be bombed? No, since it wouldn't work.
My guess is that so much of Iran's infrastructure for developing an nuclear bomb is in hardened sites. And bombing would most likely have very little effect on their their program.
So think it can be argued that should Iran be bombed? No, since it wouldn't work.
What this article tells me is that if a country is determined to build a nuclear weapons capability, one way or another and despite all the obstacles and "agreements" put in its way, it will manage to do so - sooner or later. The agreements are useful for buying time, hoping that in the fullness of time there will be changes in regimes and priorities conducive to shelving such nuclear ambitions.
There are no viable alternatives. So yes, the 5+1 must persist in trying to do a deal with Iran, with no illusion about whether it can be done or if so, sustained thereafter.
Recent statements from Iran's leadership suggest that come June there may be no useful outcome to all these efforts because of the impasse over leverage (sanctions) and transparency (verification of military installations).
Regardless, the only practical option is to keep trying til they either succeed in getting a good agreement or "agreeing to disagree", in which latter case the sanctions and roadblocks remain in place to delay the program. The worst outcome, based on these lessons of experience, would be an agreement without the necessary extent of verification and enforceability; I don't perceive the President of the USA going for that.
There are no viable alternatives. So yes, the 5+1 must persist in trying to do a deal with Iran, with no illusion about whether it can be done or if so, sustained thereafter.
Recent statements from Iran's leadership suggest that come June there may be no useful outcome to all these efforts because of the impasse over leverage (sanctions) and transparency (verification of military installations).
Regardless, the only practical option is to keep trying til they either succeed in getting a good agreement or "agreeing to disagree", in which latter case the sanctions and roadblocks remain in place to delay the program. The worst outcome, based on these lessons of experience, would be an agreement without the necessary extent of verification and enforceability; I don't perceive the President of the USA going for that.
11
@Mark
You may be correct that we are buying time from Iran, rest assured they will not take any decision to proceed in a vacuum. The neighborhood would determine their course of action.One way to ensure that there are no Nuclear weapons in Iran is to declare the Middle East as a Nuclear Weapons free area. Let us remove all our nuclear weapons from the Persian Gulf and put Israel's program under the same regimen as Iran's.
You may be correct that we are buying time from Iran, rest assured they will not take any decision to proceed in a vacuum. The neighborhood would determine their course of action.One way to ensure that there are no Nuclear weapons in Iran is to declare the Middle East as a Nuclear Weapons free area. Let us remove all our nuclear weapons from the Persian Gulf and put Israel's program under the same regimen as Iran's.
4
If you were facing a hostile crowd. Something like 300 to 1 against you, would you give up your assault rifle if an outside party guaranteed your safety from halfway to the other side of the world?
The dawn of a new grading system. A "D" is now a passing grade. Why not?
1
Back in the olden days, a "D" was a passing grade. It meant the student had learned a useful minimum, but his/her work was below par. Grade inflation struck the US in 70s - expectations in school and foreign policy appear to be that everyone is above average - but we don't live in Lake Wobegon.
North Korea is not a country. It is a vast prison in the charge of lunatics.
3
So the lesson of n. Korea for Iran is to wait for more favorable conditions as n. Korea waited for the US to get itself bogged down elsewhere. If there's one thing iran can count on, it's that we'll get ourselves bogged down somewhere eventually. Secondly, where's the agreement among China, Russia, US, Germany et al as to how we'll react to cheating? If we can't produce an agreement as to how we'll ALL react now, and I'd bet we can't, how credible is the threat of renewed sanctions in response to cheating?
4
A most important, and timely, reminder of why diplomacy is the way to go, that isolationism carries a high price, and an excuse for a rogue dictatorship adamant in 'defending' itself from an invented enemy, on the backs of their own hungry and poor and suffering people. Engagement, and requiring hard work, courage and persistence, is the way to go. Clinton and Bush didn't have what it takes, the will to persevere, in spite of the expected intermittent temporary setbacks, as it relates to North Korea. Insofar Iran is concerned, one would think lessons have been learned. It is as if a democracy could be sustained by just voting...and then go home and disengage, and stop holding our leaders accountable, and allow the Press to be muzzled, and our freedom taken away by demanding a dubious security instead.
1
The thought of a nuclear-armed Iran is often portrayed as an existential threat to Israel, and perhaps it would be, but there's another perspective we overlook at our own risk: to Iranians, a nuclear-armed Pakistan is already an existential threat.
Pakistan conducts many of its foreign affairs with an attitude of indifference toward international norms, backed by confidence that there's really nothing anyone (read: India now, perhaps Iran later) can do about it. Need I remind NY Times readers about the 2008 Mumbai terror attack.
To continue the analogy, North Korea conducts its foreign affairs with nuclear-backed confidence that there's really nothing anyone (read: South Korea and Japan) can do about it.
Iran seeks to move from a position of weakness to one of strength. We must never forget this. And we need to keep in mind, and not to repeat with Iran, the many failures that led to a nuclear-armed Pakistan, as well as those that led to a nuclear-armed North Korea.
Pakistan conducts many of its foreign affairs with an attitude of indifference toward international norms, backed by confidence that there's really nothing anyone (read: India now, perhaps Iran later) can do about it. Need I remind NY Times readers about the 2008 Mumbai terror attack.
To continue the analogy, North Korea conducts its foreign affairs with nuclear-backed confidence that there's really nothing anyone (read: South Korea and Japan) can do about it.
Iran seeks to move from a position of weakness to one of strength. We must never forget this. And we need to keep in mind, and not to repeat with Iran, the many failures that led to a nuclear-armed Pakistan, as well as those that led to a nuclear-armed North Korea.
2
Nuclear Pakistan succored, and still helps the Taliban, who harbored Al Quada, who perpetrated 9/11.
Expect the Shia Iranians, supporters of terrorism and militancy, to try and top the Sunni Pakistanis once Iran acquires nuclear bombs.
Expect the Shia Iranians, supporters of terrorism and militancy, to try and top the Sunni Pakistanis once Iran acquires nuclear bombs.
As the authors argue, the need for follow-through is critical; an agreement is not only to be made, but also to be enforced. However, as a matter of improving its chances and of dealing with gun-toting domestic critics, my blog from several weeks ago (http://firstimpressionssecondthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/03/do-you-wanna-... )particularly emphasizes the need for planning responses, including and perhaps emphasizing the need for a military response. But the important thing is, if possible, to avoid the reckless haste which can lead to the ruinous waste of war.
1
Focus, focus, focus. We have no business fighting ISIS. The Shiites will do it without our monetary of military aid; and these two groups which have hated each other seemingly forever look like they are settling in for the long haul.
In regard to Iran, their nuclear program does not, as yet, threaten the US. It could threaten Europe and particularly Israel; and these are the two groups who are going to have to take military action, WITHOUT OUT INVOLVEMENT, if they deem it necessary. So the world knows we have given them a green light if they have the guts (or stupidity) to attack, and that we have no intention of being involved, we should announce our position loud and clear.
In the meantime, its obvious Iran will cheat on any nuclear deal. Its time for us to impose, with our allies, the absolute strictest sanctions ever seen in the world, and prevent other countries who seek to evade the sanctions from doing so, even if it means blowing up the supply trucks.
Regarding Israel, with Netanyahu clearly doing his best to make a two state solution impossible by installing armed Israeli settlements every few miles ALL OVER the West Bank, we should abstain from any mandatory UN resolution for two states: something liberal Israelis will applaud. We also need to remind Netanyahu that his nation is our albatross, certainly not our leader, and he should be grateful, and act like it, that we even give aid.
In regard to Iran, their nuclear program does not, as yet, threaten the US. It could threaten Europe and particularly Israel; and these are the two groups who are going to have to take military action, WITHOUT OUT INVOLVEMENT, if they deem it necessary. So the world knows we have given them a green light if they have the guts (or stupidity) to attack, and that we have no intention of being involved, we should announce our position loud and clear.
In the meantime, its obvious Iran will cheat on any nuclear deal. Its time for us to impose, with our allies, the absolute strictest sanctions ever seen in the world, and prevent other countries who seek to evade the sanctions from doing so, even if it means blowing up the supply trucks.
Regarding Israel, with Netanyahu clearly doing his best to make a two state solution impossible by installing armed Israeli settlements every few miles ALL OVER the West Bank, we should abstain from any mandatory UN resolution for two states: something liberal Israelis will applaud. We also need to remind Netanyahu that his nation is our albatross, certainly not our leader, and he should be grateful, and act like it, that we even give aid.
1
All policies or agreements, whether in the public or private sector, are made or broken based on the often messy, often mundane, often boring, work of follow up. Even when faceless bureaucrats are diligent about the details, their bosses have moved on to the next crisis or political opportunity. What our political class so often misses, I think because few have been real managers in the real world, is recurring crisis and recurring problems are symptomatic of not paying attention to the details.
2
"recurring crisis and recurring problems are symptomatic of not paying attention to the details."
That is an important truth, and not only about nuclear negotiations.
We are governed by crisis management. Remember, "Never let a crisis go to waste."
There is a larger lesson here for us in running so many of our own affairs that way.
That is an important truth, and not only about nuclear negotiations.
We are governed by crisis management. Remember, "Never let a crisis go to waste."
There is a larger lesson here for us in running so many of our own affairs that way.
1
Iran a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with no nuclear weapons despite being the target of 60+ years of overt and covert regime change war from America has chosen to engage with the P 5 +1 in nuclear technology talks. North Korea also made a similar choice with the American military poised to strike by land, sea and air separated by a truce line.
The primary lesson for Iran from the North Korea negotiations is that the real nuclear weapons rogue states like Israel, India and Pakistan get a pass along with a place at the table in any international negotiations about nuclear issues or anything else. So the Jews, Hindus and Sunni Muslims have their nuclear nation state arsenals. And so do Protestants in America and the United Kingdom, Catholics in France, Orthodox in Russia and atheists in China.
With these arsenals backing up their respective military-industrial complex socioeconomic political adventures they can act with imperial impunity regarding national borders or civil or human rights. While former ethnic sectarian supremacist war making states like Germany and Japan have no nuclear weapons but are not hounded by the international community about their nuclear technology because of their huge economic power.
Cynical hypocrisy and an extant threatening international nuclear weapons arsenal is the lesson for the one and only human race.
The primary lesson for Iran from the North Korea negotiations is that the real nuclear weapons rogue states like Israel, India and Pakistan get a pass along with a place at the table in any international negotiations about nuclear issues or anything else. So the Jews, Hindus and Sunni Muslims have their nuclear nation state arsenals. And so do Protestants in America and the United Kingdom, Catholics in France, Orthodox in Russia and atheists in China.
With these arsenals backing up their respective military-industrial complex socioeconomic political adventures they can act with imperial impunity regarding national borders or civil or human rights. While former ethnic sectarian supremacist war making states like Germany and Japan have no nuclear weapons but are not hounded by the international community about their nuclear technology because of their huge economic power.
Cynical hypocrisy and an extant threatening international nuclear weapons arsenal is the lesson for the one and only human race.
3
Let's be clear on this.
As with every other conflict, the GOP wants a war with Iran.
It makes their funders richer.
As with every other conflict, the GOP wants a war with Iran.
It makes their funders richer.
7
Basically, without this agreement, Iran will continue to make nuclear weapons, just as it did when the Bush administration refused to negotiate.
Obama's agreement isn't just the best hope; it's the only hope.
Obama's agreement isn't just the best hope; it's the only hope.
34
That would be difficult to do if their nuclear facilities are turned to rubble -- if push comes to shove, that is. Something the same world powers that are assuring us this new "historic achievement" is a good deal didn't do when North Korea tore that piece of paper up as quickly as Hitler tore up Neville Chamberlain's piece of paper.
1
"That would be difficult to do if their nuclear facilities are turned to rubble"..... JW, if as you suggest, war is the only other available option, I think that stands as proof that it would be wise to try the negotiations first.
1
It's a sidebar to this that has always had my interest. The N. Korean bomb and missile system is an extraordinarily expensive political tool. Who paid for this? The GNP of N. Korea is about on a par with Dobbs Ferry, New York. There is no conventional way they can raise the money required as no one trusts them. So who is paying the bills?
8
I just watched a whole documentary on this. North Korea uses an extensive network of smuggling, gold trading, and evading sanctions through intricate movements of merchant vessels and shady dealing through banks in places like Macao. It also has and had a vibrant illicit arms trade with countries like ... well, countries like Iran. Iran???? Well fancy, that.
3
The reality is that the genie of nuclear weapon development, which was let out of the box when the Soviets developed their first weapon, has now come to this point after 7 decades. The unfortunate reality is that many nations, including most rogue nations, will likely develop nuclear weapons in the coming decades. All the more reason to continue the difficult work of diplomacy as opposed to war. But a new doctrine may have to be developed as it relates to deterrence of any use of nuclear devices. The doctrine of MAD (mutually assured destruction) DID work for decades with the Soviets. Nations that now develop nuclear weapons need to similarly be assured than any future usage will be a one time event leading to their complete and total annihilation by a massive nuclear retaliatory response. Usage by terrorists is more of a problem, however, rogue nations need to be held accountable as being judged to be the source of a rogue nuclear device in the same way that President Kennedy held the Soviet Union accountable for any attack from Cuba. The leadership of these nations must be assured, in advance, that develop these weapons if you will, but any use of a nuclear weapon will, without question, lead to their total destruction.
8
MAD also has worked between China and Russia, and most notably between India and Pakistan. The last two regard each other not unlike Israel and Iran regard each other --- so why wouldn't it work with them too?
So if someone (or some rogue general) steals a bomb from the US and drops it somewhere we should expect massive retaliation? That doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
The author and fellow negotiators were naive with North Korea, signing an agreement governing plutonium, instead of ALL radioactive materials, allowing North Korea to do a "switcheroo" to uranium. It's a similar naiveté seen with American businesses abroad. For example, Coca-Cola may sign an agreement with a bottler in a foreign country, believing it governs ALL Coke products, only to find them bottling 7-Up (a Pepsico product), because THEIR understanding was that the agreement was only for Coke.
With Iran, it could be déjà vu all over again. We could sign an agreement governing uranium and they could turn around and do a "reverse switcheroo" and start enriching plutonium.
With Iran, it could be déjà vu all over again. We could sign an agreement governing uranium and they could turn around and do a "reverse switcheroo" and start enriching plutonium.
5
Completely different set of geo-political circumstances....
2
Okay. So cheating is to be expected. Iran is a huge country and its leadership is pretty clearly anti-American.
Can the negotiators make clear to Iran that they must be allowed full inspection rights? And will the other countries involved with us back up the inspection demands?
That we still have a long way to go goes without saying and I hope that self congratulations aren't forthcoming too soon.
Can the negotiators make clear to Iran that they must be allowed full inspection rights? And will the other countries involved with us back up the inspection demands?
That we still have a long way to go goes without saying and I hope that self congratulations aren't forthcoming too soon.
4
"And will the other countries involved with us back up the inspection demands?"
No. This deal is as far as the rest of the world will go with us. Reject this, and we are alone.
No. This deal is as far as the rest of the world will go with us. Reject this, and we are alone.
1
The 2 countries are so geo- politically different ,the comparison is moot.
3
Except that Iran is seen by the CIA, State Dept, and Mossad as a rational player while North Korea is not.
1
One downside of our form of government is that our policies flip-flop each time the opposition party gains power. Iran can't trust us (Tom Cotton) any more than we can trust Iran.
That being said, I'd like to suggest a corollary to Godwin's Law: May we please cease using North Korea as representative of anyone but North Korea?
Rather than employ Pyongyang as our lodestone, let's consider Pakistan's nuclear program. Since 1998, when the Pakistanis conducted their first nuclear test, we have shipped over nearly $20 billion in military and economic aid.
Yesterday, the Pakistani government released from prison the alleged leader of the Mumbai attacks that left over 150 dead. The futility of our Afghanistan adventure (as scorching a corn field expecting that the field won't be green again in a year is futile) was made even more futile by the perfidy of our ally, Pakistan. Loose nukes.
Re Iran: We can apologize for overthrowing its popularly-elected government in 1953 and acknowledge that Iran has national security issues no less compelling than those cited by the US to butt into the internal affairs of nations worldwide; we can treat Iran as the regional power that it is rather than as a recalcitrant nine-year-old that we can bully; or
We can do what we do whenever a Marlboro Man is in power, sashay around like John Wayne and make threats that only matter if we're willing to bomb or send in troops.
Elect a Democrat in 2016. Bipolar diplomacy is just too tough on everybody.
That being said, I'd like to suggest a corollary to Godwin's Law: May we please cease using North Korea as representative of anyone but North Korea?
Rather than employ Pyongyang as our lodestone, let's consider Pakistan's nuclear program. Since 1998, when the Pakistanis conducted their first nuclear test, we have shipped over nearly $20 billion in military and economic aid.
Yesterday, the Pakistani government released from prison the alleged leader of the Mumbai attacks that left over 150 dead. The futility of our Afghanistan adventure (as scorching a corn field expecting that the field won't be green again in a year is futile) was made even more futile by the perfidy of our ally, Pakistan. Loose nukes.
Re Iran: We can apologize for overthrowing its popularly-elected government in 1953 and acknowledge that Iran has national security issues no less compelling than those cited by the US to butt into the internal affairs of nations worldwide; we can treat Iran as the regional power that it is rather than as a recalcitrant nine-year-old that we can bully; or
We can do what we do whenever a Marlboro Man is in power, sashay around like John Wayne and make threats that only matter if we're willing to bomb or send in troops.
Elect a Democrat in 2016. Bipolar diplomacy is just too tough on everybody.
33
Iran policy is failing just as N. Korea policy failed in the 1990s. Negotiating a deal isn't enough - its necessary to do whatever is needed to convince the regime not to build nukes. A "good try" isn't enough. Failure isn't an option in preventing nuclear proliferation, although it doesn't seem to bother Mr. Gallucci or Mr. Obama much. Bottom line is that neither the Dem or Repub parties have shown competence in this area, and the consequences are that Americans will likely wake up each morning under a threat of N. Korea and Iranian ICBMs.
3
Mediators use an acronym. They ask contending parties, "What's your BATNA - your best alternative to a negotiated agreement?" We want to forestall Iran's development of nuclear weapons - both sides agree on that. The alternatives seem to be military intervention - an act of war - or maintaining/increasing economic sanctions. Are the opponents of the deal advocating that we go to war with Iran? If they are supporting simply maintaining sanctions long-term, consider the results of the Treaty of Versailles, where the effort was made to cripple Germany and not allow it to participate in the world community - how did that work out?
11
WHILE this article is a step in the right direction, it fails Brilliantly on both Facts & Substance.
THE North Korean Deal's failure was triggered by the US Reneging on its Commitments to supply Energy in exchange for curtailing their Nuclear Power Program as the Koreans saw the US Failure as a sign that the US was acting in Bad Faith and is bent on Regime Change.
THE US-Iran relations can ONLY advance in a positive direction IF the US adjusts its Hostile Tone and Posture, Acts In Good Faith and applies the same criteria that it affords other Nations.
US also needs to Come Clean and stop insisting that Iran to be held accountable for the Forged Documents that the IAEA has been asking Iran to address in order to issue a Clean Bill of Health on Iran's Nuclear Program as our actions are Hypocritical as ALL Intelligence Agencies assert that Iran does not have a Nuclear Weapons Program.
Finally the Sanctions Relief must be Substantial and Immediate as Iran has made Considerable Concessions beyond our Expectations and that we must forget about Touring Iran's non-Nuclear sites based on Bogus Allegations as it would be interpreted as Continuing to act in Bad Faith even after agreeing to a Deal.
IF there is One Lesson from the North Korean case, is that IF the US Breaches the P5+1 Agreement, it will Force Iran to go Nuclear and that we should stop blaming others for our Malintent and Shortcomings.
THE North Korean Deal's failure was triggered by the US Reneging on its Commitments to supply Energy in exchange for curtailing their Nuclear Power Program as the Koreans saw the US Failure as a sign that the US was acting in Bad Faith and is bent on Regime Change.
THE US-Iran relations can ONLY advance in a positive direction IF the US adjusts its Hostile Tone and Posture, Acts In Good Faith and applies the same criteria that it affords other Nations.
US also needs to Come Clean and stop insisting that Iran to be held accountable for the Forged Documents that the IAEA has been asking Iran to address in order to issue a Clean Bill of Health on Iran's Nuclear Program as our actions are Hypocritical as ALL Intelligence Agencies assert that Iran does not have a Nuclear Weapons Program.
Finally the Sanctions Relief must be Substantial and Immediate as Iran has made Considerable Concessions beyond our Expectations and that we must forget about Touring Iran's non-Nuclear sites based on Bogus Allegations as it would be interpreted as Continuing to act in Bad Faith even after agreeing to a Deal.
IF there is One Lesson from the North Korean case, is that IF the US Breaches the P5+1 Agreement, it will Force Iran to go Nuclear and that we should stop blaming others for our Malintent and Shortcomings.
13
The nuanced approach to diplomatic relations Professor Gallucci addresses is welcome and enlightening. If only he could sum up in a short enough impact statement that will fit on a bumper sticker or t-shirt that would be useful in domestic political discourse.
The strength of the right wing marketing it's approach to Iran, or excusing the foreign policy failures of Dubya, is hard and short; bombing. A one word slogan works best. The neocons and hardliners aren't held accountable when failures are tallied. Screaming "cry Havoc, and slip the dogs of war"- is way too long for a bumper sticker.
The strength of the right wing marketing it's approach to Iran, or excusing the foreign policy failures of Dubya, is hard and short; bombing. A one word slogan works best. The neocons and hardliners aren't held accountable when failures are tallied. Screaming "cry Havoc, and slip the dogs of war"- is way too long for a bumper sticker.
5
What I find amusing is that the very Congress which can't summon up the support to give the President authorization to use force against ISIS now is pushing to decide the fate of the nuclear deal with Iran. Where have these Congressional know-it-alls been regarding - for example - North Korea? To be real leaders Congress must confront all issues not just pick and choose those which can please their donors.
27
With this agreement, Iran will surely get its nuclear weapons to sit atop its missiles.
Rather than postpone and thereby delude ourselves, we ought to deal with this unacceptable intent forthrightly. No war, please.
Rather than postpone and thereby delude ourselves, we ought to deal with this unacceptable intent forthrightly. No war, please.
2
The authors believe that a mechanism created to resolve disputes deriving from the implementation of an agreement will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear bombs. This is an extremely naive and scary proposition. If, as generally accepted, the Iranians are bent to have nuclear bombs, they will have them, no matter what papers they sign or to which mechanism they adhere. They can be stopped only by force. The use of force is of course unpalatable but cannot be avoided. The only real choice is whether to use it now or at a later stage, under far less favorable conditions.
I strongly advise the authors and the readers of the article to google the term TAQIYYA
I strongly advise the authors and the readers of the article to google the term TAQIYYA
6
"If, as generally accepted, the Iranians are bent to have nuclear bombs"
No, it is not generally accepted. It is a fear of some, an exaggerated, hyped fear used to manipulate others just like WMD before it.
No, it is not generally accepted. It is a fear of some, an exaggerated, hyped fear used to manipulate others just like WMD before it.
1
In their fixation with invading Iraq Bush and Cheney managed a double.
North Korea got the bomb and Iran was empowered.
Mission Accomplished.
North Korea got the bomb and Iran was empowered.
Mission Accomplished.
51
Iraq war was won by 2008.. In war,you can't just leave the country just invaded without some kind of rebuilding strategy. Showing at that time,that Obama had no negotiating skills, ( see nuclear Iran negotiations)the Iraqis threw us out, and instead of insisting on a residule force , obama with his combination of hubris and amateurism complied.....
3
I fail to understand why the Times editorial board thinks that the youth of Iran is going to have any real impact on the hardliners that govern the country with an iron fist. For that matter I fail to understand why the Times editorial board is constantly mesmerized with Iran. It's all Iran all the time at the Times.
1
"I fail to understand why the Times editorial board thinks that the youth of Iran is going to have any real impact on the hardliners that govern the country with an iron fist."
Perhaps because for all of human history, culture and policy changes one funeral at a time. The old farts in charge in Iran will eventually die. If their successors go not have incentive to seek to attack foreign territories, then they will be less likely to. We don't have to give them that incentive, do we?
Perhaps because for all of human history, culture and policy changes one funeral at a time. The old farts in charge in Iran will eventually die. If their successors go not have incentive to seek to attack foreign territories, then they will be less likely to. We don't have to give them that incentive, do we?
Using the authors' own litmus test:
1. Does the agreement with Iran serve our national interest?
All signs point to no. Iran is arming and funding groups whose actions are diametrically opposed to our interests. They are doing a great job of destabilizing the middle east right now - imagine what they would do with the international credibility and influx of cash an agreement with the P5+1 would provide. This deal demands no change in Iran’s behavior and it does not prevent them, with any degree of certainty, from building nuclear weapons.
2. Is this agreement better than no agreement at all?
See #1. This deal would only embolden Iran.
3. Is this agreement preferable to military force?
No simple yes or no answer here. Attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities right now would set the program back years. It's not a perfect solution, but if we make this agreement, and Iran builds nukes, then any military action would be all out war with nuclear weapons involved. So military action at this point could be the lesser of two evils.
Clearly, Iran does not pass the test. Even the authors themselves would only go so far as to say the arrangement with Iran *appears* to be *well on its way* to meeting that standard. Translation: It doesn’t meet the standard yet, but as far as they know, it might... at some point...maybe.
If you were living in Israel or Saudi Arabia, would you be willing to bet your life on that assessment? Is that a deal worth making?
1. Does the agreement with Iran serve our national interest?
All signs point to no. Iran is arming and funding groups whose actions are diametrically opposed to our interests. They are doing a great job of destabilizing the middle east right now - imagine what they would do with the international credibility and influx of cash an agreement with the P5+1 would provide. This deal demands no change in Iran’s behavior and it does not prevent them, with any degree of certainty, from building nuclear weapons.
2. Is this agreement better than no agreement at all?
See #1. This deal would only embolden Iran.
3. Is this agreement preferable to military force?
No simple yes or no answer here. Attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities right now would set the program back years. It's not a perfect solution, but if we make this agreement, and Iran builds nukes, then any military action would be all out war with nuclear weapons involved. So military action at this point could be the lesser of two evils.
Clearly, Iran does not pass the test. Even the authors themselves would only go so far as to say the arrangement with Iran *appears* to be *well on its way* to meeting that standard. Translation: It doesn’t meet the standard yet, but as far as they know, it might... at some point...maybe.
If you were living in Israel or Saudi Arabia, would you be willing to bet your life on that assessment? Is that a deal worth making?
6
Noticeably absent from comments advocating more war are the words:
I'm enlisting today.
My kids/grandkids are enlisting today.
I pledge my earned federal benefits, Social Security and Medicare to pay for perpetual war.
a Viet Nam veteran, a volunteer.
I'm enlisting today.
My kids/grandkids are enlisting today.
I pledge my earned federal benefits, Social Security and Medicare to pay for perpetual war.
a Viet Nam veteran, a volunteer.
12
I believe the only real solution to the Iranian nuclear issue is a complete reappraisal of U.S. policy in the Middle East and the establishment (whether formal or unwritten) of a Grand Bargain between the U.S. and Iran.
The constant portrayal of Iran's nuclear programme as not only an existential threat to Israel but a threat to world peace is an Israeli-inspired strategy to divert global attention away from Israel's own human rights atrocities.
If the U.S. managed to become a police state as the result of a single act of terrorism one has to ask how Iran can be expected to behave like a Swiss canton when it is surrounded by 12 U.S. military bases, with U.S. allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia constantly calling for its complete annihilation.
The nuclear talks can get us only so far. The key will be the U.S.A.'s willingness to abandon a policy of hostility that has forced Iran to react through proxies. Hostile actions are far more culpable than hostile reactions.
The constant portrayal of Iran's nuclear programme as not only an existential threat to Israel but a threat to world peace is an Israeli-inspired strategy to divert global attention away from Israel's own human rights atrocities.
If the U.S. managed to become a police state as the result of a single act of terrorism one has to ask how Iran can be expected to behave like a Swiss canton when it is surrounded by 12 U.S. military bases, with U.S. allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia constantly calling for its complete annihilation.
The nuclear talks can get us only so far. The key will be the U.S.A.'s willingness to abandon a policy of hostility that has forced Iran to react through proxies. Hostile actions are far more culpable than hostile reactions.
69
I really can't believe the NY Times is endorsing a comment which suggests that the P5+1, and Saudi Arabia, are only feigning concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions in order to help Israel murder Palestinians.
It's telling that those who oppose Israel always appoint themselves as the defenders of the Palestinian people, yet they ignore any suffering the Palestinians endure unless Israel can be blamed for it.
Right now the Palestinian refugees in Syria could care less about Israel, they're far more concerned about ISIS, and with good reason. The UN is warning of a potential massacre in the Yarmouk camp.
In Gaza, the Palestinian people suffer because they chose the conflict that comes with Hamas over the corruption that comes with Abbas. It is Iran, not Israel, who benefits from keeping the Palestinians as perennial refugees. So Tehran supplies Hamas with weapons to guarantee there can never be peace. Israel has no choice but to retaliate when missiles target their cities, and Hamas makes sure to plant their Iranian weapons among civilians so bloodied children can be used as propaganda.
The same problem between Israel and the Palestinians has persisted for almost 70 years now - Palestinian leadership does not want a state next to Israel, they want one instead of Israel - and countries who benefit from Israel's vilification don't want a Palestinian state at all. The status quo works just fine for them.
It's telling that those who oppose Israel always appoint themselves as the defenders of the Palestinian people, yet they ignore any suffering the Palestinians endure unless Israel can be blamed for it.
Right now the Palestinian refugees in Syria could care less about Israel, they're far more concerned about ISIS, and with good reason. The UN is warning of a potential massacre in the Yarmouk camp.
In Gaza, the Palestinian people suffer because they chose the conflict that comes with Hamas over the corruption that comes with Abbas. It is Iran, not Israel, who benefits from keeping the Palestinians as perennial refugees. So Tehran supplies Hamas with weapons to guarantee there can never be peace. Israel has no choice but to retaliate when missiles target their cities, and Hamas makes sure to plant their Iranian weapons among civilians so bloodied children can be used as propaganda.
The same problem between Israel and the Palestinians has persisted for almost 70 years now - Palestinian leadership does not want a state next to Israel, they want one instead of Israel - and countries who benefit from Israel's vilification don't want a Palestinian state at all. The status quo works just fine for them.
7
IRAN is acting through proxies...Not reacting...see 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran..For those who witnessed ,you could see and feel the world change..
Not for the better.
Not for the better.
2
I don't recall a single instance of Israel calling for iran's destruction. I believe the top chant in Iran recently heard by their senior leadership was "death to America, death to Israel!" Any equivalence between this absolute medieval theocracy and the democracy of America or Israel is impossible and flawed. The sniveling of leftist Europeans is nauseating to listen to. Why you spend so much time and energy hating the leaders of western civilization that are beacons of freedom is beyond me. Perhaps the 40% unemployment in Spain gives you all time to sit back and lecture us why you do nothing to protect the freedoms we all enjoy.
1
So, the author buried it deep down in the middle "we didn't follow through on two major promises, political relations and lifting of sanctions ...." But then quickly added (less he be tarred and feathered), but the North Koreans are still the offending party.
It is kinda confusing. But I guess the bottomline is, don't just sign an agreement and go take a nap. Not sure why that was the case in 1994. To anticipate the future a bit, perhaps it had to do with the more liberal executive promising something in a diplomatic rapprochement which the more conservative legislature then refuses to implement or puts roadblocks in the way .... Resulting in a failure that could have been avoided if a unified policy (whether liberal of conservative) had been followed. The too many cooks chink in the armor of democracy.
And looks like the body politic is in danger of striking out on the Axis of Evil here. N. Korea, Iraq, Iran ...
It is kinda confusing. But I guess the bottomline is, don't just sign an agreement and go take a nap. Not sure why that was the case in 1994. To anticipate the future a bit, perhaps it had to do with the more liberal executive promising something in a diplomatic rapprochement which the more conservative legislature then refuses to implement or puts roadblocks in the way .... Resulting in a failure that could have been avoided if a unified policy (whether liberal of conservative) had been followed. The too many cooks chink in the armor of democracy.
And looks like the body politic is in danger of striking out on the Axis of Evil here. N. Korea, Iraq, Iran ...
8
I agree with Joker. The U.S. failure to deliver on its promises to North Korea is minimized both here and elsewhere.
North Korea agreed to freeze its plutonium production program in exchange for fuel oil, economic cooperation, and the construction of two modern light-water nuclear power plants.
Gingrich and the U.S. Congress delayed funding for years and esentially nuked the Agreed Framework. The U.S. Congress seems positoned to do the same with the Iranian agreement. It seems that history does repeat...
North Korea agreed to freeze its plutonium production program in exchange for fuel oil, economic cooperation, and the construction of two modern light-water nuclear power plants.
Gingrich and the U.S. Congress delayed funding for years and esentially nuked the Agreed Framework. The U.S. Congress seems positoned to do the same with the Iranian agreement. It seems that history does repeat...
4
Some facts about US Iran relations in a snapshot.
US embassy staff was kept as hostage for almost one and half year in Iran after 1979 revolution.
US supported Sadam Hussain in Iran Iraq war for almost 10 years.
Iranian revolutionary guards/'Passadaran'/students used to march on US flag every day in Tehran after 1979 revolution.
US didn't give political asylum to Shah of Iran after 1979 revolution.
Iranian clergy and the government used to call US as 'great Satan' in their print and electronic media.
US shot down an Iranian civilian plane in 1988 killing 290 passengers and crew from six nations.
Rouhani in his election campaign used the slogan to get Iran free from sanctions imposed by US/'west'.
US let Iranian based death squads to play havoc in Iraq.
US let Iran to supply arms and military personnel to rescue Assad in Syria from FSA.
US literally handed over Iraq to Iranian 'Passdaran'/military.
US desperation to get nuclear deal with Iran has alienated Netanyahu and Israel... it's strongest ally in the middle east.
US sacrificed the entire middle east/Saudi Arabia regimes in current marriage of convenience with Rouhani regime.
US let Iran supply weapons and military personnel to Shiitte rebels in Yemen.
US folks are intrigued with this 'love and hate' relations with Iran!!!!
Question arises does US has a foreign policy?
US embassy staff was kept as hostage for almost one and half year in Iran after 1979 revolution.
US supported Sadam Hussain in Iran Iraq war for almost 10 years.
Iranian revolutionary guards/'Passadaran'/students used to march on US flag every day in Tehran after 1979 revolution.
US didn't give political asylum to Shah of Iran after 1979 revolution.
Iranian clergy and the government used to call US as 'great Satan' in their print and electronic media.
US shot down an Iranian civilian plane in 1988 killing 290 passengers and crew from six nations.
Rouhani in his election campaign used the slogan to get Iran free from sanctions imposed by US/'west'.
US let Iranian based death squads to play havoc in Iraq.
US let Iran to supply arms and military personnel to rescue Assad in Syria from FSA.
US literally handed over Iraq to Iranian 'Passdaran'/military.
US desperation to get nuclear deal with Iran has alienated Netanyahu and Israel... it's strongest ally in the middle east.
US sacrificed the entire middle east/Saudi Arabia regimes in current marriage of convenience with Rouhani regime.
US let Iran supply weapons and military personnel to Shiitte rebels in Yemen.
US folks are intrigued with this 'love and hate' relations with Iran!!!!
Question arises does US has a foreign policy?
8
Professor Gallucci, I am still looking for similarity between the North Korean leadership and Iran, I know what happened with the North Koreans during GWB's administration could happen with this Diplomatic maneuver of the Obama Administration, but it is not being undermined by Republicans, but by the Israeli firsters such as Schumer et al and the Jewish Lobby.. These people were elected to the US Congress but they act as if they were elected in Tel Aviv.
BTW, we do have a precedence in monitoring an agreement with Iran and the conflict resolution mechanism was built in during the Reagan Administration, let us not forget the document signed by Warren Christopher regarding the repatriation of Iranian Assets from US. this was signed in January of 1981. Well in those days we did not had so much control of our Congress by the Jewish/Israeli lobby.
BTW, we do have a precedence in monitoring an agreement with Iran and the conflict resolution mechanism was built in during the Reagan Administration, let us not forget the document signed by Warren Christopher regarding the repatriation of Iranian Assets from US. this was signed in January of 1981. Well in those days we did not had so much control of our Congress by the Jewish/Israeli lobby.
13
Blame the Jews is the usual anti Jew comment about most things. It makes simple, hate filled people, comfortable giving a simple explanation for most complex things. It has been going on for 1500 years. When everyone in your family is murdered for bring Jewish, I forget, everyone is tired of hearing about the German murder of Jews.
Congress is bought by anyone who will pay them to stay in office. Right wing, religious conservatism, billionaires are running this country right now ,
Congress is bought by anyone who will pay them to stay in office. Right wing, religious conservatism, billionaires are running this country right now ,
1
Other than what you have mentioned, do you have any facts to back up your rant. Please check the dates of the establishment of JDL, AJA, Zionist movements, and AIPAC.
As much as I sympathize with your personal story and my sympathies for you losing your family in Europe during the tragedies but how can you justify the present day atrocities on the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
As much as I sympathize with your personal story and my sympathies for you losing your family in Europe during the tragedies but how can you justify the present day atrocities on the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
4
The headline, “North Korea’s Real Lessons for Iran”, is the most misleading I have seen in a long time. (Yes I know, a Times staffer wrote it.)
The major lessons to be learned, as explained by the authors, are not for Iran but for the critics, most of them Republicans not named by the authors. The authors place the emphasis where it belongs, on Netanyahu who would have us believe that Iran is The Great Satan in the form of North Korea:
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and others have argued that the eventual collapse of that agreement, resulting in North Korea’s building nuclear weapons, proves that a deal with Tehran is a big mistake.”
Iran is in no way, shape, or fashion North Korea. The authors understand this and make perfectly clear what is needed, an Iran with which we maintain full diplomatic relations.
Are the Congressional friends of Benjamin Netanyahu capable of understanding these sentences?
“Finally, we should understand that without a positive shift in political relations, the chances that a nuclear deal will fail increase over time… ignore the critics who say that the lesson is to abandon diplomacy. Diplomacy can succeed with political will and sustained focus…the deal itself is only the beginning.
Your answer?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
The major lessons to be learned, as explained by the authors, are not for Iran but for the critics, most of them Republicans not named by the authors. The authors place the emphasis where it belongs, on Netanyahu who would have us believe that Iran is The Great Satan in the form of North Korea:
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and others have argued that the eventual collapse of that agreement, resulting in North Korea’s building nuclear weapons, proves that a deal with Tehran is a big mistake.”
Iran is in no way, shape, or fashion North Korea. The authors understand this and make perfectly clear what is needed, an Iran with which we maintain full diplomatic relations.
Are the Congressional friends of Benjamin Netanyahu capable of understanding these sentences?
“Finally, we should understand that without a positive shift in political relations, the chances that a nuclear deal will fail increase over time… ignore the critics who say that the lesson is to abandon diplomacy. Diplomacy can succeed with political will and sustained focus…the deal itself is only the beginning.
Your answer?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
22
Larry,
My answer is "negotiations" only for the sake of being seen to be doing something or to buy time to rearm as the British did at Munich, are as pointless now as they were then. The Iranians, like the North Koreans have never voluntarily stopped building their bomb, talks or no talks.
My answer is "negotiations" only for the sake of being seen to be doing something or to buy time to rearm as the British did at Munich, are as pointless now as they were then. The Iranians, like the North Koreans have never voluntarily stopped building their bomb, talks or no talks.
@ Richard And therefore what is your recommended course of action and what are both the intended and unintended consequences of the action you recommend.
Thanks for replying, your turn.
Larry
Thanks for replying, your turn.
Larry
2
"But the only litmus test that matters is whether an agreement serves our national interest, is better than having no deal at all, and is preferable to military force."
Well said.
If we attack Iran militarily, they will have nukes in a few months. The idea that we can prevent that with a military strike is naive or maliciously dishonest.
We were told toppling Saddam would lead to dancing in the streets of Baghdad and mature democracy and peace in Iraq. Hasn't exactly worked out that way. Now we have lies and foolishness about striking Iran.
Iran could pursue nukes in the center of a number of mountain bunkers and we could not capture or find all off them in time before a bomb was created and *used* in Israel or Europe or the USA.
Yes, used.
Our threat would be existential if we invaded Iran. Nations build nukes as deterrence against existential threats. So by invading, we hand Iran a reason for using a nuke.
And all you need is an anonymous lead lined shipping container out of thousands, no need for an ICBM.
Iran is not Iraq, wide open flat desert, it is mountain fortresses. We played hide and seek in the mountains of Afghanistan for years. Is someone going to tell us our intelligence on Iranian nuclear sites is ironclad, we know all of them? You want to bet an Iranian nuclear strike on that conviction?
So we will pursue a deal. Not because it will work with certainty. But because all other options are clearly worse.
Well said.
If we attack Iran militarily, they will have nukes in a few months. The idea that we can prevent that with a military strike is naive or maliciously dishonest.
We were told toppling Saddam would lead to dancing in the streets of Baghdad and mature democracy and peace in Iraq. Hasn't exactly worked out that way. Now we have lies and foolishness about striking Iran.
Iran could pursue nukes in the center of a number of mountain bunkers and we could not capture or find all off them in time before a bomb was created and *used* in Israel or Europe or the USA.
Yes, used.
Our threat would be existential if we invaded Iran. Nations build nukes as deterrence against existential threats. So by invading, we hand Iran a reason for using a nuke.
And all you need is an anonymous lead lined shipping container out of thousands, no need for an ICBM.
Iran is not Iraq, wide open flat desert, it is mountain fortresses. We played hide and seek in the mountains of Afghanistan for years. Is someone going to tell us our intelligence on Iranian nuclear sites is ironclad, we know all of them? You want to bet an Iranian nuclear strike on that conviction?
So we will pursue a deal. Not because it will work with certainty. But because all other options are clearly worse.
22
Finally someone who looks at a map before fantasizing about a war with Iran. (1) No military campaign has ever been won with air power alone -- indeed, the US dropped more tonnage on Vietnam (the size of Pennsylvania) than on Germany in WW2 and we still lost (2) ergo, a ground campaign is needed --- but how do you put troops on the ground without a contiguous land base? Can you stage them in Pakistan or Iraq? Not very likely (to say the least). So (3) you must invade from the sea...into an area that is desert, largely roadless, and bisected east to west by a major mountain range. The Normandy invasion was in preparation for 2 1/2 years --- it would need only a fraction of that time for the Iranians to make their bomb. Not to mention that it would trigger a worldwide upsurge of terrorism, lead to naval war in the Strait of Hormuz, and assure that the Iranians remain bitter enemies for the next century.
So the Iranians get a bomb. MAD has prevented nuclear war for almost 70 years --- and Israel alone has the resources (nuclear weapons and 2nd strike ability) , not to mention the US. Why would it not work here? And what are the odds that the Ayatollahs would approve nuking the Dome of the Rock, which is the second-holiest place in Islam and sits in the heart of Jerusalem? Slim to none, IMO.
So the Iranians get a bomb. MAD has prevented nuclear war for almost 70 years --- and Israel alone has the resources (nuclear weapons and 2nd strike ability) , not to mention the US. Why would it not work here? And what are the odds that the Ayatollahs would approve nuking the Dome of the Rock, which is the second-holiest place in Islam and sits in the heart of Jerusalem? Slim to none, IMO.
4
I see your point. North Korea equals Iran. I disagree with your point of view. Iran is a cultured and liberal society in the best of times. Their recent history is not predictive of future behaviors. Right now, they are waking up to a world in which they will be invited to the table of civilized nations. Certainly, there is a history of sloganeering against the US. However, those folks are marginalized at the moment. I wish the same could be said for the sloganeering folks on our side. I wish the NYTimes would invite some op eds from the Iranian perspective. We listened to Bibi, did we not?
30
N. Korea is country without any assets or natural endowments and has politicized the bomb to negotiate. And, we put them in the corner: "A review of the available evidence suggests that this is just what happened. Relying on sketchy data, the Bush administration presented a worst-case scenario as an incontrovertible truth and distorted its intelligence on North Korea (much as it did on Iraq), seriously exaggerating the danger that Pyongyang is secretly making uranium-based nuclear weapons." Source: Foreign Affairs Journal.
Iran has no bomb, has said they don't want it, their religious leader has passed a fatwa making having the bomb illegal, has now agreed to in principle to limit its nuclear activities to prevent its ability to weaponize its nuclear assets; and has vast extractable resources beneficial to many. The battle for Iran is how to keep them on our side despite our ideological differences, because their extractables are valuable to our rivals and enemies. Iran too has used its nuclear program as a bargaining chip, but not by making a bomb, but by making all the components of a bomb, forcing the US and the world to come to the table.
N. Korea is a liability, even for China, and is used as a tool by China to play Japan and the US. If we manage the relationship with Iran, we can gains an asset. unlike Saudi Arabia, which is only a weapons market. The Saudis gave us '98 embassy bombings in E. Africa, 9/11, Bin Laden, ISIS.....
Iran has no bomb, has said they don't want it, their religious leader has passed a fatwa making having the bomb illegal, has now agreed to in principle to limit its nuclear activities to prevent its ability to weaponize its nuclear assets; and has vast extractable resources beneficial to many. The battle for Iran is how to keep them on our side despite our ideological differences, because their extractables are valuable to our rivals and enemies. Iran too has used its nuclear program as a bargaining chip, but not by making a bomb, but by making all the components of a bomb, forcing the US and the world to come to the table.
N. Korea is a liability, even for China, and is used as a tool by China to play Japan and the US. If we manage the relationship with Iran, we can gains an asset. unlike Saudi Arabia, which is only a weapons market. The Saudis gave us '98 embassy bombings in E. Africa, 9/11, Bin Laden, ISIS.....
21
"N. Korea is country without any assets or natural endowments"
Actually, that is not true. N Korea could prosper even more than the South under a good government. They have vast natural resources in those mountains, and a very hard working people.
What has happened to it is awful, and presents many lessons in how not to do things on all sides going back decades. They are lessons many have vested interests in not seeing.
Let's not do it again with Iran. We don't need another N Korea, and our right wing wants to create one bigger and worse than the last.
Actually, that is not true. N Korea could prosper even more than the South under a good government. They have vast natural resources in those mountains, and a very hard working people.
What has happened to it is awful, and presents many lessons in how not to do things on all sides going back decades. They are lessons many have vested interests in not seeing.
Let's not do it again with Iran. We don't need another N Korea, and our right wing wants to create one bigger and worse than the last.
2
Mr. Gallucci and Mr. Wit have clearly indicated what went wrong with President Bush's failure to revisit talks with North Korea when they were found to have been cheating. President Bush, with his unnuanced world view and hawkish handlers, stopped talking to North Korea, declared it part of the "axis of evil" and turned his back on further discussion. He viewed the "deal" President Clinton's administration negotiated as a single transaction, not a framework for resolving differences and making improvement.
Prime Minister Netanyahu's constant refrain, "It's a bad deal!" reveals much the same attitude, as though the subject of the multilateral talks were the purchase of a used car rather than the establishment of a framework for continued dialogue. There will no doubt be cheating and twisting of terms but the only way forward is continued conversation, not declaring, "This is a lemon," and walking away.
The goal of keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons, which would lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons will not be achieved in a single agreement. The old saw is: "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time." One must accept not only the need to take small bites but also to keep on chewing.
Prime Minister Netanyahu's constant refrain, "It's a bad deal!" reveals much the same attitude, as though the subject of the multilateral talks were the purchase of a used car rather than the establishment of a framework for continued dialogue. There will no doubt be cheating and twisting of terms but the only way forward is continued conversation, not declaring, "This is a lemon," and walking away.
The goal of keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons, which would lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons will not be achieved in a single agreement. The old saw is: "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time." One must accept not only the need to take small bites but also to keep on chewing.
41
North Korea cheated and similarly there is no reason to think that Iran will not cheat, if only based on their past performance. Also both are authoritarian regimes with little respect for anyone else, so we have absolutely no right to expect “good” behavior in the long term. But these are the only similarities between the two situations: North Korea was and remains an impoverished country that can be easily checked by China possibly the world’s largest and fastest rising power.
Iran cannot be easily checked by anyone in their neighborhood. And Iran is busily working on taking control and undermining countries in the region. Our proposed deal does not address, let alone curtail, any of these activities. Worse, if in fact this deal becomes effective it will—with lifting of the sanctions and freeing of Iran’s frozen funds—fabulously enrich Iran and permit it to expand its activities.
For all the countries in the Middle East Iran seems by far the most threatening—from Israel to Saudi Arabia to the Gulf states—and their reaction to a newly empowered and much wealthier Iran will be to arm themselves to the teeth to get ready for an inevitable firestorm—including nuclear weapons.
So instead of worrying about Iran’s bomb we will be worried about everyone in the region managing their arsenals. How will this be a better situation than what we have now?
Iran cannot be easily checked by anyone in their neighborhood. And Iran is busily working on taking control and undermining countries in the region. Our proposed deal does not address, let alone curtail, any of these activities. Worse, if in fact this deal becomes effective it will—with lifting of the sanctions and freeing of Iran’s frozen funds—fabulously enrich Iran and permit it to expand its activities.
For all the countries in the Middle East Iran seems by far the most threatening—from Israel to Saudi Arabia to the Gulf states—and their reaction to a newly empowered and much wealthier Iran will be to arm themselves to the teeth to get ready for an inevitable firestorm—including nuclear weapons.
So instead of worrying about Iran’s bomb we will be worried about everyone in the region managing their arsenals. How will this be a better situation than what we have now?
4
The "real lesson" of the North Korea fiasco is that enablers like Robert Gallucci will fool themselves to get the temporary results they want. It was beyond silly in 1994 to believe that North Korea's word was worth anything. The only way to prevent North Korea from getting the bomb was military force; the real question was whether it was better to attack North Korea in 1994 before it had the bomb, or attack it after it gets the bomb and tries to use or sell it (it may already have sold the technology). The question today is fundamentally as simple: can Iran be trusted? Remember, as they like to remind us, they love death as we love life. Enough said?
4
The most disheartening feature of this article is how its two authors still wiggle and twist in order to put the veil of opaqueness on the real lessons for the failure of the North Korean nuclear agreement. The three major causes of the North Korean leaving the NPT and restarting their military nuclear program are: first, the Clinton and the Bush administrations abrogated on practically all the American obligations in the agreement – from the removal of the sanctions to the “light-water” reactors provisions. Second, to say the least, the U.S. didn't help the noble President Kim Dae-jung in his “sunshine Policy” quest to open up the North. Third, once North Korea was put as the Asian edge of the Axis of Evil, its despotic rulers found themselves in a position where they've basically dismantled the very expensive plutonium path to a bomb and were faced with a clear and imminent danger of being crashed either by the Neocon’s manifest destiny or from a coup.
3
Best way to describe these two guys is 'fools'. They belong to the dust bin of history of people who learn nothing. Their defense of what they did is with lunatics you need to take risks. What's different now? Nothing, other then O's ego, which is a major threat to the safety and security of the US. Unfortunately, suckers like O are born everyday. Common sense would tell you that the complexity that is the Iran deal, dooms it to being not enforceable at any level. It is a 'three card Monte' game for fools. Yes, diplomacy can be useful and succeed, but only if it follows the 'keep it simple' rule. The Iran deal is everything but and therefore should be redone or rejected as a 'fools errand'.
4
The arguments against the Iran nuclear “deal” are arguments against confidence in people to have at least some rational response to their fate. The Japanese and German people after a disastrous experience with the war politics of aggression responded positively to the Marshal Plan and economic integration with the rest of the world. Now they are among the most creative economies contributing to global well being.
This very well informed comparison to North Korean “deals” illustrates the failure of the world to have confidence that a better informed populace would have a more reasonable response to the cult of personality that infects their world view. If the North Korean people had the same opportunity to perceive reality as their South Korean siblings, the need for nuclear posturing is removed. Instead of aiding the infiltration of information into the darkness the West has instead reinforced the the wall that allows the dictatorship to survive.
To make the same mistake with Iran means to fall under the influence of those who refuse to have confidence in an informed citizen of an adversary to make a rational choice in creatively integrating with the mankind. Is it any surprise that these deal breakers are also advocates of beliefs that seek to impose their beliefs upon others. The Iranian average citizen is well informed about “the Great Satin” and their own economic plight. If we really believe in democracy we must have confidence in an informed Iranian people.
This very well informed comparison to North Korean “deals” illustrates the failure of the world to have confidence that a better informed populace would have a more reasonable response to the cult of personality that infects their world view. If the North Korean people had the same opportunity to perceive reality as their South Korean siblings, the need for nuclear posturing is removed. Instead of aiding the infiltration of information into the darkness the West has instead reinforced the the wall that allows the dictatorship to survive.
To make the same mistake with Iran means to fall under the influence of those who refuse to have confidence in an informed citizen of an adversary to make a rational choice in creatively integrating with the mankind. Is it any surprise that these deal breakers are also advocates of beliefs that seek to impose their beliefs upon others. The Iranian average citizen is well informed about “the Great Satin” and their own economic plight. If we really believe in democracy we must have confidence in an informed Iranian people.
25
Undre the Clinton administration, North Korea was promised improved political relations with the United States and the lifting of sanctions. One of the first foreign policy actions of the Bush administration was to adopt a very threatening tone towards North Korea while reneging on the sanctions portion of the agreement. North Korea then withdrew from the agreement. It was almost as though the bush administration needed the enmity of North Korea.
Essentially the same people are clamoring to destroy any agreement with Iran. As with North Korea, the reasons given are that these countries are so irredeemably evil that no agreement is possible.
These rather childish and xenophobic assumptions have been driving American foreign policy for far too long.
That men like Mr. Cheney and Netanyahu and Mr. Bolton and Mr. Wolfovitz and Mr. Cotten and Mr. Lindsey Graham choose to traffic in bellicose misstatements and mischaracterizations of Iran is understandable. They are demagogues and that is how demagogues ply their trade.
They beat the drums for war, not because they sight an enemy but because war suits better their narrow and discreditable causes. To a large and powerful constituency in the United States any kind of war is preferable to any kind of peace.
The rest of us need to support our President who, perhaps imperfectly, has tried to create a counter narrative to this.
Essentially the same people are clamoring to destroy any agreement with Iran. As with North Korea, the reasons given are that these countries are so irredeemably evil that no agreement is possible.
These rather childish and xenophobic assumptions have been driving American foreign policy for far too long.
That men like Mr. Cheney and Netanyahu and Mr. Bolton and Mr. Wolfovitz and Mr. Cotten and Mr. Lindsey Graham choose to traffic in bellicose misstatements and mischaracterizations of Iran is understandable. They are demagogues and that is how demagogues ply their trade.
They beat the drums for war, not because they sight an enemy but because war suits better their narrow and discreditable causes. To a large and powerful constituency in the United States any kind of war is preferable to any kind of peace.
The rest of us need to support our President who, perhaps imperfectly, has tried to create a counter narrative to this.
67
You left out the part where even under Clinton the North Koreans never stopped building their bomb, not even for one day!
By all means, support the President in this failed attempt to even achieve this watered down agreement that the Iranians just exploded in his face?
By all means, support the President in this failed attempt to even achieve this watered down agreement that the Iranians just exploded in his face?
I am amazed that someone has a long view on this issue. The right in this country certainly has no other interest than a firm victory over Iran in this agreement. That is all they will "settle" for. Which, of course will never happen.The aftermath of our two recent wars proves that long term planning on the right is basically hoping for wish fulfillment to negate reality.
As you point out, in the real world things evolve in ways that can bring real progress. Clear winners are seldom evident and that is part of what constitutes progress. But, as we have found out, cowboys don't do nuance.I urge you to put forth this position as often and as loud as possible. It's time we started thinking outside the corral.
As you point out, in the real world things evolve in ways that can bring real progress. Clear winners are seldom evident and that is part of what constitutes progress. But, as we have found out, cowboys don't do nuance.I urge you to put forth this position as often and as loud as possible. It's time we started thinking outside the corral.
16
Why isn't Senator Tom Cotton calling for the bombing of North Korea?
2
He will. His crew already wanted to strike their missile test even after they had nukes.
1
If another Bush is elected to the White House the deal will just be regarded as something that never happened and Iran will probably be invaded or at least attacked to disable their nuclear facilities. If people think Obama was going to have a different foreign policy to Bush six years ago they were wrong. Because how do you explain all those new countries being invaded over that time? Obama could have just pulled the plug on Afghanistan and Iraq the moment he was elected. Obama is one of them, Obama is one of the power elite. The same elite which Bush and Clinton before him belong to. It is critical that Bush doesn't get elected if no one wants to see a resumption of the war on terrorism such as that of his brother. The emerging cabinet of Bush is a recipe for disaster.
2
Boy! Refusing to talk or deal with Iran until they start doing what we want them to do! That's no way to peace and prosperity through trade, which is what we are aiming at. How would that approach have worked with China, once our mortal enemy -- now our biggest trading partner? And Vietnam, which killed 50,000 USA soldiers -- now trading more with the USA than with any other nation? The President is right to reach out to work with Iran. And despite Bibi's kicking and screaming, Israel is presented with the opportunity to follow USA's lead -- reach out to their mortal enemies and work with them in Israel's national interest. Israel will be safer when it is trading with its neighbors instead of bombing them, stealing their land for more settlements, etc.
Go for it, Obama!
Go for it, Obama!
62
Not to mention that even crazy Kim Jong Un threatens but has not used any of his nukes.
If we'd kept our part of the bargain---gee here it is again, like what we didn't do after withdrawing from Afghanistan before bin Laden had a foothold-- and had kept open diplomacy and lifted some sanctions, it could have had a better outcome. Yet Kim has them but doesn't use them in his fits of pique.
This war-first neocon policy has made a segment of our economy quite wealthy but left us decimated morally and unworthy of trust internationally by these very rogue states.
We must always try dialogue with our opponents. Iran has abided by all the terms so far, even as our ally Israel has continued to build settlements against international law and bombed Gaza to the stone age, yet says Iran is the bad actor.
Does anyone think this hypocrisy is not evident?
If we'd kept our part of the bargain---gee here it is again, like what we didn't do after withdrawing from Afghanistan before bin Laden had a foothold-- and had kept open diplomacy and lifted some sanctions, it could have had a better outcome. Yet Kim has them but doesn't use them in his fits of pique.
This war-first neocon policy has made a segment of our economy quite wealthy but left us decimated morally and unworthy of trust internationally by these very rogue states.
We must always try dialogue with our opponents. Iran has abided by all the terms so far, even as our ally Israel has continued to build settlements against international law and bombed Gaza to the stone age, yet says Iran is the bad actor.
Does anyone think this hypocrisy is not evident?
21
Julie,
No, your Hypocrisy is quite evident! It's also "evident" that even the President's partisans here at the NYT can sense the failour of these negotiations is "nigh".
No, your Hypocrisy is quite evident! It's also "evident" that even the President's partisans here at the NYT can sense the failour of these negotiations is "nigh".
2
The important thing is that some sort of agreement is the only hope we have to turn Iran away from being a rogue state.
In fact we need to find an excuse to drop sanctions and normalize relations with Iran more than we need a nuclear deal. But a deal is the necessary cover to make the dropping of sanctions appear to be a hard fought concession.
We won the Cold War with Levi's and Coke. We can win in the Middle East by buying Iranian oil and selling them Treasuries.
In fact we need to find an excuse to drop sanctions and normalize relations with Iran more than we need a nuclear deal. But a deal is the necessary cover to make the dropping of sanctions appear to be a hard fought concession.
We won the Cold War with Levi's and Coke. We can win in the Middle East by buying Iranian oil and selling them Treasuries.
16
Michael,
Have you forget your Lenin? "A Capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with"! All we need to do is buy Iran's oil? However has that worked out for Europe with Russia? Additionally, we don't need Iran's oil. We have our own!
Have you forget your Lenin? "A Capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with"! All we need to do is buy Iran's oil? However has that worked out for Europe with Russia? Additionally, we don't need Iran's oil. We have our own!
1
"Have you forget your Lenin?"
You ought to know that Lenin was wrong. About everything.
You ought to know that Lenin was wrong. About everything.
2
The irony in all of this hysteria is that Israel got their Nuclear arms on the sly as well so when Netanyahu points his finger at Iran he has 3 more pointing back at Israel.
34
And the key difference is if the Iranians get it they will use it. That's why Israel needed it first. Medieval theocracy vs democracy? Which do you support and where would you let your daughter visit? Makes all this nuanced sophisticate salon discussion moot.
I got it. The “Blame everything on Bush” trick. Why not. It’s worked since 2009. And if there is a deal with Iran and that does not end up well, find a way to blame that also on Bush. We know how it goes: If the U. S. hadn’t invaded Iraq in 2003 [etc.] [etc.] [etc.].
3
footnote to my last post
facing realty (I like that term reminds me of Sargent Barnes in Platoon) we have our own Gaza armed with nuclear weapons we created with North Korea and no wonder why we like the idea of winking at Iran becoming the Gaza next to Israel
facing realty (I like that term reminds me of Sargent Barnes in Platoon) we have our own Gaza armed with nuclear weapons we created with North Korea and no wonder why we like the idea of winking at Iran becoming the Gaza next to Israel
There are some additional factors worth considering here: Iran's government is generally repressive (despite the semi-open elections held to determine its secular leaders) but the PDRK is nothing but a prison camp run by- and for- a dynasty of lunatics and the generals who support them. We have nothing to gain from dealing with them and, apart from maintaining a defense pact with their siblings to the south, our interests are best served by declining to talk to these people until such time as they give the rest of the world access to their citizen base. On the other hand (and as this op/ed piece suggests), the next generation of Iran's leaders are already open to friendly relations with the West. It would be a huge mistake to ignore them or to otherwise dampen their hopes and aspirations. Hence, we should make every reasonable attempt to work out a deal with their current leaders even allowing for their professed hatred of the "Great Satan" and his deviant values. If Khameini and his minions decide to renege either before or after an agreement is signed, we'll simply reimpose the sanctions and be no worse off than we are now- and that's even assuming that Russia and China work out their own separate deals with Tehran. If the young folks and the business leaders of Iran are going to suffer disappointment they should, at least, be able to recognize the parties responsible for it.
81
You're not souding too confident about the deal these days Stu, kind of like you think Mr. Netanyahu, vile man that you believe he is, may be on to something about the Ayatollah after all.
So let me help you out a bit. The deal is already a dead duck and a plucked goose. A significant portion of the American people -- the portion of it that is convinced that it will seriously threaten Israel -- are vehemently opposed to it. Obama knows it is dead. So does Netanyahu. Kerry, as of yet, has still not been fully informed. All G-d's chillun except those still mesmerized by the President's beauty know it. Everything that happens from here on in will be about who should bear the blame for the failure of the discussions. Obama will blame Boehner, Netanyahu and the Republicans. You and many many readers of the Times will blame AIPAC, Sheldon Adelson and Jewish control of Hollywood and the media.
So let me help you out a bit. The deal is already a dead duck and a plucked goose. A significant portion of the American people -- the portion of it that is convinced that it will seriously threaten Israel -- are vehemently opposed to it. Obama knows it is dead. So does Netanyahu. Kerry, as of yet, has still not been fully informed. All G-d's chillun except those still mesmerized by the President's beauty know it. Everything that happens from here on in will be about who should bear the blame for the failure of the discussions. Obama will blame Boehner, Netanyahu and the Republicans. You and many many readers of the Times will blame AIPAC, Sheldon Adelson and Jewish control of Hollywood and the media.
3
#A. Stanton Who knows what wil happen next. No deal? Maybe. Deal? Hopefully, but if not, we will have tried, which is more than can be said about those who hold on to the past and are doomed to react, unable to create. What has Bibi done to find a way to live together with his closest neighbors? So smart, most everyone seems to agree, and yet so small a human being. A man without hope is a man without dreams, robbing his country of a future.
3
Stu, This seems like a reasonable assessment and I hope you are right. The fly in the ointment, as I see it, is the disruptive Republican Congress that jumps up to stop anything Obama starts. That's like negotiating on two fronts.
3
The Bush Admin did not want that deal with North Korea. The people in W's Admin and W's supporters opposed the deal when Clinton did it.
They took the first opportunity to kill the deal. That was the outcome they wanted.
This seems to blame it on N. Korean "cheating." That isn't the real story. A dispute can be resolved many ways. North Korea had been hard heads since the Korean War talks. Nobody could have been surprised by some confrontation. The point is that W took the very first opportunity to walk away from diplomacy and try sanctions and pressure to be tough. It didn't work.
Iran has never been the sort of hard heads the North Koreans have always been. It is cultural. We ought to realize the differences in two very different places and cultures.
There is no reason to think that Iran will behave in the same way as North Korea behaved. NOBODY else behaves the way North Korea behaves.
There is no reason to point at North Korea and presume that Iran will behave the same way. North Korea is nuts, they deliberately play nuts like Kissinger said of Nixon's desire to be unpredictable and scary.
Iran has never done that. It is just foolish to assume they will do it now.
They took the first opportunity to kill the deal. That was the outcome they wanted.
This seems to blame it on N. Korean "cheating." That isn't the real story. A dispute can be resolved many ways. North Korea had been hard heads since the Korean War talks. Nobody could have been surprised by some confrontation. The point is that W took the very first opportunity to walk away from diplomacy and try sanctions and pressure to be tough. It didn't work.
Iran has never been the sort of hard heads the North Koreans have always been. It is cultural. We ought to realize the differences in two very different places and cultures.
There is no reason to think that Iran will behave in the same way as North Korea behaved. NOBODY else behaves the way North Korea behaves.
There is no reason to point at North Korea and presume that Iran will behave the same way. North Korea is nuts, they deliberately play nuts like Kissinger said of Nixon's desire to be unpredictable and scary.
Iran has never done that. It is just foolish to assume they will do it now.
87
@ Mr. T.
Next you'll be posting comments comparing the Ayatollah to Mother Teresa and the Quakers.
You are obviously dreading what you fully expect is coming next, the total collapse of the Iran deal.
So get a lot of sleep in the next few days and exercise and eat responsibly. You'll need to be in the best shape of your life when that very bad day arrives so that you'll be able to do full justice to the treachery of Israel, Netanyahu, Adelson and AIPAC. And, of course, to once again extoll the countless virtues of the Ayatollah.
Your fans are counting on you.
Next you'll be posting comments comparing the Ayatollah to Mother Teresa and the Quakers.
You are obviously dreading what you fully expect is coming next, the total collapse of the Iran deal.
So get a lot of sleep in the next few days and exercise and eat responsibly. You'll need to be in the best shape of your life when that very bad day arrives so that you'll be able to do full justice to the treachery of Israel, Netanyahu, Adelson and AIPAC. And, of course, to once again extoll the countless virtues of the Ayatollah.
Your fans are counting on you.
3
When are we ever going to point the finger of blame to the real culprits within the U.S.? Namely the Republican Party and its rightward bent, which seems to be on the wrong side of EVERY issue? The American population at large is gullible and easily convinced that it is the other guy's fault, particularly if they also happen to be foreigners on the other side of the globe.
And I fear America may be getting ready to elect the same kind of mentality in the next presidential elections.
And I fear America may be getting ready to elect the same kind of mentality in the next presidential elections.
4
A. Stanton -- "You are obviously dreading what you fully expect is coming next, the total collapse of the Iran deal."
Dream on. Netanyahu is completely isolated now that even the Saudis have accepted the deal. He and his hired chorus in Congress are holding out alone against the world and the polls in America.
Dream on. Netanyahu is completely isolated now that even the Saudis have accepted the deal. He and his hired chorus in Congress are holding out alone against the world and the polls in America.
2
If you were huddled in your bunker in NK, what would you think was going to happen, given what happened to Saddam, who did not even have nuclear weapons in the first place?