I am not sure if the opponents of this deal in Congress realize they are the unwitting allies of the hardliners in Iran .
The hardliners would love the deal to fall through as they know full well the rest of the world will lift sanctions and in a matter of months they can have a nuclear deterrent in case of nuclear attack by Israel.
Proof of this is trade envoys from Europe ,Russia ,Asia are flocking to Iran to develop trade links and they have no interest in the machinations of Congress.
Let's face it this is the best deal possible ,they have given up a lot of their sovereignty ,we have given up nothing .
In fact we have built opportunities for the future,76 million educated consumers, a platform to work on solving the ISIS problem and finding a humane solution for Syria.
The hardliners would love the deal to fall through as they know full well the rest of the world will lift sanctions and in a matter of months they can have a nuclear deterrent in case of nuclear attack by Israel.
Proof of this is trade envoys from Europe ,Russia ,Asia are flocking to Iran to develop trade links and they have no interest in the machinations of Congress.
Let's face it this is the best deal possible ,they have given up a lot of their sovereignty ,we have given up nothing .
In fact we have built opportunities for the future,76 million educated consumers, a platform to work on solving the ISIS problem and finding a humane solution for Syria.
16
Regarding the argument that we keep hearing, from the administration and now Kristof, that even if we keep up sanctions it won't matter because other countries in the world are going to ignore them, so what the point.
We should not underestimate US sanctions. Specifically, with regard to the banking system, any bank that does business in the US, which is every major bank in the world, is subject to sanctions. That effectively shuts Iran out of approximately 90 % of the worlds banking system, maybe more. That is a huge bargaining chip for us to just give away.
Even Russia which is a superpower, no question, has been hurt by the very limited sanctions following its activities in Ukraine.
Besides, why is it a given that we may have to go it alone on these sanctions? Do we know the other countries are ready to go against the US on this? There is a world of difference between other countries in the world deciding that they will deal with Iran while the US continues its sanctions and the US joining these countries and making nice with Iran. Like it or not folks, we are the world's superpower.
Regarding another argument Kristof an other make, that the Iranians are really sweethearts and if we let them have what they want the ayatollahs and the death to America crowd will just go away, and a million Starbucks will sprout there and all will be well. Sure, that will happen.
We should not underestimate US sanctions. Specifically, with regard to the banking system, any bank that does business in the US, which is every major bank in the world, is subject to sanctions. That effectively shuts Iran out of approximately 90 % of the worlds banking system, maybe more. That is a huge bargaining chip for us to just give away.
Even Russia which is a superpower, no question, has been hurt by the very limited sanctions following its activities in Ukraine.
Besides, why is it a given that we may have to go it alone on these sanctions? Do we know the other countries are ready to go against the US on this? There is a world of difference between other countries in the world deciding that they will deal with Iran while the US continues its sanctions and the US joining these countries and making nice with Iran. Like it or not folks, we are the world's superpower.
Regarding another argument Kristof an other make, that the Iranians are really sweethearts and if we let them have what they want the ayatollahs and the death to America crowd will just go away, and a million Starbucks will sprout there and all will be well. Sure, that will happen.
6
Neville Chamberlin said "Peace In Our Time" . How did that work out. Those that fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. Iranians continue to chant "Death to America", are we going to fulfill their desire.
8
I am tired of people bring up people's religion on this issue.
1
Anyway one looks at it, this deal is better than no deal. Why then should a country like Israel, probably one of the most affected countries should Iran develop an atomic bomb, have so many objections? The answer, I think, lies elsewhere. The fact that 100+ billion dollars of Iran's frozen assets will be freed up, that Iran will be free to engage in legitimate trade and prosper, and thus become a competitor on all fronts to Israel and Saudi Arabia in the near future, is most likely the real reason they want to keep the sanctions on Iran forever.
11
Any deal with adversary can not be very satisfactory. When you make deal with your friend, then it can be very good deal where both sides are happy. The deal with Iran , neither Iran nor America is very happy because both sides have to sacrifice so much. The Republican Congress members are not stupid and they understand well. But they have to oppose Obama in anything and everything. Then they want to say that they love Israel and Jewish voters more than the Democratic party members. They love AIPAC, JDL, J Street money so much. Their only goal in life is to be reelected again and again by hook or by crook. And Israel will love only deal which say that Iran will get nothing and they are the only country which can have nuclear bomb and nobody else.
12
Recently I read in a history book that the majority of colonists in the thirteen original colonies were opposed to revolution and independence. If public opinion could have ruled decisions then we might still be singing "Hail To The Queen." This deal is our best deal even if it isn't a perfect deal.
6
The best thing about these hyper-partisan political disputes is that there will be an obviously correct position shown at some point in the future. Hopefully the people on the wrong side of the position won't have to witness the nuclear destruction of an entire country or even just a small part of a country. Here's to the future and enlightenment!
2
The accurate caption of picture should read "A protest organized by Jewish groups in New York against the nuclear deal"
12
Americans suffer from the illusion that they must have everything their way. After all, we are "exceptional". The idea that Iran might have some needs of their own is seen as a non-reality. They just want to go to war and control the Middle East, we say. This agreement, we say, just shows how the US has fallen, because we were once able to tell anyone in the world what they must do. ( Maybe a little more so in the decades after WW II, but not so much before that, and as the world changes, not so much today.)
This agreement, as it seems, keeps Iran from developing that nuclear bomb. But it also holds out the hope that we can form some kind of workable relationship with Iran. I know the immediate reaction to such a statement, but it might just be that Iran as an ally (ouch!) in the ME might accomplish much more than that Saudi Arabian thing.
Anyway, Republicans just can't stand the idea of Obama pulling this off. Certainly not with 2016 looming. As the Speaker said (and I paraphrase) I haven't read it yet, but I'm sure its no good.
This agreement, as it seems, keeps Iran from developing that nuclear bomb. But it also holds out the hope that we can form some kind of workable relationship with Iran. I know the immediate reaction to such a statement, but it might just be that Iran as an ally (ouch!) in the ME might accomplish much more than that Saudi Arabian thing.
Anyway, Republicans just can't stand the idea of Obama pulling this off. Certainly not with 2016 looming. As the Speaker said (and I paraphrase) I haven't read it yet, but I'm sure its no good.
56
"Americans suffer from the illusion that they must have everything their way."
Yes, and the Israelis even more so.
We are quite a pair. The rest of the world on which we rely to make this work is getting pretty disgusted with the both of us on this. We are at the end of that rope.
Yes, and the Israelis even more so.
We are quite a pair. The rest of the world on which we rely to make this work is getting pretty disgusted with the both of us on this. We are at the end of that rope.
16
I disagree, we have negotiated with Iran as they chant death to America, keep american journalists in prison, while being cautious to the extreme to not offend their sensibilities. Even assuming this deal the best option now, it is an awful agreement that will at best kick the problem a mere 15 years away - a nuisance on historical time - while financing the lead state world sponsor of terror and lifting most/all the conventional weapons sanctions it is subject to ins less than a decade (clearly that is not a nuclear issue). Please see Mr Wiesletier piece in the Atlantic for a more in depth analysis - if you are open to read a well argued opinion that disagrees with yours. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-deal-histo...
There are several things wrong with the agreement, but 3 make it fundamentally flawed:
Iran will keep most/all its research/production infrastructure in place.
Restricted access to military sites
Inspections regime: there are at least 2 side treaties, that Secretary Kerry claims it has not seen. we are signing into an agreement with a regime - not a people, that hate us, and likens us to Satan without even knowing all the details! Moreover, Iran will collect samples from secrets/contested sites (this already invalidates the full verification process) and if a potential violation is found it will take 24 days, which may be followed by 2 arbitration committees one month long each before access to a site is granted.
There are several things wrong with the agreement, but 3 make it fundamentally flawed:
Iran will keep most/all its research/production infrastructure in place.
Restricted access to military sites
Inspections regime: there are at least 2 side treaties, that Secretary Kerry claims it has not seen. we are signing into an agreement with a regime - not a people, that hate us, and likens us to Satan without even knowing all the details! Moreover, Iran will collect samples from secrets/contested sites (this already invalidates the full verification process) and if a potential violation is found it will take 24 days, which may be followed by 2 arbitration committees one month long each before access to a site is granted.
5
Okay, so are you are saying that it would be better to have no agreement at all? Or would you prefer to have a war?
Maybe what you want is to have the sanctions break down gradually and Iran to get nearly everything they want in exchange for nothing.
Let not perfect be the enemy of good.
Maybe what you want is to have the sanctions break down gradually and Iran to get nearly everything they want in exchange for nothing.
Let not perfect be the enemy of good.
11
"If the U.S. rejects this landmark deal, then we get the worst of both worlds: an erosion of sanctions and also an immediate revival of the Iran nuclear program". More sensible statement couldn't be made.
Is this simple logic so difficult to discern? Or is it that considerable Americans are affected by "temporary insanity" a statement Sen. Rand Paul made in CNN to describe the pyretic Donald Trump phenomenon.
Observing from a spectator's seat non Americans simply do not understand the country. Looking at law makers reaction to Iran nuclear deal we see a alien culture and political system outside the hands of common American. There appears to be very little checks and balances. And a perverse irresponsibility dominate public opinion.
Looking at the amazing spectacle of panic about peace breaking out with Iran and utterly imbecile utterances Trump whose Presidential aspiration backed by huge Republicans, we cannot escape the feeling the tremors of convulsions triggered by the failing empire.
Tragically a well meaning American can only helplessly watch the country going in the same way the Greek and Romans of history fell asunder.
The country's citizens wouldn't be able to stop it no matter how hard they tried.
Is this simple logic so difficult to discern? Or is it that considerable Americans are affected by "temporary insanity" a statement Sen. Rand Paul made in CNN to describe the pyretic Donald Trump phenomenon.
Observing from a spectator's seat non Americans simply do not understand the country. Looking at law makers reaction to Iran nuclear deal we see a alien culture and political system outside the hands of common American. There appears to be very little checks and balances. And a perverse irresponsibility dominate public opinion.
Looking at the amazing spectacle of panic about peace breaking out with Iran and utterly imbecile utterances Trump whose Presidential aspiration backed by huge Republicans, we cannot escape the feeling the tremors of convulsions triggered by the failing empire.
Tragically a well meaning American can only helplessly watch the country going in the same way the Greek and Romans of history fell asunder.
The country's citizens wouldn't be able to stop it no matter how hard they tried.
11
I do not support the Iran nuclear deal. Yes I preferred negotiations with Iran rather than using military force. I had hoped that an ironclad, verifiable deal could be reached to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
However, after reviewing the terms, I have concluded that this is a bad deal for one reason: It is unverifiable.
The final deal permits Iran to stonewall the International Atomic Energy Agency’s request for access to suspect sites for up to 24 days. There are no anytime, anywhere inspections — the deal envisions a long process of consultation, arbitration, and implementation. Twenty-four days is more than enough time for Iran to conceal any illicit activity. Iran can further delay the process because it would have the right to challenge a UN request to visit a site and would sit on the arbitration board that settles disputes on inspections.
Granting Iran the ability to manage access will severely undermine the IAEA’s ability to verify an agreement. Former IAEA deputy director Olli Heinonen has warned that inspections must not be subject to a dispute resolution mechanism because it would hinder IAEA access. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, has similarly argued that given Iran’s history of deceiving the international community and “abusing the consultation process with the inspectors,” a deal must ensure anytime, anywhere inspections.
The deal falls far short of that.
However, after reviewing the terms, I have concluded that this is a bad deal for one reason: It is unverifiable.
The final deal permits Iran to stonewall the International Atomic Energy Agency’s request for access to suspect sites for up to 24 days. There are no anytime, anywhere inspections — the deal envisions a long process of consultation, arbitration, and implementation. Twenty-four days is more than enough time for Iran to conceal any illicit activity. Iran can further delay the process because it would have the right to challenge a UN request to visit a site and would sit on the arbitration board that settles disputes on inspections.
Granting Iran the ability to manage access will severely undermine the IAEA’s ability to verify an agreement. Former IAEA deputy director Olli Heinonen has warned that inspections must not be subject to a dispute resolution mechanism because it would hinder IAEA access. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, has similarly argued that given Iran’s history of deceiving the international community and “abusing the consultation process with the inspectors,” a deal must ensure anytime, anywhere inspections.
The deal falls far short of that.
6
Aside from giving up sanctions and allowing Iran to get its 100 billion dollars sitting in banks around the world, has the United States given up anything in the agreement that we had before? You Republicans should be happy, we can still go to war against Iran if they fail to live up to the agreement but, if we were to go to war, we would do so knowing much, much more about how to attack Iran's nuclear potentials and wipe them out. That's a victory.
The U.S. promised never to attack Cuba as part of the settlement of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. That left our nation's government with a regime 90 miles off our shores which it could not tolerate and which it could not dislodge, which in turn led to more than 50 years of unproductive hostility between two neighbors with a need for each other and the inherent capacity to get along. Hostility accomplished...what? Almost nothing.
The Republicans want war with Iran. Let them go fight it. Darth Cheney beat the war drums while he was vice-president, but, on that occasion, the music had turned sour.
To my inexpert eyes, we gave up too much and got back too little, but we have put off another war and, perhaps, put ourselves and Iran on a path to avoid it entirely. Good.
The U.S. promised never to attack Cuba as part of the settlement of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. That left our nation's government with a regime 90 miles off our shores which it could not tolerate and which it could not dislodge, which in turn led to more than 50 years of unproductive hostility between two neighbors with a need for each other and the inherent capacity to get along. Hostility accomplished...what? Almost nothing.
The Republicans want war with Iran. Let them go fight it. Darth Cheney beat the war drums while he was vice-president, but, on that occasion, the music had turned sour.
To my inexpert eyes, we gave up too much and got back too little, but we have put off another war and, perhaps, put ourselves and Iran on a path to avoid it entirely. Good.
3
Thinking about the dangers of Iran, it mystifies me why we are not more worried about Pakistan, the country that has nuclear weapons, hosted Osama bin Laden and (now we learn) Mullah Omar. They have an operational relationship with the Taliban, and nuclear weapons. They have assassinated elected leaders, and they have nuclear weapons, supposedly under lock and key controlled by the restive military that turns a blind eye to the Taliban, bin laden and Omar.
8
Great article and totally agree to Kristof's views. There is a reason why we call study of politics as Political Science. There needs to be sound experimentation keeping your hopes that things will turn out fine.
6
The naysayers are wrong. Period. No amount of convoluted reasoning will make it right This is a Deal between six countries, ourselves included. Our allies will not stand by us if we renegade. Our sanctions would become toothless and Iran will race to get a bomb. That is when realization sets in that we have no more room for maneuver and we are dealing with a nuclear nation. And besides we cannot get into another war because we CANNOT afford it. Therefore this may not be the Best Deal but it's not the Worst either.
6
What America has gained after shedding so much blood in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq ? Americans are the biggest FDI investors in Vietnam and one time fiercest foe China. During Vietnam war China is to call USA a 'Paper Tiger' and it really proved so. By removing Saddam only to please Israel, USA has done another blunder. Iraq is now arch enemy Iran's number one friendly country. American leaders always gave priority to economic profit than promoting democracy. See US policy towards Arab despotic countries. Did they for a single moment asked those despots to free their practically enslaved citizens ? Iran after Islamic Revolution has seen Mullahs coming to state power, but Iranians have much greater say in state affairs than in many countries. If even Iran ABs they will never use them as they know Iran will be wiped out of map immediately. Netaniyahu also know it. Netaniyahu is calculative in the sense that much larger Iran with a much higher numbers of qualified scientists and engineers, with a stronger industrial base, with much higher menpower capacity will reduce Israel's status in the region. How long US can give more importance to 10 million Jews against 350 million Arabs or 1.5 billion Muslims. World political stage is ever changing, for certain US Jews will loose all their leverage in course of time as more and more Christian youths are being disillusioned by IPAC funded projects.
6
If Israel really feels that the nuclear deal with Iran is an existential threat
to its survival, I propose a simple solution:
Let Israel use its very powerful military...ranked as one of the most powerful in the world...and go to war with Iran.
Just leave American blood and treasure out of it.
to its survival, I propose a simple solution:
Let Israel use its very powerful military...ranked as one of the most powerful in the world...and go to war with Iran.
Just leave American blood and treasure out of it.
9
Each one of the points made in this column could stand on its own as a reason to support this deal. The only (in)coherent rationale for opposing it is automatic partisan obstruction to President Obama's policies without any consideration of policy, circumstances, or facts.
Giving peace a chance and not engaging in futile and ignorant opposition would be a positive. Then Congress could actually do its job and finally get something done for the country's terrible infrastructure before too many Americans die from needless disasters.
Giving peace a chance and not engaging in futile and ignorant opposition would be a positive. Then Congress could actually do its job and finally get something done for the country's terrible infrastructure before too many Americans die from needless disasters.
4
Kristof: How did you feel about the various deals made with Kim Jong Il over the Clinton and Bush years?
In 1994 the US was to provide fuel to NK and build them nuclear reactors, in exchange for NK halting its nuclear program. What did you say then? Did you believe, as you do now, that the nuclear-striving North Koreans would actually give up their quest? I could recount the remaining items for both Clinton and Bush, but I won't have enough space in this comment.
Those who refuse to remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
In 1994 the US was to provide fuel to NK and build them nuclear reactors, in exchange for NK halting its nuclear program. What did you say then? Did you believe, as you do now, that the nuclear-striving North Koreans would actually give up their quest? I could recount the remaining items for both Clinton and Bush, but I won't have enough space in this comment.
Those who refuse to remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
5
A conspiracy nut might think that Iran has long penetrated the GOP's leadership. First they cleverly persuaded the Bush administration to invade Saddam's Iraq thereby removing a major Iranian enemy. Now they have convinced the GOP to force the US to back out of the deal with Iran thereby allowing the collapse of the sanctions while giving Iran the freedom to develop nuclear capabilities without being inspected by subject to strict inspections. Those Iranians sure are clever!
8
It is sad that the NY Times is saddled with readers who share the black and white thinking of the Fox-world. When no perfect solution is possible why not work together, compromise and adjust to developments? Instead we find prescient readers who know the behavior of the Iranian nation for the next ten years. They write as if our congressional circus is an example of integrity and commitment.
So when peace is in the interest of the world, who are the warmongers and who gains if we continue our war obsessions?
So when peace is in the interest of the world, who are the warmongers and who gains if we continue our war obsessions?
6
Whether the US ratifies this deal or not isn't that important. The rest of the world will now trade with Iran. Nobody needs to listen to the US Congress anymore. If Congress wants to keep us out of the deal to bring Iran into the 21st century and sell them all the infra structure items they need, fine. We are completely broke, live on the good will of the rest of the world to accept the insanely inflated dollar but refuse to trade with a country that has Trillions in the ground. Well done; sacrifice the wealth of the nation for Israel and Saudi Arabia.
5
It is profoundly disappointing that radio and television media continue to provide excessive air time to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Why were representatives of the P5 not given equal time to refute Netanyahu’s false assertions?
Targeting Iran for bad behavior reeks of hypocrisy. The US and the Brits have meddled in Middle East affairs for decades, beginning with the covert overthrow of the pro-democracy government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. We ensconced the Shah of Iran and sold him billions of military weapons which he used to oppress his people which radicalized many Iranians and created decades of resentment.
We supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons and logical intelligence in Iraq’s war with Iran. Our ‘shock and awe’ unprovoked attack on Iraq destabilized the whole region and gave birth to ISIS.
Israel’s belligerence, including frequently attacking its Arab neighbors and brutally repressing the Palestinians, has roiled the region for almost 70 years. Not to mention that Israel is a rogue nuclear state that has been hiding a sophisticated atomic-bomb arsenal.
If the nuclear deal with Iran fails, this will be a huge victory for the hardliners in Iran and Israel. There is little doubt that these will intensify the angst towards Israel & the US and march on the way to never ending conflict.
Targeting Iran for bad behavior reeks of hypocrisy. The US and the Brits have meddled in Middle East affairs for decades, beginning with the covert overthrow of the pro-democracy government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. We ensconced the Shah of Iran and sold him billions of military weapons which he used to oppress his people which radicalized many Iranians and created decades of resentment.
We supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons and logical intelligence in Iraq’s war with Iran. Our ‘shock and awe’ unprovoked attack on Iraq destabilized the whole region and gave birth to ISIS.
Israel’s belligerence, including frequently attacking its Arab neighbors and brutally repressing the Palestinians, has roiled the region for almost 70 years. Not to mention that Israel is a rogue nuclear state that has been hiding a sophisticated atomic-bomb arsenal.
If the nuclear deal with Iran fails, this will be a huge victory for the hardliners in Iran and Israel. There is little doubt that these will intensify the angst towards Israel & the US and march on the way to never ending conflict.
2
Let's just pass a simple law which states that Obama, his Cabinet, Congressmen and Senators who support and vote for this disastrous deal with Iran be jailed for treason when Iran develops an Atomic Bomb. There should be consequences for aiding America's enemies.
2
No president has aided Iran more than George W. Bush did by invading Iraq, thus removing the main check on Iran in the region. Where's his arrest warrant?
1
POLITICS . . .
...is, in the main, the art of what's most probable to be effective as you throw the die and hope for the best.
My trust of Obama (and Kerry) have great influence in my accepting the Iran deal.
...is, in the main, the art of what's most probable to be effective as you throw the die and hope for the best.
My trust of Obama (and Kerry) have great influence in my accepting the Iran deal.
8
Let's see the deal supposedly prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons but does allow the development of ICBM's. It unlocks several $billion and will allow Iran to sell their oil on the market bringing in several $billion more. Nothing prevents Iran's Ayatollah's from secretly developing Nukes but now they will have ICBM's to put them on. What did we get out of it? Not even the release of prisoners the Ayatollah's are holding, so basically nothing.
4
The legislators who criticize the fact that IAEA has confidential agreements with Iran, and how they don't trust IAEA forget to mention that back in 2002/2003 IAEA was RIGHT about Iraq not having resumed their nuclear program, and the same legislators in US Congress were WRONG. They were wrong because they were listening to and following information fed to them by Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence, just like they are doing today.
Israel is determined to have US fight a war with Iran, and any other nation that opposes their Apartheid.
Israel is determined to have US fight a war with Iran, and any other nation that opposes their Apartheid.
11
Who is asking the questions here? Kristof? Or an employee of the pro-Iranaina nuclear ? Something i don't understand. "Iran's people are the most pro-American...?" Maybe Kristof missed the "Death to America" signs.
So the Iranian (he was allowed to meet, let's not kid ourselves here) were nice to him. The Germans put on a good show of being very nice to my grand father during the Berlin Olympics...after which they murdered all of his relatives in Germany, the Ukraine and Poland.
So the Iranian (he was allowed to meet, let's not kid ourselves here) were nice to him. The Germans put on a good show of being very nice to my grand father during the Berlin Olympics...after which they murdered all of his relatives in Germany, the Ukraine and Poland.
1
New York Times readers should read & ponder the view of David Horovitz, a middle-of-the road Israeli journalist, wrote about The Deal:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/no-we-dont-want-war-and-yes-there-was-a-bet...
It may, indeed, be that, as Obama Administration defenders aver, a "better" deal isn't available. More precisely, a better deal is probably *no longer* available. Obama, Kerry, et al. have performed the diplomatic equivalent of painting us into a corner.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/no-we-dont-want-war-and-yes-there-was-a-bet...
It may, indeed, be that, as Obama Administration defenders aver, a "better" deal isn't available. More precisely, a better deal is probably *no longer* available. Obama, Kerry, et al. have performed the diplomatic equivalent of painting us into a corner.
2
Oh, so now we don't have enough representation of Jews in US media that we need to go and listen to additional zionists input from Israeli media too? Why?
"Obama, Kerry, et al. have performed the diplomatic equivalent of painting us into a corner."
I'm sure you would've felt much better if we allowed Israel to paint us into a corner of WAR as they did in 2002/2003.
"Obama, Kerry, et al. have performed the diplomatic equivalent of painting us into a corner."
I'm sure you would've felt much better if we allowed Israel to paint us into a corner of WAR as they did in 2002/2003.
1
It's difficult to stop a nation determined to get a nuclear weapon. We've been unable to stop N. Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel.
I do believe that Iran wants a Bomb, but does so for defensive purposes. Its leaders saw what happened to Iraq (which didn't have nuclear capability) and Libya (which gave away its materials).
MAD worked with the Soviets and Chinese and it will work with Iran.
I do believe that Iran wants a Bomb, but does so for defensive purposes. Its leaders saw what happened to Iraq (which didn't have nuclear capability) and Libya (which gave away its materials).
MAD worked with the Soviets and Chinese and it will work with Iran.
This agreement will be successful in keeping Iran from developing a nuclear device for a period of time. The problem is: Iran's interest in developing a bomb is not that they would use it, but that it would serve as a way of getting rid of the sanctions, getting back its money, and increasing it influence in the Middle East. The argument that the sanctions were doomed is only valid if there is a leadership vacuum in the region. Having more wealth and the ability to purchase more advanced weaponry etc. it worse than having a bomb. What will they do with it? If the answer is use it, then they can't be trusted with period.
1
The Israeli and Republican Congressional opposition to the Iranian nuclear agreement argue that continuing American sanctions against Iran will produce better results than the agreement the Obama administration agreed to earlier this month.
As proof that this means of economic pressure actually works, I eagerly await the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement growing around the world to cause the Israeli government to modify its policies regarding building Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land (even, for the moment, ignoring the 50 year failed economic sanction efforts by the United States directed at the Cuban government).
As proof that this means of economic pressure actually works, I eagerly await the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement growing around the world to cause the Israeli government to modify its policies regarding building Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land (even, for the moment, ignoring the 50 year failed economic sanction efforts by the United States directed at the Cuban government).
2
More "hope and change?" We have had 6 years of it. That's been enough for me. Now we have an exploding Middle East, and a more aggressive Iran, Russia and China. Bring back the cowboy in the White House. Peace through strength!
2
Why does everyone assume that Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would lead that country to resume a nuclear-weapons program? If only U.S. sanctions stay in place, Iran would have an excellent incentive to say it will abide by the agreement anyway. This would not only provide them with quite a bit of impounded funds, but an opportunity to make The Great Satan look like a chump. Such a scenario might also give the US the much-needed realization that not everything in the world requires its approval.
1
When someone says they are going to kill you (Death to America; death to Israel) for over 30 years - you should take them at their word.
The last time we didn't - 50 to 60 million people died in the worst conflict in mankind's history on this planet -
Do we really need to go there again?
The last time we didn't - 50 to 60 million people died in the worst conflict in mankind's history on this planet -
Do we really need to go there again?
3
"True, we didn’t achieve anywhere, anytime inspections, yet the required inspections program is still among the most intrusive ever. "
I it's not effective, who cares?
I it's not effective, who cares?
2
Yes Iran supplying their own soil samples to the IAEA is extremely effective, who cares?
1
If Congress rejects this deal, China and Russia, who have always taken a dim view of American "meddling" in the Middle East, will shake their heads and walk away from the sanctions regime. After that, Iran's economy begins to turn again and the hardliners go full tilt towards the bomb.
At that point, the United States' last option is to launch airstrikes. But this is not a case of firing off a few dozen cruise missles. Iran is a highly mountainous country. They've learned from Israel's destruction of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, which was a sitting duck. The Iranians have buried their facilities under mountains, which make them extremely hard to destroy absent tactical nuclear weapons.
Airstrikes would take weeks, if not months to complete, because Iran is vast. (It's 1.648 million sq. km. That's as large as Texas. And California. And Montana. And Florida. Combined. Don't believe me? Look it up on Wikipedia.) And a U.S. airstrike is the only thing that would rally the disillusioned, impoverished Iranian people around the mullahs. Once the dust settled, the Iranians would still have much of their nuclear infrastructure intact, and their nuclear know-how, which you can't bomb.
Rejection of this deal means the collapse of sanctions. Airstrikes will set the Iranians back a year or two at most, and will only redouble their efforts to build the bomb. This deal is our last, best chance to keep Iran out of the nuclear club.
At that point, the United States' last option is to launch airstrikes. But this is not a case of firing off a few dozen cruise missles. Iran is a highly mountainous country. They've learned from Israel's destruction of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, which was a sitting duck. The Iranians have buried their facilities under mountains, which make them extremely hard to destroy absent tactical nuclear weapons.
Airstrikes would take weeks, if not months to complete, because Iran is vast. (It's 1.648 million sq. km. That's as large as Texas. And California. And Montana. And Florida. Combined. Don't believe me? Look it up on Wikipedia.) And a U.S. airstrike is the only thing that would rally the disillusioned, impoverished Iranian people around the mullahs. Once the dust settled, the Iranians would still have much of their nuclear infrastructure intact, and their nuclear know-how, which you can't bomb.
Rejection of this deal means the collapse of sanctions. Airstrikes will set the Iranians back a year or two at most, and will only redouble their efforts to build the bomb. This deal is our last, best chance to keep Iran out of the nuclear club.
7
You don't bargain with totalitarian states, particularly when you get nothing but vague hopes in return. The premise of "it's this or war" from Obama is a false dichotomous choice when there is always a continuum of choices.
Note that while you say we didn't get everything we wanted, but you don't state what we got. All you do is attack those who disagree with the deal. And as far as sanctions eroding anyway, real US leadership should be able to keep a coalition together even when some of the participants would like to lift sanctions. Put it this way, you can be friends with Iran or friends with the US but as long as we want sanctions, you have to choose.
It's great that the Iranian people are the most pro-American people in the Middle East other than Israel. So what does that mean exactly, they only want to use nukes on us eventually whereas the others would like to destroy us now?
I'm sure that Neville Chamberlain thought the German people liked Britain. In fact they did. And the Russians emulated French culture in the late 18th and early 19 century, but Napoleon invaded anyway.
Obama is not persuasive on this, Kerry is incompetent and I'm not buying your points. Too bad Obama didn't get the Senate involved early on so they could have input, instead he simply denigrated them and Israel. So, maybe the chickens will come home to roost on this and we will have a veto proof majority. A bad deal is worse than no deal.
Note that while you say we didn't get everything we wanted, but you don't state what we got. All you do is attack those who disagree with the deal. And as far as sanctions eroding anyway, real US leadership should be able to keep a coalition together even when some of the participants would like to lift sanctions. Put it this way, you can be friends with Iran or friends with the US but as long as we want sanctions, you have to choose.
It's great that the Iranian people are the most pro-American people in the Middle East other than Israel. So what does that mean exactly, they only want to use nukes on us eventually whereas the others would like to destroy us now?
I'm sure that Neville Chamberlain thought the German people liked Britain. In fact they did. And the Russians emulated French culture in the late 18th and early 19 century, but Napoleon invaded anyway.
Obama is not persuasive on this, Kerry is incompetent and I'm not buying your points. Too bad Obama didn't get the Senate involved early on so they could have input, instead he simply denigrated them and Israel. So, maybe the chickens will come home to roost on this and we will have a veto proof majority. A bad deal is worse than no deal.
4
"The public weariness with the regime’s corruption, oppression and economic failings is manifest."
... which is why sanctions should be maintained so those economic failings translate into political change that fixes the corruption and oppression. Pouring billions into the Iranian economy, with the Ayatollah's still firmly in control, is just another awful component of this deal.
Nobody argues the Iranians aren't good people but this is about the Iranian government, which is entirely different.
... which is why sanctions should be maintained so those economic failings translate into political change that fixes the corruption and oppression. Pouring billions into the Iranian economy, with the Ayatollah's still firmly in control, is just another awful component of this deal.
Nobody argues the Iranians aren't good people but this is about the Iranian government, which is entirely different.
2
"The public weariness with the regime’s corruption, oppression and economic failings is manifest."
Are you talking about Iran or the US?
And how much does the US public understand of Iran and the agreement beyond the constant natter of right wing politicians and AIPAC?
Are you talking about Iran or the US?
And how much does the US public understand of Iran and the agreement beyond the constant natter of right wing politicians and AIPAC?
The notion that this Agreement could bring in from the cold of isolation and frozen economic growth is indeed "speculative," as the naysayers claim. So let's stop speculating. What we can predict with strong confidence that the absence of such an agreement will produce one or both of two things:
1. the certainly of a nuclear armed Iran within less than five years, or
2. another unnecessary Middle Eastern war that could rapidly spiral
out-of-control and would be far more consequential than the
benighted assault against Iraq, a much weaker military power
than Iran.
This would be a catastrophe far exceeding the "historical miscalculation" prophesied by Prime Minister Netanyahu and his GOP carrier pigeons in Congress or the bizarre campaign carnival being rolled out for the Republican presidential nomination. Israel would be the biggest loser from such a scenario.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1. the certainly of a nuclear armed Iran within less than five years, or
2. another unnecessary Middle Eastern war that could rapidly spiral
out-of-control and would be far more consequential than the
benighted assault against Iraq, a much weaker military power
than Iran.
This would be a catastrophe far exceeding the "historical miscalculation" prophesied by Prime Minister Netanyahu and his GOP carrier pigeons in Congress or the bizarre campaign carnival being rolled out for the Republican presidential nomination. Israel would be the biggest loser from such a scenario.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
7
This deal is REALLY about controlling the flow of OIL and GAS as Iran has been planning to build a pipeline to Pakistan. Iran also has the world's largest fleet of supertankers!
"The pipeline would amount to an early benefit for both Pakistan and Iran from the framework agreement reached earlier this month between Tehran and the U.S. ...The U.S. had previously threatened Pakistan with sanctions if it went ahead with the project." "Washington had long lobbied Pakistan to go for the Turkmenistan pipeline instead of the Iranian one."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-to-build-pipeline-from-iran-to-pakista...
"China had become by far the largest foreign investor in Iran’s energy sector. Energy starved China, for which oil imports are a strategic necessity, has also become Iran’s largest oil customer"...“China sees Iran as a potential partner in countering U.S. power.”
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2015-07-13/china-iran-nucl...
"If the National Iranian Tankers Company (NITC) can operate unrestrained, it would allow Iran to offer competitive prices that could rival or even trump deliveries from other Persian Gulf countries."
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/iran-our-tankers-set-to-storm-oil-market-afte...
"The pipeline would amount to an early benefit for both Pakistan and Iran from the framework agreement reached earlier this month between Tehran and the U.S. ...The U.S. had previously threatened Pakistan with sanctions if it went ahead with the project." "Washington had long lobbied Pakistan to go for the Turkmenistan pipeline instead of the Iranian one."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-to-build-pipeline-from-iran-to-pakista...
"China had become by far the largest foreign investor in Iran’s energy sector. Energy starved China, for which oil imports are a strategic necessity, has also become Iran’s largest oil customer"...“China sees Iran as a potential partner in countering U.S. power.”
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2015-07-13/china-iran-nucl...
"If the National Iranian Tankers Company (NITC) can operate unrestrained, it would allow Iran to offer competitive prices that could rival or even trump deliveries from other Persian Gulf countries."
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/iran-our-tankers-set-to-storm-oil-market-afte...
1
Relax, people. The naysayers are being loud only because they know this is a done deal. They know Obama will veto if Congress rejects it and they know there is no way to override it.
All they're doing is postering for their constituents. "You see I tried my best but ..."
All they're doing is postering for their constituents. "You see I tried my best but ..."
2
There is this assumption that we can do whatever we want and the rest of the world must accept it. Guess what, we no longer are the omnipotent power. We are delusional to think we are.
Iran would be very happy if Congress override the deal. No more universal sanctions and the rest of the world will completely ignore us.
What is our alternative? Bomb Iran? We will have to wait for the next President, and by that time Iran, with the help of Russia and to a lesser degree, China, will have fortified their air defenses to make an aerial attack costly. And when the results are unsure, what do we do...revisit our bombing runs to be sure? And Iran will sit idly by with their tails between their legs?
The US has boxed itself in with silly rhetoric emanating from intellectually challenged politicians, and so have the Israelis. We need to tone it down. There are no good options available to us. NONE.
Iran would be very happy if Congress override the deal. No more universal sanctions and the rest of the world will completely ignore us.
What is our alternative? Bomb Iran? We will have to wait for the next President, and by that time Iran, with the help of Russia and to a lesser degree, China, will have fortified their air defenses to make an aerial attack costly. And when the results are unsure, what do we do...revisit our bombing runs to be sure? And Iran will sit idly by with their tails between their legs?
The US has boxed itself in with silly rhetoric emanating from intellectually challenged politicians, and so have the Israelis. We need to tone it down. There are no good options available to us. NONE.
3
This is what is known as "wishful thinking".
4
Or to be more clear - "magical thinking"
Since we should acknowledge there is no perfect agreement from the start, following your reasoning Mr. Kristof makes the most sense. I know the GOP are ideologically committed against the proposal so I am hoping the Dems will keep their heads about them and see the wisdom in moving forward with yes.
2
Kicking off nuclear arms race in the ME between Iran and Saudis makes this deal bad. Even the IEAE aggrements aren't to be released according to Kerry. Obama wants this deal for his peace poster in his library and if has to let Iran get nukes, so be it.
3
Let's get real. Iran may never be an ally, but they have always depended on us for weapons and replacement parts for their defense. That's what the Iran/Contra scandal was all about. History may not be as popular as opinion throwing contests, but Iran has a long history of using US designed weapons to fight war. Up until we invaded, Iraq used Soviet/Russian made weapons. The embargo may have slowed imports down, but since we manufacture almost nothing in this country, how can we tell if China sent Iran the same kind of spare parts they make for us? Our shrinking government is ill suited to find that answer. So, now we have made a new deal with a promised enemy and a handful of executives will profit. It's an exceptional deal for the 1% . . . go Bernie.
I wonder if the extremists in Congress that are leading the fight against this deal have considered how their actions fit into Mr. Putin's plans. It would seem that rejection of this deal by Congress will weaken our ability to counter his ambitions, first by undermining the President's authority to manage foreign affairs, second by dividing the European and American alliance, further opening the door for Putin to act unabated for the next 18 months. His likely first act: making a deal with Iran. So much for sanctions and cutting off Iran's access to cash.
Dishonoring this President, while maintaining majorities in the House and Senate and regaining the White House, is more important than stabilizing the Middle East. More nukes, more war, more unintended consequences of ill considered extremist politics- right here at home. There is no doubt this national political gambit, if it succeeds, will strengthen our enemies, weaken our alliances and compound the problems whomever occupies the White House will face 18 months from now.
Dishonoring this President, while maintaining majorities in the House and Senate and regaining the White House, is more important than stabilizing the Middle East. More nukes, more war, more unintended consequences of ill considered extremist politics- right here at home. There is no doubt this national political gambit, if it succeeds, will strengthen our enemies, weaken our alliances and compound the problems whomever occupies the White House will face 18 months from now.
4
Let's hope President Obama can prevail over a Congress under the thumb of Israel and its numerous moneyed friends in the USA who seem to decide what's in the best interest of USA as far as Mideast policy is concerned. It will go down in history as consequential as President Nixon's opening doors to China. Hats off to Obama to stand up for US interests and long-term stability in Mideast.
3
Great article, and I fully agree. We are just seeing 90% of the opposition as political opposition to Obama no matter what. The other 10% has real concerns, but generally are based on false assumptions, like the viability of continued sanctions, and the belief that America has more appetite for wars in the middle east, and that by going to war we will somehow be safer, or that there is some other way out of this impasse. The Republicans have put America in a corner due to the war games, and the Democrats, as usual, are helping to pull us out. Its the same with the economy. And the environment. And healthcare. And criminal justice. And...well, the list can go on...
4
A strong Iran means a Free Palestinian State.
Just that simple.
Just that simple.
1
Everybody is disappointed the US won't be fighting Netanyahu's dirty wars.
4
The neocon critics of the Iranian deal in both the US and Israel are the same ones who thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq. Given their horrible lack of judgment then why would anyone trust their judgment now. Fool me once...
3
This is not true. The alternative WAS quite simply, maintain and strengthen the sanctions. Since you have effectively given the Iranians a bomb with this agreement and a delivery means by not restricting their missile program, it is simply in the timing. Thus is makes no logical sense to give them economic sanction relief with which to enhance their conventional military defense and wreak more terrorism on the region and world. Until this administration's criminal act (demonstrable so under US law - this is not hyperbole that they have directly aided a terrorist state with sanction relief), international sanctions were in place and where required to be maintained by member states of the UN and unless until they complied with those resolutions.
You do not give fascist who threaten to destroy you and your allies $100's of billion in economic relief, it is insanity.
You do not give fascist who threaten to destroy you and your allies $100's of billion in economic relief, it is insanity.
5
We live in amythical all-powerful country. Wecarry a sign in New York saying "No nukes for Iran" and we will bring that country to its knees. Republicans want to continue and even strengthen sanctions in the context of a globalized world economy, against China's, Russia's and even Europe's commercial interests and we bring Iran and the whole World to its economic knees. We are the all-powerful, all-good America. Congress will veto the deal and do Netanyahu's bidding. Let the World tremble.
This is a familiar tune. It reminds me of another mythical country: Never Never Land.
This is a familiar tune. It reminds me of another mythical country: Never Never Land.
4
Kristof, as an anti-Israeli voice is too cavalier about this deal. That said those opposed to it have virtually no argument. China and Russia are not going to go along with sanctions much longer. Other big countries want oil from Iran and eventually will violate the sanctions. So a "better" deal is not possible.
If the Sunni Arabs and Israel are truly afraid of this deal then expect to see the Arabs move to get their own bombs and Israel to inflict a lot of bad things on Iran.
If the Sunni Arabs and Israel are truly afraid of this deal then expect to see the Arabs move to get their own bombs and Israel to inflict a lot of bad things on Iran.
Here's the part of this argument that has never made sense to me. I'm willing to be educated. We heard for months the point, and Kristoff repeats it here, that Iran is 2-3 months away from breakout to produce a bomb. If that's the case why haven't they built one? Reality is they are two months and a lot of nuclear expertise away from a bomb. If, and I repeat if, they developed that needed expertise they might could go from where they are to a bomb in a few months. But they don't have that knowledge or expertise, and no one can give an accurate estimate of what it would take or how long to get that knowledge and expertise. But 10 years of working with a nuclear energy program, with sanctions lifted against both intellectual and physical components of nuclear nuclear production will give them that knowledge and expertise. THEN they really will be 2-3 months away from building a bomb if they choose. And we will be responsible for giving them that intellectual expertise. So we have 10 years or less for Iran to drastically change its cultural and political structure, otherwise this nuclear deal will give them the final piece of the puzzle, which they don't now possess, to being a full fledged nuclear threat. Tell me where I'm wrong.
2
They already have the expertise to build nuclear weapons. The deal is to prevent them from having the nuclear materials with which to do it.
1
I think the same people who are vehemently against this deal the same people who were vehemently for the Iraq War.
Huckabee, "For decades, Iranian leaders have pledged to ‘destroy,’ ‘annihilate,’ and ‘wipe Israel off the map’ with a ‘big Holocaust.’"
Not unlike the decade long war we actually started for the heck of it in Iraq, all based on carefully constructed lies from the Bush administration.
We killed 500,000 innocent people in Iraq, mostly women and children. Where were these "compassionate conservatives" then?
It seems killing 500,000 people (the same number of guys we lost in the entirety of WWII) is OK, but a nuclear treaty to try to prevent another war is these guys idea of a nightmare come true.
500,000 killed = OK
Nuclear treaty = Nightmare
Are we all clear on this now?
Huckabee, "For decades, Iranian leaders have pledged to ‘destroy,’ ‘annihilate,’ and ‘wipe Israel off the map’ with a ‘big Holocaust.’"
Not unlike the decade long war we actually started for the heck of it in Iraq, all based on carefully constructed lies from the Bush administration.
We killed 500,000 innocent people in Iraq, mostly women and children. Where were these "compassionate conservatives" then?
It seems killing 500,000 people (the same number of guys we lost in the entirety of WWII) is OK, but a nuclear treaty to try to prevent another war is these guys idea of a nightmare come true.
500,000 killed = OK
Nuclear treaty = Nightmare
Are we all clear on this now?
5
The overarching reason to support the Iran deal is simply stated: the rest of the world beyond the USA and Israel has made it clear that there is no longer support sanctions against Iran. Without a deal Iran will be free of sanctions and engaging in trade anyway, so it is much more sensible to lift the sanctions in the context of a nuclear arms deal than without a deal.
Those that claim the deal is a bad one falsely state that the alternative to a deal is a continuation of sanctions. They conveniently ignore the fact that Europe and China and Russia do not intend to honor further sanctions. So, instead of being the hard-headed realists they claim to be, they are instead deluded fantasists.
Unfortunately, the naysayers are all over the media thumping their chests while telling people how tough they would be on Iran. The media is failing to ask them the hard questions about their ridiculous alternatives. Nicholas hit it on the head-the conpromises are never perfect. The deal should be supported.
Those that claim the deal is a bad one falsely state that the alternative to a deal is a continuation of sanctions. They conveniently ignore the fact that Europe and China and Russia do not intend to honor further sanctions. So, instead of being the hard-headed realists they claim to be, they are instead deluded fantasists.
Unfortunately, the naysayers are all over the media thumping their chests while telling people how tough they would be on Iran. The media is failing to ask them the hard questions about their ridiculous alternatives. Nicholas hit it on the head-the conpromises are never perfect. The deal should be supported.
3
‘True, but that will happen anyway. Remember that this agreement includes Europe, Russia and China as parties. Even if Congress rejects the agreement, sanctions will erode and Iran will get an infusion of cash’
Is this a serious argument? The critics of the deal are wrong because the deal has already been implemented so the negative aspects are happening no matter what! This is a stunning admission of presidential deceit.
Is this a serious argument? The critics of the deal are wrong because the deal has already been implemented so the negative aspects are happening no matter what! This is a stunning admission of presidential deceit.
1
No matter how you argue the deal, the republicans will be against it. It's like talking to a brick wall.
4
This what Ari Shavit wrote today in haaretz (my translation from Hebrew):
One does not need to be a prophet and son of a prophet to understand the consequences of the nuclear deal with Iran. The Shiite republic will become in the short term a prosperous conventional power, arming their dhimmis (led by Hezbollah) with weapons, putting pressure on their vulnerable neighbors in the Gulf and challenge Israeli. In the medium term it will begin to fool the international community and take advantage of the loopholes in regulatory regime to develop a secret and advanced nuclear program. In the long run, Iran would be a nuclear power, has dozens of nuclear bombs and intercontinental missiles and could cause mass destruction. If there will be no "Persian spring", which will release the Iranians and the world from the rule of the ayatollahs, there will emerge from the east of Israel a terrifying power, a totalitarian ideology, with dozen nuclear bombs and intercontinental missiles and the ability to generate mass destruction. An aggressive and ambitious power that would impose a huge shadow over Israel, will control and enslave large parts of the crumbling Arab world, and make the United States a superpower of the past.
One does not need to be a prophet and son of a prophet to understand the consequences of the nuclear deal with Iran. The Shiite republic will become in the short term a prosperous conventional power, arming their dhimmis (led by Hezbollah) with weapons, putting pressure on their vulnerable neighbors in the Gulf and challenge Israeli. In the medium term it will begin to fool the international community and take advantage of the loopholes in regulatory regime to develop a secret and advanced nuclear program. In the long run, Iran would be a nuclear power, has dozens of nuclear bombs and intercontinental missiles and could cause mass destruction. If there will be no "Persian spring", which will release the Iranians and the world from the rule of the ayatollahs, there will emerge from the east of Israel a terrifying power, a totalitarian ideology, with dozen nuclear bombs and intercontinental missiles and the ability to generate mass destruction. An aggressive and ambitious power that would impose a huge shadow over Israel, will control and enslave large parts of the crumbling Arab world, and make the United States a superpower of the past.
6
Ari Shavit should be writing about Israel's 200+ illegal nuclear weapons, since Israel is one of the 4 countries who has deceptively attained such weapons, the other 3 being India, Pakistan and North Korea.
"Iran’s people are perhaps the most pro-American and secular of those of any country I’ve been to in the Middle East."
Riiight... That is why we see all the flag burnings and "death to America" chants? Anyway even if some of Iran's people are pro-America its hard line leaders are not. Additionally if they were so pro-American perhaps as a show of good faith they would have released the prisoners they are holding?
Riiight... That is why we see all the flag burnings and "death to America" chants? Anyway even if some of Iran's people are pro-America its hard line leaders are not. Additionally if they were so pro-American perhaps as a show of good faith they would have released the prisoners they are holding?
3
Thanks, Mr. Kirstov, for your rational explanations that show the need for supporting the Nuclear Accord with Iran. It truly is a no-brrainer and only serves to heighten the politics of the Republican party to further their promise to keep President Obama from achieving any legacy. But while they rant and obfuscate, he has actually already defined and built a legacy built on most of his original precepts about being president. Absolutely refreshing to see him in action in spite of the atavistic lowlife in D.C. There are no statesmen in the Republican party, just panderers and shills. But so much of their anti-Obama sentiment only points to ignorance---and that is rampant among the elephant crowd.
3
We, as a nation and government, seem to have have totally forgotten what it means to compromise- on anything. The hallmark of any effective negotiation is that neither partner walks away with everything they wanted. If not, why would the "Loser" hold up their end of the agreement?
4
As someone who negotiates complex contracts for a living, I am utterly baffled by the suggestion that an agreement where we don't get everything we wanted is "flawed." Negotiation is compromise; compromise is giving up something to get something. In real life, I have never seen any complex negotiation where anybody got everything they wanted.
The TV ad campaign that is currently running, arguing for rejection of this deal in favor of "a better deal" is an example of the fantasy world that opponents of this deal live in. If we reject this deal, the chances that Russia and China will stick with economic sanctions and the arms embargo against Iran are very small. At that point, Iran will have won completely - breakdown of the sanctions and the embargo without any nuclear concessions at all.
This deal is not only not "flawed"; it is a great deal, and we are idiots who deserve what's coming if we reject it.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
The TV ad campaign that is currently running, arguing for rejection of this deal in favor of "a better deal" is an example of the fantasy world that opponents of this deal live in. If we reject this deal, the chances that Russia and China will stick with economic sanctions and the arms embargo against Iran are very small. At that point, Iran will have won completely - breakdown of the sanctions and the embargo without any nuclear concessions at all.
This deal is not only not "flawed"; it is a great deal, and we are idiots who deserve what's coming if we reject it.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
6
Rubio's catchy simplification of the deal with Iran is wrong in many ways: he distorts the facts, shows his ignorance of the details of the deal, and is another instance of his groveling in an attempt to win campaign financing from Sheldon Adelson. The administration and experts in the area of Iranian affairs could argue that if the deal fails, Iran will be able to have an economy (since America will be the only country continuing sanctions) and have a weapons program, too. No deal means Iran will have its cake and eat it, too.
3
2003 was a banner year for US-Iran relations for the US. By some accounts, the Iranians gave us well over 90% of what we asked for, only to be shot down by Cheyney. His stated philosophy about risk management is to treat all threats as if they were the ultimate threat. Meaning atomic weapons. If that scenario were the case, then the world would have been incinerated many times over since 2003. That the GOP are still clinging to Cheyney's flawed logic and total failure to solve any problems is indicative of their authoritarian, rigid thinking. What is needed to solve problems is flexible thinking based on empirical data. I believe that not a little bit of the GOP's yelping and yapping about the Iran deal is pure envy. But, like it or not, the world will never be governed by the envidious nature the GOP's attitude. Nor will it ever function based on anybody's hatred and distrust. Trust and verify is the correct formula for solving problems and for mature diplomacy.
3
Enjoy reading 2015 Nick mock 2012 Nick
Nick Kristoff Today:
So we apply the same economic pressure that caused the collapse of the Castro regime in Cuba in 1964? The same isolation that overthrew the North Korean regime in 1993? The same sanctions that led Saddam Hussein to give up power peacefully in Iraq in 2000? Oh, wait.…
Nick Kristoff June 2012 (Arguing for sanctions):
...war would create a nationalist backlash that would cement this regime in place for years to come — just when economic sanctions are increasingly posing a challenge to its survival. No one can predict the timing, but Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen have shown that unpopular regimes that cannot last, don’t.
“People putting bread on the table, bearing the pressure, they have a limit,” said a businessman I chatted with on a beach of the Caspian Sea. “Sooner or later, the limit will come and things will change.”
Nick Kristoff Today:
So we apply the same economic pressure that caused the collapse of the Castro regime in Cuba in 1964? The same isolation that overthrew the North Korean regime in 1993? The same sanctions that led Saddam Hussein to give up power peacefully in Iraq in 2000? Oh, wait.…
Nick Kristoff June 2012 (Arguing for sanctions):
...war would create a nationalist backlash that would cement this regime in place for years to come — just when economic sanctions are increasingly posing a challenge to its survival. No one can predict the timing, but Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen have shown that unpopular regimes that cannot last, don’t.
“People putting bread on the table, bearing the pressure, they have a limit,” said a businessman I chatted with on a beach of the Caspian Sea. “Sooner or later, the limit will come and things will change.”
Nicholas Kristof's piece is an accomplished piece of sophistry. Its basic three arguments are:
1. The Iranian people at root are nice people. Even a bad deal engages us with them.
RESPONSE: The German people were nice, too. Neville Chamberlain thought that fanatical leaders could be reasoned with, if we only allowed them to have the Sudetenland.
2. Sanctions don’t work – look at Cuba and North Korea. And Russia and China will end-run the sanctions anyway.
RESPONSE: Sanctions helped bring down the Soviet Union. Cuba and North Korea keep their populations in check with brutal internal policing. That cannot last forever. And even if sanctions do not immediately cause a regime change, they greatly curtail Iran's ability to do mischief. When a rabid dog is chained to a fence, your two alternatives are to kill it or to leave it chained to the fence (war or sanctions). Unchaining it is not a prudent measure.
3. Iran does not really mean to destroy Israel. They did not do it with chemical weapons.
RESPONSE: The Holocaust taught us not to ignore vows of genocide. Empowering the worst instigators of terror in the world with hundreds of billions of dollars is not rational thinking.
Also, the “snap-back” of sanctions is a cruel hoax. Sanctions are based upon compliance by thousands of businesses throughout the world. It is a complex web, built up over years. It cannot “snap back.”
1. The Iranian people at root are nice people. Even a bad deal engages us with them.
RESPONSE: The German people were nice, too. Neville Chamberlain thought that fanatical leaders could be reasoned with, if we only allowed them to have the Sudetenland.
2. Sanctions don’t work – look at Cuba and North Korea. And Russia and China will end-run the sanctions anyway.
RESPONSE: Sanctions helped bring down the Soviet Union. Cuba and North Korea keep their populations in check with brutal internal policing. That cannot last forever. And even if sanctions do not immediately cause a regime change, they greatly curtail Iran's ability to do mischief. When a rabid dog is chained to a fence, your two alternatives are to kill it or to leave it chained to the fence (war or sanctions). Unchaining it is not a prudent measure.
3. Iran does not really mean to destroy Israel. They did not do it with chemical weapons.
RESPONSE: The Holocaust taught us not to ignore vows of genocide. Empowering the worst instigators of terror in the world with hundreds of billions of dollars is not rational thinking.
Also, the “snap-back” of sanctions is a cruel hoax. Sanctions are based upon compliance by thousands of businesses throughout the world. It is a complex web, built up over years. It cannot “snap back.”
4
Only the truly naïve who never learn from history are capable of blindly and dangerously trusting Iran to comply with this new pact. Iran has never complied with any agreement they have signed in the past and just violated the existing agreement a few weeks ago. There has not been a change in the regime, so what will be different this time that will motivate Iran to comply with this agreement all of a sudden? This incredibly one-sided agreement is designed to lift all the sanctions on Iran and give them funding to further sponsor terrorism. And 24 days before anyone can inspect for weapons!! If Iran had any intention of complying, they would proudly allow surprise inspections. How can so many people “buy into” these lies? Does anyone pay attention when the Ayatollah shouts death to the US; Death to Israel? Even if they don’t use the atomic bomb, Obama will have a lot of blood on his hands from their new funding for terrorist activities. Now we can add this to the very long list of all the lives lost or wasted (our soldiers that died for no sustainable gain in Iraq, Benghazi, hundreds of thousands in Syria, just to name a few), all because of Obama’s failed policies. And while he was so obsessed with making a deal at any cost, did getting our hostages out of Iran ever enter his mind? Obama’s negotiating skills are comparable to a newborn negotiating with a venture capitalist. He is Neville Chamberlain in 2015!
5
Re: The Iran Deal.
Read Nicholas Kristof's column, along with Roger Cohen's (July 30), and you get a comprehensive assessment of the pros and cons of the Iran deal. If you still remain adamantly opposed to the deal as most Republicans, then here's more to persuade you that the deal is one that Israel, the coalition, including Russia and China, and the entire world would benefit by. By signing the deal, Iran is virtually agreeing to being attacked if in violation of the deal it embarks on arming itself with nuclear weapons. Iranian political thinking has its flaws, like ours, however, being suicidal is not one of them. If Congress and the Senate vote the deal in, we will surely witness a softening of its anti-Israel rhetoric and a blossoming of its already evident (see Anthony Bourdain's "Parts Unknown" on CNN) pro-America attitude. The country as a whole has far more to gain by doing business with the west, especially the U. S., and, in the near future, with even Israel. (The deal will provide Iran the dough it needs, and more.)
I will end with a piece of advice to presidential candidate Mike Huckabee:
Israel has the ability to take Iranians to "the door of the oven" much faster than the Iranians can lead them there. It has over 500 nuclear warheads.
Read Nicholas Kristof's column, along with Roger Cohen's (July 30), and you get a comprehensive assessment of the pros and cons of the Iran deal. If you still remain adamantly opposed to the deal as most Republicans, then here's more to persuade you that the deal is one that Israel, the coalition, including Russia and China, and the entire world would benefit by. By signing the deal, Iran is virtually agreeing to being attacked if in violation of the deal it embarks on arming itself with nuclear weapons. Iranian political thinking has its flaws, like ours, however, being suicidal is not one of them. If Congress and the Senate vote the deal in, we will surely witness a softening of its anti-Israel rhetoric and a blossoming of its already evident (see Anthony Bourdain's "Parts Unknown" on CNN) pro-America attitude. The country as a whole has far more to gain by doing business with the west, especially the U. S., and, in the near future, with even Israel. (The deal will provide Iran the dough it needs, and more.)
I will end with a piece of advice to presidential candidate Mike Huckabee:
Israel has the ability to take Iranians to "the door of the oven" much faster than the Iranians can lead them there. It has over 500 nuclear warheads.
4
"So we apply the same economic pressure that caused the collapse of the Castro regime in Cuba in 1964? The same isolation that overthrew the North Korean regime in 1993? The same sanctions that led Saddam Hussein to give up power peacefully in Iraq in 2000? Oh, wait.…"
Wait. You don't think it was sanctions that brought the Iranians to the negotiations? I think the heads of P5+1 would disagree. And if sanctions are as ineffective as you think, it makes the "snap back" provisions in the Iran deal useless. Iran can cheat from day one with out fear of any "ineffective" sanctions.
Please reconsider your arguments, sir.
Wait. You don't think it was sanctions that brought the Iranians to the negotiations? I think the heads of P5+1 would disagree. And if sanctions are as ineffective as you think, it makes the "snap back" provisions in the Iran deal useless. Iran can cheat from day one with out fear of any "ineffective" sanctions.
Please reconsider your arguments, sir.
4
Even granting that sanctions alone brought the Iranians to the table, now with the agreement being reached, we cannot turn the clock back. The other 5 aligned nations are not going to rescind this agreement because we said no after the fact. Unified sanctions are dead unless Iran does something to nullify the agreement. This agreement is the only and best one we have. The alternative, as Kristof point out, are much less palatable.
Nobody knows what the finer specifics are for the deal. That has been hidden, just like Obama did for Obamacare. "We have to pass it to find out what's in it." We now know that we were deliberately lied to, many times, for Obamacare, and the "justification" for the lying was that it wouldn't pass if the truth was known. Consider it: our president lied to us, many times, in order to pass his idea of what good healthcare means. Now we have this deal, and we cannot know the complete specifics of it. Why?
7
Even John Kerry is saying he doesn't know what's in the "side deals." What kind of feckless, weak administration do we have here?
If it is any consolation to you, now you know that the Machiavellian nature of politics is global since all six aligned nations agreed to this proposal. Perhaps your future posts about our mendacious president should reflect that reality. You can now call for global political change, don't limit yourself to the US alone. Your world is getting bigger, but scarier.
An official announcement that it no longer Iran's policy to destroy the state of Israel would be nice. Until I hear something to that effect, I'm not buying it.
7
You comment that the George W. Bush administration turned down the potential of an agreement with Iran, which then decided to develop its nuclear potential. Interesting! They did the same thing with North Korea, which is now fully nuclear. I say we ask these geniuses what they recommend, and run swiftly to do the exact opposite. Which in this case is, endorse the treaty!
5
Where are their alternative proposals? We've been waiting for five years for the GOP plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, then Immigration Reform, and now what to do about Iran? Netanyahu's Plan? Well, where are they?
Two former Israeli intelligence chiefs--one domestic and the Mossad, overseas. Each has disagreed with Netanyahu and suggested that Israel would be the loser if the U.S. Congress overrides President Obama's promised Veto.
Our options are: a military strike, maintaining the status quo, or finalize the Agreement. An Israeli or U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear sites might put their nuclear program back 2-4 years, or 4-to-5, respectively. But, this Agreement puts it back by 10-to-15 years.
Iran was just a few months away from making a nuclear bomb; but, they stopped during this process. If Congress overrides the promised Veto, Iran can do business with our five partners, and they will have there bomb in months.
So, what is there not to like about the Agreement?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Two former Israeli intelligence chiefs--one domestic and the Mossad, overseas. Each has disagreed with Netanyahu and suggested that Israel would be the loser if the U.S. Congress overrides President Obama's promised Veto.
Our options are: a military strike, maintaining the status quo, or finalize the Agreement. An Israeli or U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear sites might put their nuclear program back 2-4 years, or 4-to-5, respectively. But, this Agreement puts it back by 10-to-15 years.
Iran was just a few months away from making a nuclear bomb; but, they stopped during this process. If Congress overrides the promised Veto, Iran can do business with our five partners, and they will have there bomb in months.
So, what is there not to like about the Agreement?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
7
Yes Iran has sponsored terrorism against the US and should be condemned for this, as has been stated by opponents of this nuclear deal. However, we must also acknowledge our actions against Iran starting with our participation in the overthrow of a democratically elected government, and continuing with our support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's. This has not been entirely a one way street. In addition, the N.Korean nuclear deal that was initiated by Clinton was frowned upon and dismissed by the Bush administration which ultimately led to N.Korea gaining a nuclear weapon. How quickly the Republican opponents of this current nuclear deal forget history when making their arguements.
6
Congress, specifically Republicans, don't want to negotiate with Iran or Cuba or N. Korea because they are the bad guys. But, they seemed to have no problem with negotiating with China or countries with dictators.
3
America is 18 trillion dollars in debt. Do we really want to borrow another 3-4 trillion to fight a losing war with Iraq?
1
Mr. Kristof, you do not live in Tel-Aviv, but I live in the greater Tel-Aviv area, and you are incorrect. 78% of the Israeli population is dead set against this. 5 US (!!) ambassadors to Israel is irrelevant; they are US ambassadors, representing US interests. Get 5 Israeli ambassadors to the US and that would make a better impression. And even those from the defense establishment who supposedly support the deal were rather lukewarm in their support. As for American Jews, they are in America after all and not in TA and I will not quibble as to how you came up with your conclusion. You might have said Democratic American Jews. (And I know some die-hard Democratic Jews in NYC with grandchildren in Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem and great grandchildren there who would disagree with you and they are nervous).
Stop pretending that this is in Israel's interests.
The deal is full of dangerous loopholes and more and more are publicized daily. According to ha-Aretz, the US is still trying to hide details from Israel. Why is that? Because it is a good deal to convince Israel?
As for the American loving Iranian public, I will be less worried when they stop shouting "death to Israel". They still shout "death to America", but you don't have to believe them. I do. And the money that will pour in to Iran, much will be put to use in strengthening those in Iran as well as their lackeys who seek "Death to Israel".
But "what me worry"? Why should I be worried, you have reassured me.
Stop pretending that this is in Israel's interests.
The deal is full of dangerous loopholes and more and more are publicized daily. According to ha-Aretz, the US is still trying to hide details from Israel. Why is that? Because it is a good deal to convince Israel?
As for the American loving Iranian public, I will be less worried when they stop shouting "death to Israel". They still shout "death to America", but you don't have to believe them. I do. And the money that will pour in to Iran, much will be put to use in strengthening those in Iran as well as their lackeys who seek "Death to Israel".
But "what me worry"? Why should I be worried, you have reassured me.
13
I hear your fear, but differ on the remedy. Everything Mr. Kristof wrote makes more sense to me than the arguments for scuttling the agreement. How in good conscience could I support a position which makes less sense. You have to go with your best punch and the yes side has it for me.
Netanyahu has an excellent opportunity to pull a Nixon and go to Iran. He could call on Kissinger to set him up with the Supreme Leader. And Reagan dealt with USSR. Both "deals" at the time where viewed by many with great suspicion, but they turned out well, and certainly better than any alternative.
In both cases there was a willingness on the part of the US president to talk with the "enemy". I suggest that such an effort might lead to a better future than building more settlements.
But then Israel must decide such things for itself.
In both cases there was a willingness on the part of the US president to talk with the "enemy". I suggest that such an effort might lead to a better future than building more settlements.
But then Israel must decide such things for itself.
I always appreciate it when the Government of the United States of America puts my country--the United States of America--first, when negotiating any foreign agreements, especially regarding security. I don't understand why any true American would want to put the demands of a foreign country like Israel first.
1
On the basis of nothing it is assumed in all this talk that it is somehow legitimate for the United States to have a massive nuclear arsenal. That its leaders are responsible people who have not waged endless wars of aggression, continually try to push their weight around and have not acted like a bunch of thugs for generations.
9
The GOP objections to this deal are the same to everything done by the Obama administration. Their objection is that it was done by the Obama administration. Let us not forget those famous words by Sen. Mitch McConnell to make Pres. Obama a one term president - their goal since the 2008 election has been to oppose anything done by the Obama administration. And as with their opposition to the ACA, they complain about it but offer no substantive suggestion on what they would do instead.
8
My father was in the habit of buying winter clothes on the hottest day of the summer, figuring that the prices would be lower that day and that he would have more room to bargain.
Had President Obama been willing like my father to wait for the right time to do his shopping, in this case by passing the ball a few years down the road to the next administration, thus allowing the sanctions pressure on the Ayatollah enough time to work its magic, the final deal would have been measurably better than the one that is being forced down our throats now.
As it is, the President wanted a legacy and got it and so did we and Israel, smack in the face.
Had President Obama been willing like my father to wait for the right time to do his shopping, in this case by passing the ball a few years down the road to the next administration, thus allowing the sanctions pressure on the Ayatollah enough time to work its magic, the final deal would have been measurably better than the one that is being forced down our throats now.
As it is, the President wanted a legacy and got it and so did we and Israel, smack in the face.
8
Often, when dealing with people, trying to exact the utmost advantage is counter-productive. Given our imposition of the shah on Iranians, as well as our support for their enemy--Saddam Hussein--in the long Iran/Iraq war and our constant barrage of criticism of Iran ("axis of evil"), perhaps a little humility and generosity on our part would not be amiss.
6
Thank you for your gentle words of wisdom!
1
It is hardly surprising that Rick Perry gets it exactly backwards. An admittedly imperfect deal is at least a step in the right direction. It relaxes the tensions and gives everyone a bit of time to figure out how to make things even better.
I can't remember who I'm quoting, but: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." If we keep waiting for a "perfect" agreement , whatever that might look like, things will just keep going the way they have been, and that is an almost sure path to disaster.
I can't remember who I'm quoting, but: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." If we keep waiting for a "perfect" agreement , whatever that might look like, things will just keep going the way they have been, and that is an almost sure path to disaster.
7
Anyone who listens to the GOP whine about the Iran Nuclear deal would think that we are the perfect monitors of world peace and tranquility. Lets see, the US along with oil companies, ousted a democratically elected government in Iran and installed a brutal dictator, the Shah. The US invaded a country (Iraq) on a wrong pretext of WMD and left it in complete chaos, killing hundreds of thousands of its people. Has anyone checked the definition of a bad neighbor lately? This is the classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
14
A little humility on our part would be a good thing! I don't think the GOP would go along with it though, I seem to remember lots of complaints from them about the President going around the world apologizing.
Iran with nuclear weapons is not a threat to Israel.
The real threat is the Saudis, with their visceral, irrational fear and hatred of the Iranians (the "fire eaters") - a fear likely borne of their own insecurities. Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would result in the Saudis doing anything and everything to obtain deliverable weapons (and with their ties to Pakistan's ISI, this is quite possible), that no amount of US pressure could influence.
This is what is really terrifying, and scares the bejeezus out of Israel, Russia, Iran, the US, and just about everyone else, with the possible exception of Kim Jong Un.
Do the Iranians want to be the big guy on the block and bully smaller countries, Israel included? Of course, but you can't bully someone that you have vaporized.
The real threat is the Saudis, with their visceral, irrational fear and hatred of the Iranians (the "fire eaters") - a fear likely borne of their own insecurities. Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would result in the Saudis doing anything and everything to obtain deliverable weapons (and with their ties to Pakistan's ISI, this is quite possible), that no amount of US pressure could influence.
This is what is really terrifying, and scares the bejeezus out of Israel, Russia, Iran, the US, and just about everyone else, with the possible exception of Kim Jong Un.
Do the Iranians want to be the big guy on the block and bully smaller countries, Israel included? Of course, but you can't bully someone that you have vaporized.
10
I find myself thinking a lot these days about my exceptionally good father. He could never forgive Franklin Roosevelt for not doing more to help Jews before and during World War 2. Seventy years later, it’s my turn, with the Iran
deal. Barring some truly exceptional candidate, someone perhaps with the capacity to turn water to wine, I’m finished with Democrats for the duration.
deal. Barring some truly exceptional candidate, someone perhaps with the capacity to turn water to wine, I’m finished with Democrats for the duration.
4
I understand, we all have to make our own choices. Good luck to you, glad to hear how you loved your father.
Let us pray. We have our own country to run and securing a workable agreement with Iran provides a partial time out. I like the idea that perhaps the moderate factions in the country will strengthen in the ten years allotted to the contract. As I wrote, let us pray.
3
I believe that those opposed to the Iran deal really want an excuse to start a war with Iran: either an excuse for Israel to begin bombing, or, worse, an excuse to get the US to do the bombing for Israel.
Are we to forever be hostage to AIPAC?
Are we to forever be hostage to AIPAC?
14
Any deal that doesn't include the US and the other countries dismantling their nuclear weapons (all weapons really) is in human terms a failure.
5
The same argument is being made by Republicans against Iran that were made by them against Iraq--that they have weapons of mass destruction and we must confront them by force if needed. The whole Republican position is ludicrous. Is it even conceivable that Iran would launch a nuclear weapon against us or Israel? Such an attack would render Israel uninhabitable for any Palestinian purposes and Iran would risk total self destruction. They would be wiped from the face of the Earth minutes after launching such an inconceivable attack. What would they gain from this? Do we really believe that they are insane? It makes no sense. It is all bluster on their part, all macho self aggrandizement, very much what Sadam Hussein did to bolster his status. Do we ever learn anything? Are we not the crazy ones, making the same mistake over and over again?
9
Another post showing how rationally thinking through these issues is so much more important than letting fear be the prime motivator. Thank you!
How ironic that Republicans, who generally oppose any sort of reasonable gun control appear to have a change of heart in this case. So it's not every and anybody can have a weapon anytime anywhere because simply and reasonably Iran having the Bomb puts so many in peril. Republicans now here this: the way you feel about Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is how many of us feel about all these mentally ill people obtaining a fireman. Can you relate?
6
Kristof effectively spikes most criticisms of the agreement with Iran. I wonder if Israel's continuing objections have become less and less about the specifics of this deal and more and more about the fact that it demonstrates that Israel no longer can dominate this aspect of American foreign policy.
Israel is also ferociously resisting efforts by the EU to become a major player in Palestinian/Israeli negotiation. The Israelis fear the internationalization of their conflict with the Palestinians, and rightly so. They will never influence the EU's foreign policy to the extent that they influence ours.
Israel is also ferociously resisting efforts by the EU to become a major player in Palestinian/Israeli negotiation. The Israelis fear the internationalization of their conflict with the Palestinians, and rightly so. They will never influence the EU's foreign policy to the extent that they influence ours.
70
I would think that people who live in a nuclear target zone (New York) would be a little more hesitant about signing an important agreement with a people who immediately after finishing the negotiations yelled "death to America." What do you care about what other countries think? Do you think the Iranians will waste their precious nuclear weapons on Chad? Switzerland? Mongolia? No. They will waste them on Israel and The United States. And after signing the "deal," there appears to be nothing you can do to stop them.
3
Let's examine that assertion. How many countries in the world have nuclear weapons? What country has used nuclear weapons against another country, targeting a city full of civilians? What country shot down another country's commercial airline flying in its own airspace? What country gave chemical weapons to Iraq so they could use (and they did) against another country?
Maybe Iran isn't the country that can not be trusted with WMD's. Maybe it's us.
Maybe Iran isn't the country that can not be trusted with WMD's. Maybe it's us.
People who live in a nuclear target zone (New York) want an agreement in place so that Iranians are bound not to waste their precious nuclear weapons on Israel and the United States. Absent an agreement, they are free to do what they want and draw us into another war.
Iran doesn't worry me. The jokers who yelled that are the brothers of the chicken-hawk Republicans who want to bomb Iran (The difference being we can, they can't, and the deal will make it even harder for them to try.)
NO, I'm right in the middle of Manhattan and don't have a worry in the world about Iran, which never attacked ANY country, except with its mouth.
Now, if Alabama got the Bomb, I'd find it hard to stay serene and calm (apologies to Tom Lehrer.)
NO, I'm right in the middle of Manhattan and don't have a worry in the world about Iran, which never attacked ANY country, except with its mouth.
Now, if Alabama got the Bomb, I'd find it hard to stay serene and calm (apologies to Tom Lehrer.)
Here's one more thing to bear in mind: if ran develops a nuclear weapon and launches it at Israel, hundreds of thousands of Muslims will be annihilated, along with millions of Jews. For a country that presumes to lead the Muslim world (and to be instrumental in the establishment of an Islamic state to "replace" Israel), the idea of being responsible for the slaughter of so many Muslims would be counter-productive to say the least.
6
You might want to brush up on your history, of the 11 Million Muslims killed in the Middle East since 1948, 90% have been killed by Muslims. Being that I am sure you will complain about Israel killing Muslims sorry to let you know in the 67 year history of the State Of Israel only 0.3% have been killed by Israel. So to think that a Muslim country will not kill Muslims is not understanding the Middle East what so ever.
As long as Israel has a nuclear stock-pile, it takes a child-like view of the Middle-East to believe that Israel's neighbors will not want nuclear weapons. If not now, then later. But they will always reject second-class status in the nuclear world of Israel, Russia, France, United Kingdom, U.S.A., India, Pakistan, China, North Korea.
5
Kristof says "diplomacy is rarely about optimal outcomes." Here's what diplomacy is. Diplomacy is the purposeful limitation of negotiating leverage to obtain positive public relations benefits. This, in a nutshell, has been the foreign policy of Obama, much to the detriment of the U.S.
1
While blasting Republican objections to the Iran deal may be in vogue for now, Democrats have not exactly been enthusiastic supporters. This belies a general
apprehension towards the deal, which is clearly flawed. Unfortunately, history is written in the present and understood only in retrospect. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
apprehension towards the deal, which is clearly flawed. Unfortunately, history is written in the present and understood only in retrospect. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
2
the apprehension about the deal might be related to the constant fear-mongering ads we see on TV, paid for by AIPAC or their friends.
I agree absolutely. These negotiations are far removed from a Neville Chamberlain negotiation. Iran is no pre WW II Germany though with little encouragement they could get there. This treaty is a sensible way forward. We are well aware how all the Iraq negotiations panned out. We need another approach.
5
This is just a rejection of anything Obama. The Republican Party is pedaling a policy of fear and falling short. They've denounced economic policies, healthcare, women's rights, and now a treaty negotiated by international cooperation. This is the party of the Koch brothers and Karl Rove. Their Presidental candidates are buffoons - "full of sound and fury signifying nothing".
6
From the first I was a supporter of Obama's effort to strike an Iran deal. But now that Nicholas Kristof has publicly joined the ranks of supporters I am having serious doubts.
Now is the moment for every Congressional Democrat to have his or her own Profile-in-Courage moment. Democrats must stick together in a veto-sustaining unity, even while their constituents harbor doubts. If it hinders the re-election chances of some of them, so be it. This deal is too important to America's security -- and to our future standing as leader on the world stage.
If Congress defeats this deal and overrides the veto, the message goes out across the globe. We are a nation of Tom Cottons.
If Congress defeats this deal and overrides the veto, the message goes out across the globe. We are a nation of Tom Cottons.
3
It disgusts me that American politicians are using the treaty as a springboard for the radical-right. It bothers me even more that they can act as if this is a treaty that was only negotiated between the United States and Iran. Do they have no idea that this is a multi-national treaty? Or do they think that if a treaty is to be made, their view and theirs alone should dictate the outcome for all parties at the table? People like that have no business being in positions of responsibility when it comes to international relations. We are part of a larger world that just north America; if the U.S. is going to be a part of the leadership of the world, we need people that can listen to others and not just use a cudgel.
78
You understand nothing about american exceptionalism.
Sad.
Sad.
Had this agreement been achieved by Pres. Romney the same rightwing bloviators would be dancing in the streets and singing his praises on high.
We must remember that those condemning this deal haven't been right about a single thing in 35 years. Not one thing.
If this Country had a working 4th Estate we would not be hearing about the presidential contender D. Trump, we would be hearing about the circus clown D. Trump. We would not be hearing from the republican party about the constant missteps of President Obama, we would be hearing about the constant failure of republicans to govern.
If we had a working 4th Estate we would not have had 60% of our voters unfamiliar with which party controlled congress right before the last election.
Alas!
We must remember that those condemning this deal haven't been right about a single thing in 35 years. Not one thing.
If this Country had a working 4th Estate we would not be hearing about the presidential contender D. Trump, we would be hearing about the circus clown D. Trump. We would not be hearing from the republican party about the constant missteps of President Obama, we would be hearing about the constant failure of republicans to govern.
If we had a working 4th Estate we would not have had 60% of our voters unfamiliar with which party controlled congress right before the last election.
Alas!
7
This is a typical strawman. First, this deal never would have been negotiated by Romney. Second, one can honestly oppose this deal on its merits ... you do NOT give fascist who as a matter of State policy threaten to destroy you and your allies $100 billions of dollars in economic aid / relief ... PERIOD. This agreement does nothing but POTENTIALLY delay their creation of a bomb, it does NOT stop their research, their missile program, their build up of conventional arms to protect the program, it is intellectually weak on its face and frankly insane wishful thinking.
I never thought I would say this, but it is time to bring back the draft. Until every American has their children's future threatened by the bombast of no-nothing chicken hawks who find great courage in sending someone else's child to war, their neanderthal thinking will continue, and diplomacy will continue to be nothing more than a quaint memory.
3
Watching the performance of congressional opponents to this deal is a sad sad sight. It is clear that the best and the brightest are not running for elective office these days. Some keep asking about a "side deal" where the IAEA makes confidential agreements with countries under its inspections regime. They want to see the agreement as if Congress has authority over an international agency. This kind of confidentiality is necessary for the IAEA to do its job.
And herein lies the problem. The opponents of this deal continue to labor under the delusion that America is the world's "indispensable" nation, that our European allies will do what we tell them to do. This was proved false this spring when the UK and others joined the Chinese led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank over the objections of the Obama administration. Countries, just as ordinary people, make decisions based on their own self-interests, and continuing sanctions against Iran because our Congress says so is not in their interest. Congress ought to approve the deal.
And herein lies the problem. The opponents of this deal continue to labor under the delusion that America is the world's "indispensable" nation, that our European allies will do what we tell them to do. This was proved false this spring when the UK and others joined the Chinese led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank over the objections of the Obama administration. Countries, just as ordinary people, make decisions based on their own self-interests, and continuing sanctions against Iran because our Congress says so is not in their interest. Congress ought to approve the deal.
1
Republicans think the nuclear deal with Iran should be rejected. Republicans also think Obama-care will destroy America and Donald Trump should be our next president. Is there any clearer evidence their vision of the future is delusional?
4
Just because we replaced their first democratically elected president with our own man, the Shah; or that we sabatoged their economy with sanctions;, were complicit in starting a cyber war and the murder of 5 scientists, all as result of a non proven 'nuclear bomb' program that our own intelligence doubted, is no reason to be hostile to us? Oh! I forgot about the alleged threat to Israel from an idiot president (yes they had one too) who was subsequently voted out of office in an attempt to liberalize (excuse the expression)...
1
It may be true, at this point, that the alternative to approving this agreement can only be worse. That said, we need to accept that it's success or failure will be determined by the actions of the Iranian leadership at home and throughout the middle east. The agreement's supporters hope it will moderate Iran's leaders and/or led to eventual regime change. Time will tell. What we know now is that the agreement will enable Iran, within a short time, to massively build up its conventional forces. We should also realize that the likelihood of any sanctions being "snapped" back on, absent Iran openly repudiating the accord are very small as nations and companies that sign deals with Iran will be extremely reluctant to interrupt these arrangements. Finally, the inspection process allows Iran to object, appeal and, perhaps in some instances conceal. So, yes, there probably is viable option other than approving the agreement. But I suspect that even many members of congress who support it will do so with significant concerns.
We can invite one of the world's oldest and most sophisticated civilizations to rejoin the world or we can try to isolate them and put the haters in charge. The Iranian people are in general open and hospitable, but pushing them away enables the fringe and violence.
We cannot bomb them out of existence, though some of our rigid ideological leaders don't want to admit that.
It is less dangerous to open communication and accept our mutual limitations than to encourage demagoguery on all sides.
We cannot bomb them out of existence, though some of our rigid ideological leaders don't want to admit that.
It is less dangerous to open communication and accept our mutual limitations than to encourage demagoguery on all sides.
4
1. In his reply to the first italicized question, Mr. Kristof doesn't rebut the claim that negotiations that--on our side--were intended to prevent acquisition of nukes by Iran instead legitimize their future acquisition. That the contemplated delay is all of ten years will be little comfort to Israelis, it seems to me.
2. Mr. Kristof uses an off-the-mark metric when he wants to measure the effect of future sanctions by asking if they'd bring down the regime in Iran. Sanctions would change Iran's behavior, not its government. They have already.
2. Mr. Kristof uses an off-the-mark metric when he wants to measure the effect of future sanctions by asking if they'd bring down the regime in Iran. Sanctions would change Iran's behavior, not its government. They have already.
1
Dear Mr. Kristof,
We lost the opportunity to rid Iran of the Mullahs, when the students came out in force against the Radical Muslim Regime. We watched as the Students were put down violently, & never lifted a finger to help them, whereas, we helped the Egyptian Students to overthrow their Dictator & replaced him with a ruthless Military Dictatorship.Currently, we are fighting & helping Sunnis & Shiites in the Middle East at the same time.Obama & the Liberals in America supported the Palestinians, When Israel retaliated against Hamas who was firing rockets at Jewish Population Centers.Only a Times Columnist can overlook our incredible incompetence in foreign affairs, & support an agreement with a Radical Theocratic Dictatorship who is bent on the destruction of Israel & Saudi Arabia, our only reliable Allies in the Middle East.
We lost the opportunity to rid Iran of the Mullahs, when the students came out in force against the Radical Muslim Regime. We watched as the Students were put down violently, & never lifted a finger to help them, whereas, we helped the Egyptian Students to overthrow their Dictator & replaced him with a ruthless Military Dictatorship.Currently, we are fighting & helping Sunnis & Shiites in the Middle East at the same time.Obama & the Liberals in America supported the Palestinians, When Israel retaliated against Hamas who was firing rockets at Jewish Population Centers.Only a Times Columnist can overlook our incredible incompetence in foreign affairs, & support an agreement with a Radical Theocratic Dictatorship who is bent on the destruction of Israel & Saudi Arabia, our only reliable Allies in the Middle East.
1
Release of sanctions will bring Iranian oil to the market and likely decrease the oil prices even more. That might be a threat to the profits of the oil industry who owns politicians and knows how to manipulate public opinion. Can it be the cause of the opposition to the deal?
2
If the nuclear deal is rejected, it is likely that it will lead to war as the sanctions will not cause Iran to abandon their program just as economic sanctions failed, as Mr. Kristof pointed out, in North Korea, Cuba and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We have the recent example of the "feckless" Bush Administration putting their collective head on the sand in 2003 rather than attempt to engage Iran as Iran increased their centrifuges from a handful to 19,000.
Sen. Lindsey Graham just yesterday badgered Defense Sec. Carter as to who would "win" a war between the U.S. and Iran, Carter, of course, said the U.S. Even the least informed American knows that the U.S. would win a war with Iran in the same way we won wars with Vietnam, with, Iraq, with Afghanistan, with mega deaths, destruction, deficits, and loss of international support. Iran will not sit idly by as their nuclear sites are bombed There will be no "coalition of the willing", just the U.S.A. and Israel responsible for a guaranteed disaster. War Hawks never learn from their mistakes, they just double down. The only winners are the usual suspects, the arms dealers, oil interests, the powers that be, one might say. In other words, the ones who always win while carelessly sending other people's children off to war. Can the American public
be bamboozled again by the latest product line of trumped up fear and phony patriotism?
Sen. Lindsey Graham just yesterday badgered Defense Sec. Carter as to who would "win" a war between the U.S. and Iran, Carter, of course, said the U.S. Even the least informed American knows that the U.S. would win a war with Iran in the same way we won wars with Vietnam, with, Iraq, with Afghanistan, with mega deaths, destruction, deficits, and loss of international support. Iran will not sit idly by as their nuclear sites are bombed There will be no "coalition of the willing", just the U.S.A. and Israel responsible for a guaranteed disaster. War Hawks never learn from their mistakes, they just double down. The only winners are the usual suspects, the arms dealers, oil interests, the powers that be, one might say. In other words, the ones who always win while carelessly sending other people's children off to war. Can the American public
be bamboozled again by the latest product line of trumped up fear and phony patriotism?
4
Ten years ago, all of the scare tactics being used against this deal were employed when we decided to go into Iraq. Two years ago, they were invoked when talking about Putin and Assad. Two months ago, we used the same imagery when we talked about ISIS. We even use them every once in a while when we talk about Kim Jung Un.
All of these entities have held the "most evil in the history of mankind " title in the last decade.
Funny how ISIS hasn't beheaded anyone recently. I guess they're scared about Iran now too. Also funny how nobody's saying that if we cripple Iran with sanctions, ISIS will just walk right in and set up shop there.
Face it, even if we magically were able to turn Iran into a peaceful ally tomorrow, the next day, the bomb Iran crown would just move on to ISIS, or Putin, or al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula, or Ebola.
It's always going to be something with these guys, and when it turns out to be nothing, like in Iraq, nobody's ever willing to admit they were wrong.
All of these entities have held the "most evil in the history of mankind " title in the last decade.
Funny how ISIS hasn't beheaded anyone recently. I guess they're scared about Iran now too. Also funny how nobody's saying that if we cripple Iran with sanctions, ISIS will just walk right in and set up shop there.
Face it, even if we magically were able to turn Iran into a peaceful ally tomorrow, the next day, the bomb Iran crown would just move on to ISIS, or Putin, or al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula, or Ebola.
It's always going to be something with these guys, and when it turns out to be nothing, like in Iraq, nobody's ever willing to admit they were wrong.
5
So here is where you reveal you and Obama share the same naivete:
"Remember too that this deal isn’t just about centrifuges but also about the possibility that Iran will come out of the cold and emerge from its failed 36-year experiment with extremism. That’s why Iran’s hard-liners are so opposed to the deal; they have been sustained by the narrative of the Great Satan as the endless enemy, and conciliation endangers them."
Your two false assumptions: a) incentives will "change" an Islamic Theocracy won by thugs who overthrew their secular goverment and imprisoned U.S. embassy staff, and b) That the "hard liners" are against the deal. The people you call hard liners run the country.
"Remember too that this deal isn’t just about centrifuges but also about the possibility that Iran will come out of the cold and emerge from its failed 36-year experiment with extremism. That’s why Iran’s hard-liners are so opposed to the deal; they have been sustained by the narrative of the Great Satan as the endless enemy, and conciliation endangers them."
Your two false assumptions: a) incentives will "change" an Islamic Theocracy won by thugs who overthrew their secular goverment and imprisoned U.S. embassy staff, and b) That the "hard liners" are against the deal. The people you call hard liners run the country.
1
Some historic facts to bolster Mr. Kristof's diplomacy argument:
1. Iran after the Shah has never invaded another country.
2. When the USA invaded Afghanistan, Iran sealed its border to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, unlike our "ally" Pakistan.
3. Iran is currently physically fighting ISIS.
4. While Iran has aided Hezbollah and Hamas, only the USA and Israel label them as "terrorists." Moreover, neither organization has focused on actions against the USA.
5. The major Iranian Middle East focus and physical action has been to protect minority Shi'ite Muslims from the oppression of the Sunnis, led by Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Al Qaeda.
1. Iran after the Shah has never invaded another country.
2. When the USA invaded Afghanistan, Iran sealed its border to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, unlike our "ally" Pakistan.
3. Iran is currently physically fighting ISIS.
4. While Iran has aided Hezbollah and Hamas, only the USA and Israel label them as "terrorists." Moreover, neither organization has focused on actions against the USA.
5. The major Iranian Middle East focus and physical action has been to protect minority Shi'ite Muslims from the oppression of the Sunnis, led by Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Al Qaeda.
2
In my opinion, the most important part of the piece is the fact that Iran has had WMD's since the 80's and never used them against Israel...and that was when the Ayatollahs took over and they were at their most radical. Iran never even used their chemical weapons after Iraq killed 50,000 Iranians and Iraqi Kurds with chemical weapons.
Iran could have gotten nukes back when Pakistan and India were building theirs, but they didn't.
Instead, the republicans insist that instead of using WMDs when Israel would have been almost completely helpless to resist them, Iran is sneakily waiting another decade and a half to start lobbing nukes when Israel will be orders of magnitude better defended than now.
If Iranians are so sneaky and clever that they could fool the 6 most powerful nations on the planet...all of them at the same time...why are they so stupid that they are waiting until it would be impossible to succeed to destroy Israel?
Who needs logic as long as you keep getting paid?
Iran could have gotten nukes back when Pakistan and India were building theirs, but they didn't.
Instead, the republicans insist that instead of using WMDs when Israel would have been almost completely helpless to resist them, Iran is sneakily waiting another decade and a half to start lobbing nukes when Israel will be orders of magnitude better defended than now.
If Iranians are so sneaky and clever that they could fool the 6 most powerful nations on the planet...all of them at the same time...why are they so stupid that they are waiting until it would be impossible to succeed to destroy Israel?
Who needs logic as long as you keep getting paid?
3
Thank you Mr. Kristof for a wonderfully cogent response to the naysayers. The real "generational calamity" is the Republican party's spinning of truth and 'do-anything-to-bring-down-Obama' rhetoric.
Some truths. A negotiation is about "Getting to "Yes". The first negotiation was between Obama and the US public to pave the way for Iranian negotiations. The second was with Iran. Anyone who believed the US would get everything it wanted is delusional. "Getting to Yes" is a delicate dance not a battle to the end by Roman gladiators.
Second, having nuclear weapons, in the end, means what? --Not much. Not since WWII when the US demonstrated to all the terrible power of nuclear weapons has one been used. The threat to use one may indeed have ended the Korean war. No country with nuclear capability and under the threat of retaliation from a nuclear power would ever use the bomb save for the highly unlikely case of a suicidal fanatic intent upon wiping out some Israelis at the cost of leading Iran to oblivion.
Third, we face much greater risk with the proliferation of nuclear technology to terrorist groups. It dwarfs the calculus of a nation state willing to be obliterated as a result of a nuclear attack. Fourth, time is on our side. Yes, no one knows what Iran will look like in 10-15 years. But an informed bettor would put his money on moderate transition which is the path history has taken.
So thank you Mr. Obama and negotiators for this treaty!
Some truths. A negotiation is about "Getting to "Yes". The first negotiation was between Obama and the US public to pave the way for Iranian negotiations. The second was with Iran. Anyone who believed the US would get everything it wanted is delusional. "Getting to Yes" is a delicate dance not a battle to the end by Roman gladiators.
Second, having nuclear weapons, in the end, means what? --Not much. Not since WWII when the US demonstrated to all the terrible power of nuclear weapons has one been used. The threat to use one may indeed have ended the Korean war. No country with nuclear capability and under the threat of retaliation from a nuclear power would ever use the bomb save for the highly unlikely case of a suicidal fanatic intent upon wiping out some Israelis at the cost of leading Iran to oblivion.
Third, we face much greater risk with the proliferation of nuclear technology to terrorist groups. It dwarfs the calculus of a nation state willing to be obliterated as a result of a nuclear attack. Fourth, time is on our side. Yes, no one knows what Iran will look like in 10-15 years. But an informed bettor would put his money on moderate transition which is the path history has taken.
So thank you Mr. Obama and negotiators for this treaty!
3
There is a problem that is fundamental and that is that the deal doesn't lock down the present with the 24 day military/secret site exception and that it gives Iran a direct route to producing a nuclear weapon in ten years. The other problem is that by design it is too late to go back and renegotiate the deal on the heals of a congressional veto. That leaves the necessity to utilize the Congressional review process as a means to create a bipartisan effort to enhance the deal. Nobody wants to play together, but that's the price of making a deal that is simply not good enough into one that not only is acceptable, but workable. And to get there you need not only a President and a Prime Minister, but the UN and Iran too!
When a country run by hardliners is put under sanctions, in other words is on the ropes economically, that is when it resorts to nuclear arms/bombs, to feel powerful (read North Korea). When sanctions are lifted, and a thriving economy ensues, most likely it will not find a need to threaten its well being by developing nuclear arms.
Thus I support the deal in theory. However, what I worry is that since Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran will see it as an unfair imbalance, and thus keep trying to find a way to get a nuclear bomb, to even the killing field. This wild card (Israel's nuclear arsenal) will always be a sore point with the Muslim world and thus a constant threat.
Thus I support the deal in theory. However, what I worry is that since Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran will see it as an unfair imbalance, and thus keep trying to find a way to get a nuclear bomb, to even the killing field. This wild card (Israel's nuclear arsenal) will always be a sore point with the Muslim world and thus a constant threat.
2
In response:
1. Though important, inspections are a subsidiary issue. Obama’s salient promise about Iran’s nuclear program was made in his third debate with Romney: “[T]he deal we'll accept is, they end their nuclear program. It's very straightforward.”
Obama’s deal does not “end” Iran’s nuclear program, it legitimizes it. After it expires, Iran will be free to enrich uranium to weapons grade and deploy as many advanced centrifuges as it wants. Even Obama admits that Iran’s breakout time would then shrink “almost down to zero.”
2. Kristof finds comfort in the fact that the Iranian people love us. Perhaps true, but irrelevant. The mullahs crushed massive popular protest in 2009 by imprisonment, torture, rape and killing people in the streets. Regimes like that are rarely changed by internal opposition.
3. It’s true that after signing the agreement the sanctions as we’ve known them are likely a dead letter. That’s Obama’s fault. Sanctions were working, and if the screws had been tightened instead of loosened, a better agreement might have been achieved.
4. Not a betrayal of Israel? All major political parties there disagree. It’s not hard to understand why, when one considers statements like the one made by former president, and supposed moderate, Hashemi Rafsanjani:“The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”
Comfortable with that, Nick?
1. Though important, inspections are a subsidiary issue. Obama’s salient promise about Iran’s nuclear program was made in his third debate with Romney: “[T]he deal we'll accept is, they end their nuclear program. It's very straightforward.”
Obama’s deal does not “end” Iran’s nuclear program, it legitimizes it. After it expires, Iran will be free to enrich uranium to weapons grade and deploy as many advanced centrifuges as it wants. Even Obama admits that Iran’s breakout time would then shrink “almost down to zero.”
2. Kristof finds comfort in the fact that the Iranian people love us. Perhaps true, but irrelevant. The mullahs crushed massive popular protest in 2009 by imprisonment, torture, rape and killing people in the streets. Regimes like that are rarely changed by internal opposition.
3. It’s true that after signing the agreement the sanctions as we’ve known them are likely a dead letter. That’s Obama’s fault. Sanctions were working, and if the screws had been tightened instead of loosened, a better agreement might have been achieved.
4. Not a betrayal of Israel? All major political parties there disagree. It’s not hard to understand why, when one considers statements like the one made by former president, and supposed moderate, Hashemi Rafsanjani:“The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”
Comfortable with that, Nick?
1
Wrong, the sanctions were going to come undone because China and Europe want Iran's oil and trade, not because of Obama. You apparently know nothing of the realities of the motivations of those nations. An insipid analysis such as yours is possible only through turning a blind eye to such realities or through ignorance. 'Turning the screws tighter' is laughable because it was not going to happen.
I love Mr. Kristoff's columns and I admire his bravery for sneaking into to Sudan to get the news even though it was very dangerous. However, he is totally wrong about this situation. He says:
Obama pretends that the alternative to this deal is war. No, the alternative is increased economic pressure until Iran yelps for surrender.
Iran is run by terrorists and will never yelp or surrender. Iran admits its goal is to destroy Israel and that will never change. The answer to me is simple. The U.S. and Israel both have nuclear weapons. They should team up and destroy Hamas and Iran before they have time to build their own bomb, which they will definitely use if they build it.
Obama pretends that the alternative to this deal is war. No, the alternative is increased economic pressure until Iran yelps for surrender.
Iran is run by terrorists and will never yelp or surrender. Iran admits its goal is to destroy Israel and that will never change. The answer to me is simple. The U.S. and Israel both have nuclear weapons. They should team up and destroy Hamas and Iran before they have time to build their own bomb, which they will definitely use if they build it.
1
Beverly. Nice world you imagine. It is you that is the terrorist with this thinking. Unreal.
1
The civilised West needs a deal with Iran. Iran is not and has never been the enemy of the West, or of Western liberal values, that the GOP thinks it is.
Most of those who identify as Republicans don't know anything about Iran or the history of Persia. They think that the citizens of Iran are Arab-speakers; they think that most Iranians are Sunni.
In fact, culturally and historically, Arab-speakers and Hebrew-speakers are linked closely through their linguistic roots. Iranians and English speakers are likewise linked.
Culturally and historically, speakers of the Semitic languages all belong to the descendants of the same nomadic herders of sheep and goats, surviving in wandering tribes in an arid landscape dotted by occasional oases, shimmering horizons and salt-heavy seas, bonded together by a law of vengeance and retribution, by the ancient blood ties of kith and kin. Palestinian Jews and Arab-speaking Palestinians are thus merely two recent branches of one people.
The Iranians, the Indo-Aryans of Northern India, the Greeks, the Romans, the Celts, the Goths, Germans, Franks, and all the native speakers of today's Indo-European languages, can likewise be thought of as recent branches of the one people. The greatest misfortune of the Persians was to be invaded and defeated by the armies of Mohammed of Mecca and Medina. One day, they will transcend this misfortune and join the western fold.
Most of those who identify as Republicans don't know anything about Iran or the history of Persia. They think that the citizens of Iran are Arab-speakers; they think that most Iranians are Sunni.
In fact, culturally and historically, Arab-speakers and Hebrew-speakers are linked closely through their linguistic roots. Iranians and English speakers are likewise linked.
Culturally and historically, speakers of the Semitic languages all belong to the descendants of the same nomadic herders of sheep and goats, surviving in wandering tribes in an arid landscape dotted by occasional oases, shimmering horizons and salt-heavy seas, bonded together by a law of vengeance and retribution, by the ancient blood ties of kith and kin. Palestinian Jews and Arab-speaking Palestinians are thus merely two recent branches of one people.
The Iranians, the Indo-Aryans of Northern India, the Greeks, the Romans, the Celts, the Goths, Germans, Franks, and all the native speakers of today's Indo-European languages, can likewise be thought of as recent branches of the one people. The greatest misfortune of the Persians was to be invaded and defeated by the armies of Mohammed of Mecca and Medina. One day, they will transcend this misfortune and join the western fold.
2
Wonderful clear-headed insights, Mr. Kristof.
Of my own comparable viewpoint, I cannot help but believe also that many of the naysayers (many immovable Hawks) are such because, in their glass-half-empty minds, they do not make concession for the precedential fact that cooperation and friendliness usually serve effectively as antidotes to disunion and animosity....
Of my own comparable viewpoint, I cannot help but believe also that many of the naysayers (many immovable Hawks) are such because, in their glass-half-empty minds, they do not make concession for the precedential fact that cooperation and friendliness usually serve effectively as antidotes to disunion and animosity....
3
I have seen my congressman (Peter King) have a fit because Obama one day was wearing a tan suit. This kind of blanket Republican disapproval of anything and everything that Obama may say or do is in itself enough to make me distrust their motives and their arguments. As it is, I think Obama, Kerry, and now Kristof are right in saying that this is the best possible deal and better than any alternative. What Republicans hate and fear most is that in fact this dignified and far-sighted man will in fact go down in the history books as at least a very fine president, while what they will be known for is voting 60+ times in a futile attempt to repeal a creditable health-care bill that has already passed two tests from an otherwise hostile Supreme Court.
Clearly no great alternatives here. But let's understand that we are giving Iran's murderous regime billions (in sanctions relief) and we are getting.......promises. In other words we are getting nothing.
This deal might best be called "The Kerry/Obama Terrorist Funding Act of 2015." Because all it does is fund a terrorist regime.
This deal might best be called "The Kerry/Obama Terrorist Funding Act of 2015." Because all it does is fund a terrorist regime.
2
Again ignorance show cased as serious policy. Another opinion by a person who believes that an almighty show of military power will win all battles. I would like to ask this person and all others who are of the same opinion, on what kind of historic information that is based. Not in all the wars our army went into after world war II, which basically were lost against mostly very small countries. Too easy this is forgotten, a section of our country believes that a show of power by the most free country in the world will be th only solution. The Pentagon has lost all wars against countries where their population don't want them there. They see us (in many cases that is true) as the enemy.
To all you "Chicken Hawks" and warmongers:
Just remember history, when then President Jimmy Carter attempted an ill-fate attempt to rescue the embassy hostages. The attempt failed dismally at cost in lives because of Iranian geography, a mountainous country twice the size of Texas and fatally long non-stop flight distance from willing nearby countries. A major initiative the size of the D-Day invasion of World War II would be needed for any chance of success, and even then, there would be no certainty identifying and destroying any nuclear related sites, many buried in the mountains, aka NORAD! During any attempted war, Iran would be likely to crank up its support of the barbarian Hezbollah and ISIS and Hamas. It so dismaying to see the "Chicken Hawks", that were festooned with student deferments, like Dick Cheney and Donald Trump and others be the leading blinded warmongers!
Just remember history, when then President Jimmy Carter attempted an ill-fate attempt to rescue the embassy hostages. The attempt failed dismally at cost in lives because of Iranian geography, a mountainous country twice the size of Texas and fatally long non-stop flight distance from willing nearby countries. A major initiative the size of the D-Day invasion of World War II would be needed for any chance of success, and even then, there would be no certainty identifying and destroying any nuclear related sites, many buried in the mountains, aka NORAD! During any attempted war, Iran would be likely to crank up its support of the barbarian Hezbollah and ISIS and Hamas. It so dismaying to see the "Chicken Hawks", that were festooned with student deferments, like Dick Cheney and Donald Trump and others be the leading blinded warmongers!
1
The agreement with Iran is a MULTI-LATERAL agreement. The sanctions are going to be relaxed regardless of what the United States says. The treaty imposes significant obligations on Iran, and has a series of sophisticated and intrusive verification oops built-in.
The United States does not have a veto over the treaty. It is UN security council endorsed and it is moving forward.
Can any rational observer think that a region power like Iran would give up the totality of its sovereignty? Of course not. But the agreement does extract significant concessions.
This deal is a erasable alternative to ineffective military actions that will generate an unknown chain of events. The fact that Iranian hardliners hate the deal is a positive sign.
And being blunt, why should the only country that has incinerated civilian populations of women and children with a nuclear weapon be the unilateral policeman of other country's nuclear programs?
The United States does not have a veto over the treaty. It is UN security council endorsed and it is moving forward.
Can any rational observer think that a region power like Iran would give up the totality of its sovereignty? Of course not. But the agreement does extract significant concessions.
This deal is a erasable alternative to ineffective military actions that will generate an unknown chain of events. The fact that Iranian hardliners hate the deal is a positive sign.
And being blunt, why should the only country that has incinerated civilian populations of women and children with a nuclear weapon be the unilateral policeman of other country's nuclear programs?
2
I could accept the arguments wholeheartedly for a "deal" if Iran was told, in very CLEAR terms, that if nuclear material is used anywhere, anytime, in any terrorist attack, then the United States, either alone or with allies, will respond in a like manner to such an attack.
Unless we make a nuclear terrorist attack "unthinkable" to countries like Iran then "poor deals that are better than no deals" just postpones the almost inevitable war that is to come.
Putting one's faith in the "young people" of Iran is a chimera with dubious or no results considering the "religious" aspect of life in these repressive, sharia governed states. It hasn't worked in Afghanistan, barely working in Iraq and "diplomacy" with DAESH, one of Iran's "proxy fighters", is non existent.
"War is diplomacy by other means." Von Clausewitz.
It's not pretty and when waged poorly (See Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) leads to more warfare. This treaty may postpone things for a while but I do not think for one moment that Iran is "negotiating" anything other than a relief of sanctions and will continue to pursue nuclear weapons, just a tad more clandestinely.
If Iran recognizes the State of Israel, trades ambassadors and, in general, acknowledges that the Jewish State is here to stay, then I might feel a bit more comfortable but that, like the "young people revolt", is yet another chimera when dealing with religious fanatics.
Unless we make a nuclear terrorist attack "unthinkable" to countries like Iran then "poor deals that are better than no deals" just postpones the almost inevitable war that is to come.
Putting one's faith in the "young people" of Iran is a chimera with dubious or no results considering the "religious" aspect of life in these repressive, sharia governed states. It hasn't worked in Afghanistan, barely working in Iraq and "diplomacy" with DAESH, one of Iran's "proxy fighters", is non existent.
"War is diplomacy by other means." Von Clausewitz.
It's not pretty and when waged poorly (See Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) leads to more warfare. This treaty may postpone things for a while but I do not think for one moment that Iran is "negotiating" anything other than a relief of sanctions and will continue to pursue nuclear weapons, just a tad more clandestinely.
If Iran recognizes the State of Israel, trades ambassadors and, in general, acknowledges that the Jewish State is here to stay, then I might feel a bit more comfortable but that, like the "young people revolt", is yet another chimera when dealing with religious fanatics.
'This is one of the pivotal foreign policy decisions of the decade' your words Mr. Kristof. May I suggest you remove your head from this administration derriere for a moment and look at some news wires. The Middle East is on fire, everyday burning brighter, with this so called deal it is like throwing gasoline on a fire. Its so easy to say we are tired of war, if there will be one its over there nowhere near us, so who cares. If you for a minute thought the Iraq-Iran war was brutal, it will not compare to anything that the Gulf States-Iran war will be bringing and not talking about a nuclear war.If you really think it will not affect us please pass the pipe your smoking.The fact that there are secret deals with the IAEA that know one talks about, doesn't worry you? Now we know how well this administration picks its friends.A US-led raid on the compound housing the Islamic State’s “chief financial officer” produced evidence that Turkish officials directly dealt with ranking ISIS members.Documents and flash drives seized during the Sayyaf raid reportedly revealed links “so clear” and “undeniable” between Turkey and ISIS “that they could end up having profound policy implications for the relationship between us and Ankara,” senior Western official familiar with the captured intelligence. But hey if you want to put your trust in this administration I hope your ready to see blood and guts on the nightly news daily.
"Its so easy to say we are tired of war, if there will be one its over there nowhere near us, so who cares."
That statement/question is incredibly callous, ignorant and thoroughly disgusting. It's comments like yours that have given rise to the expression "ugly American" - and rightly so. You shame us all with your attitude. Who cares? I do!
That statement/question is incredibly callous, ignorant and thoroughly disgusting. It's comments like yours that have given rise to the expression "ugly American" - and rightly so. You shame us all with your attitude. Who cares? I do!
1
Amen Deb.
Obama liberals never think anything is a crisis until it's happening to them.
Which means they rarely think.
Obama liberals never think anything is a crisis until it's happening to them.
Which means they rarely think.
I understand why Republicans oppose negotiations, compromise is not in their vocabulary. Iran has an average age of 36 and of those with college degrees and advanced college degrees a majority are women. All these facts point to the chance Iran's government changing. Iranians are Persian not Arabs. Their history with the United States is long and troubled. The CIIA put the Shaw in charge replacing an elected government. The Shaw ruled with an iron hand putting anyone that opposed him in jail where many were beaten or just disappeared. This lead to revolution and taking the American embassy and the hostages.
Opponents of the deal are also opponents of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The insistence that Iran give up its nuclear infrastructure, especially its enrichment and reprocessing facilities, contravenes the NPT, to which Iran is a signatory. That treaty permits all of its nearly 190 signatories access to the equipment and facilities for civilian purposes, mainly energy and medicine.
Proponents of the deal include nuclear and military experts from all the non-Iran negotiating teams, most Israeli intelligence and military officials, and, of course, negotiators and politicians who have relied on their expertise. Opponents include Congressional politicians, most of whom are not scientists or scientifically literate, especially about the nuclear physics, nuclear engineering, and nuclear equipment, facilities, and processes. They know little about about multi-lateral international negotiations. They talk about enhancing respect for America abroad while advocating a decision which would degrade it everywhere. And, the alternative, an attack on Iran, makes likely an attack on Israel, which they profess a desire to protect.
Opponents make an undefined "better" deal the enemy of a good deal. Indeed, Iran really got little more than the lifting of sanctions and some modest limitations on what we got. Finally, opponents adopt the sophomoric position that we cannot accept a deal on this problem until we accept a deal on all problems--the best way to solve nothing.
Proponents of the deal include nuclear and military experts from all the non-Iran negotiating teams, most Israeli intelligence and military officials, and, of course, negotiators and politicians who have relied on their expertise. Opponents include Congressional politicians, most of whom are not scientists or scientifically literate, especially about the nuclear physics, nuclear engineering, and nuclear equipment, facilities, and processes. They know little about about multi-lateral international negotiations. They talk about enhancing respect for America abroad while advocating a decision which would degrade it everywhere. And, the alternative, an attack on Iran, makes likely an attack on Israel, which they profess a desire to protect.
Opponents make an undefined "better" deal the enemy of a good deal. Indeed, Iran really got little more than the lifting of sanctions and some modest limitations on what we got. Finally, opponents adopt the sophomoric position that we cannot accept a deal on this problem until we accept a deal on all problems--the best way to solve nothing.
2
Ok, I agree with everything you have written.
You conveniently leave out the secret side deal, between Iran and the IEAE. That deal defines inspection terms. How does the Secy of State sign a deal, when he and his team did not read key pieces of the treaty/deal. Kerry's testimony yesterday was an embarrassment.
In addition, the fact that the Iranian people yearn to be free, does not mean they will remove the fanatical religious regime. How has the arab spring worked out.
I was in favor of this deal for all the reasons you sited. Now, I can not support it until the secret side deals are made public and analyzed.
You conveniently leave out the secret side deal, between Iran and the IEAE. That deal defines inspection terms. How does the Secy of State sign a deal, when he and his team did not read key pieces of the treaty/deal. Kerry's testimony yesterday was an embarrassment.
In addition, the fact that the Iranian people yearn to be free, does not mean they will remove the fanatical religious regime. How has the arab spring worked out.
I was in favor of this deal for all the reasons you sited. Now, I can not support it until the secret side deals are made public and analyzed.
The deal never was about Iran's nuclear ambitions which, if they really ever existed, ended in 2003 -according to the CIA.
the deal is about getting out of the sanctions without losing too much face.
Iran has been able to amass more than a hundred billion in oil revenues in China alone that now will be freed.
the sanctions only spurred those that found legal loopholes in them but did not really made the Iranian bow.
In fact, the situation now is more like what it was in Libya when Gadaffi paid up for something they did not do just to get rid of a nuisance called sanctions.
Don't get me wrong, the sanction did have an impact in Iran's every day life, but by far not enough to make the Iranians do anything hey did not want to.
And the way it looks, because of US foreign politics in the region, Iran will be last country to have nuclear weapons as Israel, Pakistan, Russia, India already have hem and Saudi Arabia, the major sponsor of terror worldwide, has all it takes top have hem within a few hours - and that includes mid range carrier system already in place.
So in fact, for he Iranians this was simply to get rid of a nuisance while allowing Obama to keep some of his face.
the deal is about getting out of the sanctions without losing too much face.
Iran has been able to amass more than a hundred billion in oil revenues in China alone that now will be freed.
the sanctions only spurred those that found legal loopholes in them but did not really made the Iranian bow.
In fact, the situation now is more like what it was in Libya when Gadaffi paid up for something they did not do just to get rid of a nuisance called sanctions.
Don't get me wrong, the sanction did have an impact in Iran's every day life, but by far not enough to make the Iranians do anything hey did not want to.
And the way it looks, because of US foreign politics in the region, Iran will be last country to have nuclear weapons as Israel, Pakistan, Russia, India already have hem and Saudi Arabia, the major sponsor of terror worldwide, has all it takes top have hem within a few hours - and that includes mid range carrier system already in place.
So in fact, for he Iranians this was simply to get rid of a nuisance while allowing Obama to keep some of his face.
Who cares if Iran DOES obtain nuclear weapons? Israel has several hundred warheads, and the missiles to deliver them. ANY state that pulls the nuclear trigger in such close quarters (or even at long distance!) effectively annihilates itself as well.
A nuclear Iran does not effectively 'threaten' Israel. Everyone knows such weapons can never be used. The real issue here is who will be the regional power. Will it be a few million Israelis, dominating a huge mass of Arabs and Persians? Forever? Not likely. Or will it be the natural regional leader with ten times the population and a much larger economy?
Iran was once the cornerstone of American power in the region, with the military dictator (the Shah) installed by us and the Brits in the 1950s. It controls the straits of Hormuz through which a huge amount of the world's oil passes.
Iran will once again be our ally, and the way in is through their economy and opening up the country, connecting it fully to the internet, selling it American ideas and American technology, not isolating it and thereby feeding its most reactionary elements.
Iran cannot be isolated forever. It will never be 'pro Israel' unless we are able to install another dictator or occupy the country ourselves as the neo cons and war hawks and their Israeli backers would so dearly love to do.
Time to start looking after our own interests and not those of Israel, whose agents in this country have a stranglehold on our utterly corrupt political class.
A nuclear Iran does not effectively 'threaten' Israel. Everyone knows such weapons can never be used. The real issue here is who will be the regional power. Will it be a few million Israelis, dominating a huge mass of Arabs and Persians? Forever? Not likely. Or will it be the natural regional leader with ten times the population and a much larger economy?
Iran was once the cornerstone of American power in the region, with the military dictator (the Shah) installed by us and the Brits in the 1950s. It controls the straits of Hormuz through which a huge amount of the world's oil passes.
Iran will once again be our ally, and the way in is through their economy and opening up the country, connecting it fully to the internet, selling it American ideas and American technology, not isolating it and thereby feeding its most reactionary elements.
Iran cannot be isolated forever. It will never be 'pro Israel' unless we are able to install another dictator or occupy the country ourselves as the neo cons and war hawks and their Israeli backers would so dearly love to do.
Time to start looking after our own interests and not those of Israel, whose agents in this country have a stranglehold on our utterly corrupt political class.
2
Critics say the sanctions will be more effective in suppressing the rogue Iranian regime. Take away the sanctions and you allow them the resources to create more trouble. However, the multi-national sanctions was put together to force Iran to a nuclear deal acceptable to the five countries +1. Now that an agreement has been forged that is acceptable to all negotiating parties sanctions must be lifted gradually according to scheduled compliance with the agreement. No nation will participate in the sanctions if the US reneges on the agreement. So keeping the sanctions is a false option and should be taken out of consideration.
2
Perhaps there has been too many ad hominem remarks attacking or praising supporters or opponents of the deal. This has its uses (looking into motives for others' opinions can help understand them), but only goes so far.
It would be better I think to try to understand the deal and its alternatives. A few questions to look into:
1) Why have Russia and China (and the Europeans) agreed to sanctions (and what are they sacrificing for doing this), what do they gain or lose by ending the sanctions, and will one or more of them openly or secretly end their sanctions if the deal does not go through (if they have not begun this already)?
2) Where will Iran, the US, and Israel be militarily in 10 years? What is our ability to shut down Iran's nuclear program in the long run now and what will it be then, what would likely result from a military attack on Iran's nuclear program?
3) What will Iran's leadership/government likely look like in 10 years with vs. without the nuclear deal?
It would be better I think to try to understand the deal and its alternatives. A few questions to look into:
1) Why have Russia and China (and the Europeans) agreed to sanctions (and what are they sacrificing for doing this), what do they gain or lose by ending the sanctions, and will one or more of them openly or secretly end their sanctions if the deal does not go through (if they have not begun this already)?
2) Where will Iran, the US, and Israel be militarily in 10 years? What is our ability to shut down Iran's nuclear program in the long run now and what will it be then, what would likely result from a military attack on Iran's nuclear program?
3) What will Iran's leadership/government likely look like in 10 years with vs. without the nuclear deal?
1
We supported a country like Pakistan for over 68 years. our objective was to fight the cold war. With our money and support Pakistan has developed terrorism network and proliferation of nuclear bombs. Both of these capabilities will be haunting us for ever. Look we paid over $10 billions to Pakistan in the last decade and still paying. what did we get - more nuclear bombs and hiding the two most wanted terrorists: Bin Laden and Mullah Omar - a cheat and deceit on our tax money. all nay sayers are gang-ho on Iran deal but are silent on Pakistan's cunning policies. Pakistan's military is still doing everything to destabilize Afghanistan and Kashmir. If Israel has to be afraid of anything that will be Pakistan's nuclear power. Pakistan's ISI is more powerful and religious to be a danger to support any Muslim country in the middle east against Israel. I can see Pakistan's ISI supporting ISIS without any hear bit if it supports Pakistan's cause of destabilizing Indian coexistence. I agree that Iran or any other Muslim country should develop nuclear bombs because it will complicate the world: they will fight themselves but will unite against Israel. Muslim countries are enemy themselves but they Take Israel as their common enemy and will not hesitate to unite on wrong cause. Iran deal will bring the progressive force of Iran to civility for a dialogue not to engage in sinister behavior to earn their living. How can USA think to be wiser compared to other 5 powerful countries?
Terrific column. That about covers it. Iran will moderate. The huge young and educated population will take over and we will be able to have normal relations. This deal gives them time to get control of the county. If we punish them these young, pro-American-people youths may be more likely to side with the radical right warmongers who have something in common with our War Party here.
3
Nowhere does Kristof describe what the treaty does for the West.
Those in favor of this deal just don't understand what has occurred.
The West has gotten nothing. There is not one part of the Iranian obligation that impairs their desire to acquire nuclear devices. Everything that they may want can be bought elsewhere including enriched U238. In addition there is no bar to developing intercontinental delivery systems. And what if Iran sets up an enrichment facility in Iraq or Syria -- then the same predicament exists as if it were done in Iran proper.
Iran has obtained all it wants. Substantial funds, freedom from any meaningful inspection regime, free trade in all weapons systems.
Obama, Kerry and Moniz cannot imagine any alternative but almost every critic has an alternative including the most extreme of the US going it alone in isolating Iran until it shows some sign of joining the civilized community of nations.
Also. Iran can bide their time until they have gotten everything promised to them, , one year, two years or ten years. At which time they can simply withdraw from the agreement.
Those in favor of this deal just don't understand what has occurred.
The West has gotten nothing. There is not one part of the Iranian obligation that impairs their desire to acquire nuclear devices. Everything that they may want can be bought elsewhere including enriched U238. In addition there is no bar to developing intercontinental delivery systems. And what if Iran sets up an enrichment facility in Iraq or Syria -- then the same predicament exists as if it were done in Iran proper.
Iran has obtained all it wants. Substantial funds, freedom from any meaningful inspection regime, free trade in all weapons systems.
Obama, Kerry and Moniz cannot imagine any alternative but almost every critic has an alternative including the most extreme of the US going it alone in isolating Iran until it shows some sign of joining the civilized community of nations.
Also. Iran can bide their time until they have gotten everything promised to them, , one year, two years or ten years. At which time they can simply withdraw from the agreement.
George W. Bush rejected a deal on nuclear weapons with Iran and we know how well everything turns out when we trusted George W. and the current flock of Republican Iran deal protesters are still following his guidelines. George W. was a cowboy in his own mind without a trace of diplomacy in his muddled thinking and the clones or is that clowns who nay say would lead us down the same path of destruction.
1
The entire issue rests on the word "deal". Why are we "dealing" with a house full of murderous terrorists? Why are we not dictating the terms of our release of sanctions? Why do they even have a say on the matter? The answer is because we are weak. America is a paper tiger thanks to the Obama crew. Sure the Iraq war was a disaster, but does that mean we have to allow a different regime to murder and maim at will. I am not interested in going to war with Iran either, but I am less interested in legitimizing them with our concessions. Put the iron boot on their neck and say "you will NOT have any more centrifuges and we will come in to inspect whenever and wherever we want!" I dont care if these are inspection regimes that are more intrusive than anywhere else. I want inspections that will prevent a nuclear armed Iran. This does not suffice. Bad "deal". Bad "deal". Bad Bad "deal"!!!
Everyone assumes that Iran wants nuclear weapons. Everyone also agrees that Khamenei takes his religion seriously. These two beliefs clash with each other. Khamenei reportedly issued a fatwa some years ago that nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islamic law. I take him seriously, and therefore doubt that Iran in fact wants nukes. They may well want a "breakout" capability, like Japan for example, that would serve to deter the US. But no actual nukes. If I am right, then the deal is great for Iran: they give up nothing they actually care about, get sanctions lifted, and get access to their frozen money.
Before you dismiss me as hopelessly naive, please remember how certain you were that Iraq had WMDs.
Before you dismiss me as hopelessly naive, please remember how certain you were that Iraq had WMDs.
Perhaps more American parents should just tell the GOP, "You can't have my children for your endless war adventures." That's it. I didn't raise two sons to be engineers and builders just to have the jingoistic GOP send them off to be slaughtered for some losing ideological, political effort to look "strong".
I don't see any young Rubios, Cruzs, Grahams, Trumps, Romneys, Walkers, Huckabees, etc., etc., etc., volunteering to fight to keep Iranians in the middle ages. I sometimes think the GOP wants these wars as a way to provide employment to young people they have otherwise abandoned--no funding for primary or secondary education, no college loans, no jobs, no real future except to be grist in the military-industrial-GOP eternal war mill.
I don't see any young Rubios, Cruzs, Grahams, Trumps, Romneys, Walkers, Huckabees, etc., etc., etc., volunteering to fight to keep Iranians in the middle ages. I sometimes think the GOP wants these wars as a way to provide employment to young people they have otherwise abandoned--no funding for primary or secondary education, no college loans, no jobs, no real future except to be grist in the military-industrial-GOP eternal war mill.
3
Back in very early 2003 I found myself promising my late mother that if there was a draft involving women - which did not seem impossible then - I would somehow get my teenage nieces to Sweden where I had some connections. Of course it never came to that because the chicken hawks took the expedient step of imposing hardship on National Guard and Reserve members and their families. [Some of the older of those chicken hawks were the same people who hid out in the Guard during the Vietnam era when it was draftees whose lives were disrupted.]
1
The success of this deal depends on the goodwill and good faith of people who chanted "death to America" in the streets when news of the deal was released.
What could possibly go wrong?
What could possibly go wrong?
1
It is interesting to note, that this same overall mindset and viewpoint on the part of Obama has NOT resulted in less war. War in Syria, war, again, in Iraq, war in Yemen and chaos in Libya. The Iran agreement will only continue this trend. And, it is so easily predictable.
Those who think war is a viable alternative to the agreement should think again. Russia and China are eager to develop economic and political ties with Iran. If we started a war with Iran, not only would it be ineffective in achieving the stated goal of a nuclear-free Iran, but we might end up fighting Russia and China as well. We could end up starting World War III.
1
Support the deal with Iran. Neither I nor anyone else can be certain of what Iran might be like 10-15 years from now. But I'm pretty sure of what the opinion of right-wing Israelis will be, and it won't favor peace.
1
"China after Mao died" has hardly been a bastion of democracy and freedom!! Has Kristof forgotten Tienanmen Square? If we can expect Iran to be like China after Mao died, then this deal is even worse than we thought.
It is easy to make a nuclear bomb. Several third world countries made them many years ago with low technology. Iran is technically far more advanced than those countries when they made their first bomb. Without the agreement they could easily make it in less than 6 months.
But now is the campaign season and anything that gets headlines will prevail. Rational analysis doesn't make headlines!
But now is the campaign season and anything that gets headlines will prevail. Rational analysis doesn't make headlines!
3
Great article! I would only add one thing and that is the unease I felt with Putin’s demeanor when it looked as if the deal might fall through. I am tired of politicians who act as if we can dictate to the world how each country should behave. Perhaps they live in a fantasy world; perhaps they are not being candid. My guess is that it is often a combination of the two.
I'm a political students at Tehran university, as we all know there is two significant factions in Iran, one which is overtly reformers but covertly secular and the other which are hardliners. you can witness and observe in all places a trend toward secularism, people are frustrated of nepotism, corruption, hyperinflation, stagnation, and etc. and they blame Mullahs for everything. Not speaking about reconciling of our relation with America is a common conversation among Iranians from all classes, but they also discuss the reconciliation of relations with Israel. you just have to review the essays of Iranians International Relation professors, to feel this trend. they are all discussing the possibilities of these reconciliations. so this accord might help this trend instead of waging another war in middle east and in Iran which has the Revolutionary Guard Corps who are extremely conservative. a war against Iran would just stoke the flames of conservatism and would help the religious faction who -as Nicholas Kristof mentioned- can ignite the people.
110
I think Kristol's comment is NOT notable when he writes: "It's also notable that American Jews are more in favor of the agreement than the American public as a whole." As an American Jew, I am very proud that so many American Jews are indeed very worried about how the Iran deal will affect Israel.
totally agree. I was listening to the BBC this morning, and the commentator was saying that 'average' Iranians are ecstatic about this deal. I hope this works out well for both sides. It's not perfect, but its a compromise that can workl
Let’s face it, they won’t be satisfied until they have another war. It never ends. We lost in Viet Nam. We hightailed it out of Iraq. We are stuck in Afghanistan and after more that a decade we still cannot defeat the ragtag Taliban, and now they want war with Iran. Bottom line, that’s their game plan: no compromise, we must defeat them.
Some people, especially Republicans, will never face the fact that no matter how we define American-style war or its goals, it doesn’t work. Ever.
No matter how often we cite the use of military force to stabilize, or protect or liberate countries or regions in never works. Indeed, it is a destabilizing force. No matter how regularly we praise our way of war and our fighting forces, our military is incapable of outright winning it’s wars. The evidence is in.
So the one percent can keep sending the poor to die in their endless losing wars which we will all pay for in the future as the cost in broken bodies and broken lives is translated into medical care, which they’d like to deny them, and dumped on the broken VA.
Some people, especially Republicans, will never face the fact that no matter how we define American-style war or its goals, it doesn’t work. Ever.
No matter how often we cite the use of military force to stabilize, or protect or liberate countries or regions in never works. Indeed, it is a destabilizing force. No matter how regularly we praise our way of war and our fighting forces, our military is incapable of outright winning it’s wars. The evidence is in.
So the one percent can keep sending the poor to die in their endless losing wars which we will all pay for in the future as the cost in broken bodies and broken lives is translated into medical care, which they’d like to deny them, and dumped on the broken VA.
2
Same lesson we taught Britain in 1783. Oh well.
The Republicans have been trying to make Obama look bad since he took office. They are are also trying to pander to Sheldon Adelson, probably the largest single contributor to Republican campaigns in the 2012 election cycle. These are not good reasons for the US to be pushed into a war for which it is not prepared.
In Israel, it seems to be business as usual with no penalties or jail time being imposed on religious Jews (Haredim) who refuse to do their military service. In March 2014, hundreds of thousands of Haredim gathered in Jerusalem to protest the draft. One would think they were living next door to Canada instead of war torn Syria. Once again, the Haredi political parties are part of Netanyahu's governing coalition and their consituencies are being suitably rewarded with more pork barrel spending.
Let's give the agreement a chance to work but prepare for war if we have to. I'll know that the Republicans are serious about putting American interests first if they are pass a war tax increase which would go into effect if the US declares war against Iran. American parents should not have to pay for body armour for their sons in the US military.
In Israel, it seems to be business as usual with no penalties or jail time being imposed on religious Jews (Haredim) who refuse to do their military service. In March 2014, hundreds of thousands of Haredim gathered in Jerusalem to protest the draft. One would think they were living next door to Canada instead of war torn Syria. Once again, the Haredi political parties are part of Netanyahu's governing coalition and their consituencies are being suitably rewarded with more pork barrel spending.
Let's give the agreement a chance to work but prepare for war if we have to. I'll know that the Republicans are serious about putting American interests first if they are pass a war tax increase which would go into effect if the US declares war against Iran. American parents should not have to pay for body armour for their sons in the US military.
2
...if they pass...
I agree with Kristof that the deal has to be approved, if for different reasons, because if not, America's loses all respect and the Jews will be blamed. Truth of the matter is, we can all pontificate all we want, but only time will tell if this deal was in our interests or not.
"the Jews will be blamed"
There may be a number of solid diplomatic and security arguments to approve this agreement. Fear that "the Jews" will be blamed if it is not approved should not be one them.
There may be a number of solid diplomatic and security arguments to approve this agreement. Fear that "the Jews" will be blamed if it is not approved should not be one them.
@Want2know. As a person who has been and will be the target of hate, it is indeed a valid reason.
Well put, Mr. Kristof ! The last paragraph pretty much sums up the situation. We have come far, against many attempted blocks by extremists, to get this deal...and for the U.S. Congress to even THINK of refusing it is insanity. There is no rational basis for refusing this long and difficult solution to one of the major discords of the Middle East. How frustrating it must be for those who have put in so much effort to reach this agreement to listen to the trivial arguments against it, with nothing but brute force as their solution.
1
Supporters of Israel are resisting this deal so fiercely in part because they want to demonstrate that they still have primary control of American foreign policy in the Mideast. They fear "internationalization" of their conflicts with Iran and the Palestinians because they will never be able to control the EU's policies as much as they do ours.
2
I find it both maddening and depressing, that given the mess we have unleashed in the middle east, another "war" is even being discussed. The hardliners here and in Iran are all mostly old men, forever with an axe to grind, and are two sides of the same coin. It is my fervent hope that sanity will prevail, and the deal is allowed to stand. In the next ten to fifteen yrs., the hawks on both sides will be diminished in numbers and relevance, giving the younger generations a much stronger voice in determining their future.
Iran is five times (+/-) the size of Iraq and is one of the more stable countries in the M.E. It's people are more secular, modern and well educated. They are in general a very congenial people who love their country and their children as do we. They don't want war, death and destruction. If Republicans are determined to scuttle this deal, and succeed, it will truly be the beginning of the end. They're incapable of acknowledging the monumental mistake of Iraq, born of lies, hubris and arrogance, and apparently have learned nothing. I grieve still for the resulting loss of life. Can we please, try the olive branch for a change and to quote John Lennon, give peace a chance? Please?
Iran is five times (+/-) the size of Iraq and is one of the more stable countries in the M.E. It's people are more secular, modern and well educated. They are in general a very congenial people who love their country and their children as do we. They don't want war, death and destruction. If Republicans are determined to scuttle this deal, and succeed, it will truly be the beginning of the end. They're incapable of acknowledging the monumental mistake of Iraq, born of lies, hubris and arrogance, and apparently have learned nothing. I grieve still for the resulting loss of life. Can we please, try the olive branch for a change and to quote John Lennon, give peace a chance? Please?
2
"This agreement is a betrayal of Israel. Once Iran gets its hands on W.M.D.s, it will commit genocide."
The Ayatollah knows that if a mushroom cloud appears over Tel Aviv, there will shortly be another one over Tehran.
The Ayatollah knows that if a mushroom cloud appears over Tel Aviv, there will shortly be another one over Tehran.
1
Alot of new war weapons coming. I'm only an average guy but it seems obvious we are doomed to some kind of war. Now after watching some nuclear energy special on an education channel I wonder if they will be building nuclear bombs with ultra-half life kill ability. - Drop a nuclear bomb and it radiates and kills for 6 hours and then disappears. No radiation left to prove a bomb was dropped. Right now the technology is only used to cure disease but let me guess it will someday be used for custom weaponry. We need to understand the full implications of a nuclear Iran and consider this new half-life tech as something they would delve into. I also saw on the same special the woman who invented a way to save the 95% nuclear waste that reactors produce and wonder again can that tech be used as a weapon someday?
Maybe I am a lot more naive than some have suggested.
Am I to understand that Iran's leaders are prepared to risk the existence of their nation, the certain annihilation of millions of their people, because of an abiding hatred of Israel and America, "The Great Satan?"
It seems to me that the answers to many of these apparently intractable questions are often contained within a non-so-complicated rhetorical question.
Am I to understand that Iran's leaders are prepared to risk the existence of their nation, the certain annihilation of millions of their people, because of an abiding hatred of Israel and America, "The Great Satan?"
It seems to me that the answers to many of these apparently intractable questions are often contained within a non-so-complicated rhetorical question.
The CNN poll seems to suggest that a good 96% of the population have studied the nuclear deal enough to make an informed decision on how Congress should vote. This of course beggars belief. More likely such polls tell us more about the success of the left and right to get their message out. I wonder what the people really think.
1
If we want ANY say over what Iran does in the future, and ANY peaceful co-existence with them, we need to complete this deal. Why would we get everything we want in a negotiation? The other side had to "save face" to some extent to get the deal through on their side as well. We are not the only party to this deal either, so the Congress's threats and demands will go nowhere, we will just be left by the wayside while the rest of the world opens to Iran. Our so called tough sanctions will be meaningless, and Russia and China will have more control over how Iran moves to the future while we will have none. This chest thumping, fear mongering, the stupid commercials on TV meant to instill fear into American hearts our Iran nukes is beyond ridiculous. Let's be part of the solution, or we WILL be the problem.
5
This is an excellent summary of the actual state we (both Iran and the rest of the world) are in. Why is it difficult to accept it? Kristof has shown all the components that are available to us right now. True that we don’t know how the future will turn up, but even if we assume that there is a high probability for Iran to violate the spirit of this deal after fifteen years, what ought to be our action strategy now given that the USA and much of the rest of the world are not willing to go to war with Iran any longer? This constraint is the only reasonable outcome given our understanding that going to war does not change our risks; the pay-off matrix for both Iran and the rest of the world remains absolutely intact without even a hint of any change.
Ask any game theorist to evaluate our options right now, and, we’d most likely be informed that the President’s accord plan is the best strategy as presented to the Congress (minimax solution of a zero-sum game) assuring minimum loss for a worst case scenario. Kristof’s write up abundantly points out this is the best strategy we have had for years, and it cannot improve any more by any other strategy. This is the point we should dwell on, i.e. this is the optimum strategy for the current Middle East situation.
Ask any game theorist to evaluate our options right now, and, we’d most likely be informed that the President’s accord plan is the best strategy as presented to the Congress (minimax solution of a zero-sum game) assuring minimum loss for a worst case scenario. Kristof’s write up abundantly points out this is the best strategy we have had for years, and it cannot improve any more by any other strategy. This is the point we should dwell on, i.e. this is the optimum strategy for the current Middle East situation.
2
As is so often the case with these pieces, Kristof doesn't actually address any of the substantive issues with the deal -- the 24 day waiting period for inspections, the lifting of the weapons bans, the immediate release of money, the lack of any punishment for violations other than the (possible) reinstatement of the sanctions and return to the status quo ante, etc. The deal is just astonishingly one-sided.
Of course there is no good alternative to the deal at this point -- the time to get a better deal was, you know, during the negotiation process. But Obama, Kerry et al were apparently so desperate for a deal that they have ceded all of the West's leverage. The only logical explanation is that Obama wants to establish Iran as regional policeman and hegemon, in the belief that this deal will bring Iran back into the fold and allow moderates to become ascendant (Kristof also seems to hold this belief). I think this is dangerous wishful thinking, but hey, it's a policy -- I just wish Obama and Kerry would be honest about their intentions.
Of course there is no good alternative to the deal at this point -- the time to get a better deal was, you know, during the negotiation process. But Obama, Kerry et al were apparently so desperate for a deal that they have ceded all of the West's leverage. The only logical explanation is that Obama wants to establish Iran as regional policeman and hegemon, in the belief that this deal will bring Iran back into the fold and allow moderates to become ascendant (Kristof also seems to hold this belief). I think this is dangerous wishful thinking, but hey, it's a policy -- I just wish Obama and Kerry would be honest about their intentions.
Underlying pretty much the whole of the " conservative" response to the deal is the notion of America as good and Iran as evil, a binary opposition simple enough for simple minds. Unfortunately, such a notion makes war inevitable, the good old eternal struggle between good and evil. Any backsliding among the good guys will lead to the triumph of Satanic forces. Sounds a lot like what the Iranians get from their conservatives, doesn't it? Just switch the names attached to good and evil. Without war of some sort, be it cold or hot, the conservative position loses its legitimacy in those simple minds. Nothing short of total surrender by evil can be tolerated. Problem is, once evil has been defeated, what's left for those simple minds?
You write:
"So we apply the same economic pressure that caused the collapse of the Castro regime in Cuba in 1964? The same isolation that overthrew the North Korean regime in 1993? The same sanctions that led Saddam Hussein to give up power peacefully in Iraq in 2000? Oh, wait.…"
You did not write:
"So we apply the same economic pressure that caused the collapse of the Apartheid in South Africa? The same isolation that force Russia to tear down the Iron Curtain? The same sanctions that led Quaddafi to give up attempts to develop nukes and chemical weapons in Libya?? Oh, wait.…
"So we apply the same economic pressure that caused the collapse of the Castro regime in Cuba in 1964? The same isolation that overthrew the North Korean regime in 1993? The same sanctions that led Saddam Hussein to give up power peacefully in Iraq in 2000? Oh, wait.…"
You did not write:
"So we apply the same economic pressure that caused the collapse of the Apartheid in South Africa? The same isolation that force Russia to tear down the Iron Curtain? The same sanctions that led Quaddafi to give up attempts to develop nukes and chemical weapons in Libya?? Oh, wait.…
The only problem with this article is that it assumes that rational argument could sway the united GOP opposition.
After seven years of a political posture which was designed to leverage Obama's race, the GOP are in something like the position of the boy who cried "wolf." Since they have little credibility here and negative credit internationally (after the Iraq invasion), rational people automatically discount their arguments.
After seven years of a political posture which was designed to leverage Obama's race, the GOP are in something like the position of the boy who cried "wolf." Since they have little credibility here and negative credit internationally (after the Iraq invasion), rational people automatically discount their arguments.
5
I am for the deal. Israel as the client state of America has to support it. Why? Because if you believe that Iran’s regime is composed of bad actors—and I do—than its all the more important for Israel to be on America’s side and literally under its umbrella. Because if Israel is outside the umbrella when the proverbial hits the fan then the world and America are likely to be unsympathetic.
That said I find Kristoff’s logic tortured. To his first point Iran did get everything it wanted. They are in place to make the bomb whenever they want o and they will receive hundreds of billions of dollars which will be used to buttress the current Syrian regime (do we really want to empower that?),Hezbollah which is a destabilizing agent and Hamas both of which are likely to get better and more accurate missiles.
The alternative to this deal was not war it was the banking sanctions that brought Iran to the table we could implement these by ourselves.
As for Israel’s nuclear arsenal? No one in the Middle East worries about these because they know they will only be used in a doomsday scenario. IS a doomsday scenario possible, yes and this deal makes it more likely because Israel is tiny and cannot absorb Hezbollah thousands of rockets aimed at its population centers without reacting much more vigorously than last time.
But I am for giving Obama’s Cosmic Gamble a chance fighting it will make Iran an even more dangerous state. Let's just pray the regime is replaced with better one.
That said I find Kristoff’s logic tortured. To his first point Iran did get everything it wanted. They are in place to make the bomb whenever they want o and they will receive hundreds of billions of dollars which will be used to buttress the current Syrian regime (do we really want to empower that?),Hezbollah which is a destabilizing agent and Hamas both of which are likely to get better and more accurate missiles.
The alternative to this deal was not war it was the banking sanctions that brought Iran to the table we could implement these by ourselves.
As for Israel’s nuclear arsenal? No one in the Middle East worries about these because they know they will only be used in a doomsday scenario. IS a doomsday scenario possible, yes and this deal makes it more likely because Israel is tiny and cannot absorb Hezbollah thousands of rockets aimed at its population centers without reacting much more vigorously than last time.
But I am for giving Obama’s Cosmic Gamble a chance fighting it will make Iran an even more dangerous state. Let's just pray the regime is replaced with better one.
The main fear of the People here in the U.S.A. is the 100 billion dollars Iran will get once the sanctions are lifted. In Iran the People is expecting an economic boom. Young men and women in the 12 to 30 years old bracket want Apple products. They need to reconnect with the world. In California where thousands of Iranians live they expect that the two governments continue talking to ease the tensions. Iran is not going to drop a nuclear bomb in Israel. Retaliation from United States, Europe and China would be catastrophic.
3
Nicholas Kristof's only error in this column is giving the "naysayers'" criticisms far more coherence than they possess. Naysayer criticisms are very long on rhetoric and sloganeering and very short on objective cost/benefit analysis. Their rhetoric hides the fact that they have yet to offer an alternative to the bargain which would be acceptable to ALL of the parties to the treaty.
7
We are on this path regardless of what anyone on the left or right state. The President will veto a 'no' vote and the Democrats will support the President in the Senate.
If this works (and we will not know for 10-15 years), then great.
If Iran develops the bomb and sets off a nuclear race in the ME - so be it. If Iranian nukes are utilized (by themselves or a proxy) - the sand of the country will be turned to glass. Either of these options would place the President in the same league as Chamberlain.
If this works (and we will not know for 10-15 years), then great.
If Iran develops the bomb and sets off a nuclear race in the ME - so be it. If Iranian nukes are utilized (by themselves or a proxy) - the sand of the country will be turned to glass. Either of these options would place the President in the same league as Chamberlain.
That is one of the most absurd statements. You clearly know basically nothing about the English prime minister Chamberlain. Please next time do some research on him, you might have a chance to come across less of an ignorant.
I believe that no matter how good a "deal" Kerry and Obama and all the other negotiators could come up with the republican establishment will still oppose it if for no other reason than to deny the Obama administration any kind of victory or success.
Their motto could well be; Defeat Obama at any cost no matter the cost to the country.
Their motto could well be; Defeat Obama at any cost no matter the cost to the country.
14
Unfortunately you are right, they (the Republican party) and in this case with major help of Aipac and the JDL will do anything to make this a failure. The result will be again and again that it will make the Republicans, look very bad and ignorant with no respect for any constructive opinions.
The Republican party along with the War industry in our country do not believe in peaceful negotiation. Their belief is in isolation and the use of a big stick (the Pentagon), never mind that none of these ideas have worked in recent history, in fact all the resulting wars have turned into complete failures. In reality after world war II, no war has been won by the Pentagon, at best it ended up a very costly stalemate in regards to human life lost and public money wasted. But the warmongers keep creating fear in our country so they can keep pushing forward with bad ideas that will makes look like the failed arrogant empires on which they have based their ideology.
The Republican party along with the War industry in our country do not believe in peaceful negotiation. Their belief is in isolation and the use of a big stick (the Pentagon), never mind that none of these ideas have worked in recent history, in fact all the resulting wars have turned into complete failures. In reality after world war II, no war has been won by the Pentagon, at best it ended up a very costly stalemate in regards to human life lost and public money wasted. But the warmongers keep creating fear in our country so they can keep pushing forward with bad ideas that will makes look like the failed arrogant empires on which they have based their ideology.
1
40 years of US Middle East disasters and the GOP answer is "More please". More to include lost and maimed Americans in uniform, terror states created, billions stolen, and trillions wasted, all proudly delivered courtesy of the party of "Washington has a spending problem".
10
Here we go with the same propaganda and lie machine that got us into Iraq. Plus the reality that anything Obama does the congress is against. Those morons insulting John Kerry at the hearings. Not even acknowledging the months and months of intense work the administration put in. These fools, there's no facts, no history. And most of all what is the alternative ????
17
Congressional opposition to the Iran Nuclear Agreement and, in particular, the wildly overheated rhetoric of the Republicans is making the U.S. a laughingstock among nations. Why would even our friends and allies trust us in any future negotiations? In the past we have been the world's policeman - a position we cannot continue to hold either moraly or financially. A chicken-hawk Republican wants us to become te world's swaggering bully -- a position we cannot take either morally or financially. The days of the "big stick" and coercion through fear and intimidation are past and must not be revitalized.
11
Can proponents of the deal at least be honest about one thing: no verifiable compliance exists here. Iran can refuse and delay inspections, and even then take soil samples that are provided as "evidence".
If Iran wants to build a weapon, it can under the deal and not be caught.
Just be honest about it when you argue for the deal.
If Iran wants to build a weapon, it can under the deal and not be caught.
Just be honest about it when you argue for the deal.
1
There is a very good but not perfect compliance system under the deal. It would be almost impossible for the Iranis to build a bomb. If Israel wants to fight a war against Iran fine - just keep the US out of it.
1
It probably could acquire a nuclear weapon with or without a deal eventually. That is not the issue. This can be said about everybody everywhere.,
Does the deal make the best efforts available to make that more or less likely? Does the deal promote or inhibit the evolution of an Iran that will be a more responsible peaceful part of the international community? Are there ways to strengthen the deal by putting reasonable pressure on everyone to enforce it and punish those who help undermine it?
Does the deal make the best efforts available to make that more or less likely? Does the deal promote or inhibit the evolution of an Iran that will be a more responsible peaceful part of the international community? Are there ways to strengthen the deal by putting reasonable pressure on everyone to enforce it and punish those who help undermine it?
1
A super-smart, super-capable and super-lucky Iran may be able to do what you say under the deal. However, even an average-smart, not-particularly-lucky Iran can build a nuclear weapon without the deal, especially as the sanctions disappear, as they surely will without the deal, because our allies in imposing sanctions will desert us in droves should we reject the deal.
As Kristof writes, "[f]ulmination is not a substitute for policy, and a multilateral international agreement achieves far more protection than finger-wagging." Rejecting the deal leaves the US, not Iran, isolated in the world, and leaves Iran freed of most sanctions by most countries and free to pursue WMD.
How could that conceivably be a better outcome? I might add that wishful thinking about success in brow-beating our allies (and not-so allies, like Russian and China) into continuing sanctions after we misbehave diplomatically by rejecting the deal, is no substitute for responsible international leadership. The US will be the big loser if we reject the deal, and the opponents on the far right will again have betrayed their country in pursuit of meaningless rhetoric and scoring points with a narrow constituency domestically and in Israel.
Shame on them!
As Kristof writes, "[f]ulmination is not a substitute for policy, and a multilateral international agreement achieves far more protection than finger-wagging." Rejecting the deal leaves the US, not Iran, isolated in the world, and leaves Iran freed of most sanctions by most countries and free to pursue WMD.
How could that conceivably be a better outcome? I might add that wishful thinking about success in brow-beating our allies (and not-so allies, like Russian and China) into continuing sanctions after we misbehave diplomatically by rejecting the deal, is no substitute for responsible international leadership. The US will be the big loser if we reject the deal, and the opponents on the far right will again have betrayed their country in pursuit of meaningless rhetoric and scoring points with a narrow constituency domestically and in Israel.
Shame on them!
1
Finally, a sensible analysis of the Iran deal. The SALT (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) treaty was negotiated at the height of the Cold War with a more potent “evil empire”, the Soviet Union. SALT was initiated by President Reagan in 1982 and signed by President Bush in 1991, and all the same arguments then apply as do now. But SALT worked. Treaties are made between enemies, not friends. It’s not actually likely that a government in the mid-East will nuke a nearby country. The geography won’t allow it. First, many of your own kind (whatever that may be) will be killed, and the nuclear fallout will spread and devastate the entire region for decades. The biggest danger is that an Iranian bomb will fall into hands of terrorists who don’t care about such problems or would transport it to Europe or the U.S. The fewer nuclear bombs around, the better. Last, it’s amazing how many Republican Senators opposed the treaty even before it was published. Numerous nuclear experts commented that they had not reviewed it in-depth themselves. This suggests that their opposition is motivated more by politics than policy.
18
The Republican serial opposition to anything Obama proposes has reached the level of dogmatic zealotry.The Republicans are impervious to logic.The bottom line is that they will never convince 43 Democrats in the House and 12 Democrats and Independents in the Senate to abandon the Iran nuclear deal. All this rhetorical noise makes for entertaining cable news theatre, but is really a charade.Republicans will overwhelmingly oppose it.Democrats will support it. Those who say they are undecided are simply vying for media attention. There is nothing new except the details of Iran-IAEA protocols. Despite their recent notoriety they will not be dispositive.
3
It's interesting that hardliners in Iran, hardliners in Israel and hardliners in Congress don't want this deal. Perhaps the latter two aren't surprising but as Secretary Kerry noted the other day, the religious clerics in Iran opposed the deal but cooler heads prevailed as government leaders knew that the vast majority of Iranians want peace with the West.
13
So, if we can speed up the demise of the power hungry, but ignorant "supreme leader," Iran's enormous, pro-USA youth demographic will undoubtedly push the country further to the center. Yes, I think that will happen, particularly if we can drop a net on our own power hungry, but ignorant, "inferior leaders."
8
Why can't we just have the hardliners her in the USA and the hardliners in Iran go to their own private island and duke it out. Maybe then they'll leave the rest of us alone.
4
Thank you for one of the clearest, most concise and cogent statements of the arguments in favor of the agreement. All that was missing -- perhaps out of some deference to the deal's opponents -- was a litany of the blind alleys that we've been down over the last thirty plus years by following the Middle East policies espoused by the opponents of the deal. Their ideological companions did not hesitate, when it suited them, to deal with the Ayatollahs and with Sadaam Hussein, or to ignore the radicalism of the Saudis and its bloody consequences. Conversely, the results of their war policies need no further comment. It is important to deal directly with the argument that this is "peace at any price" and is therefore a sign of weakness and reluctance, if necessary, to go to war. The public is, sadly, very susceptible to that sort of flag-waving, "America must be strong" argument. It's important to expose it and remind people of what our wars in the Middle East have entalied: who has benefited (here and abroad), who has paid a very heavy price, and what has or has not been achieved.
16
But if the people who WANTED a war have to FIGHT the war, there won't be any war. Oh. Wait...
On February 28, 1946, Ho Chi Minh wrote to President Truman for assistance in Vietnam's quest for independence from European colonialism. The request was ignored. A subsequent history of war and destruction could have been altered, if not completely avoided. Where oh where was the "Domino Theory" at that moment?
The Iran deal looks and smells the same to me. We have an opportunity to change the course of future events by seeking less enemies in the present. This agreement is a domino that should be pushed over in the direction of peace.
I hope that our leaders that have a longer view and a clearer understanding of history are able to succeed with their diplomacy.
The Iran deal looks and smells the same to me. We have an opportunity to change the course of future events by seeking less enemies in the present. This agreement is a domino that should be pushed over in the direction of peace.
I hope that our leaders that have a longer view and a clearer understanding of history are able to succeed with their diplomacy.
14
I cannot believe CNN poll, 52 percent of American wanted war? I like to see what question they asked the people. of course you can get any result by how you pose the questions.
12
We could have had a much better deal by threatening to increase sanctions. Iran is on "the ropes", economically. That's the whole point here. Chamberlain "gave away the store" and was sooo proud to announce "peace in our time." That's exactly what our administration was looking for, rather than the best deal available. We constantly talked about how afraid we were of war. Meanwhile millions of people are presently being uprooted and slaughtered around the world with minimal so called "war". That's what our focus should have been on, not spending time and money on idiot regimes like Iran.
1
China and Russia will not go along with increased sanctions, and will likely abandon existing sanctions if the US rejects the deal. Without them economic pressure will not work.
Really? How much more in sanctions could we possibly impose. Anyway, the cat is out of that bag as Russia and China will surely thumb their nose at us and give the Iranians anything they need. We are not the only party to this deal, and we do not rule the world.
Perhaps the story of our times, will be the struggle between 'extremists' and the more rational among us.
Extremists exaggerate things for effect, and the ability of the planet to act and work together in a humanistic fashion, is what will define us and enable our future.
Thanks, Nic.
Extremists exaggerate things for effect, and the ability of the planet to act and work together in a humanistic fashion, is what will define us and enable our future.
Thanks, Nic.
6
You see a photo of a lady holding a sign No Nukes for Iran outside Red Lobster. Well, to be fair there should also have another poster saying No Nukes for Israel.
12
Whether or not the inspections are the most intrusive ever does not deal with their adequacy, and Mr. Kristof should know this. The 24-day delay for inspections of new suspected sites indicates that the terms of the deal are not adequate for the purposes of inspection, although they might be the best that could be gotten. As well, the fact that US ambassadors TO Israel endorsed it just says that the deal might be good for the US, not necessarily for Israel, which is fine from the US perspective.
As usual, the deal was oversold because the money released to Iran can, and probably will, be used to finance the acquisition of truly awesome conventional weapons, develop long-range missiles, and finance terrorism throughout the world - remember the role of Iran's proxies in the terrorist attack in Argentina. Does anyone, even Secretary Kerry, really believe that Russia and/or China would not veto any attempt to reimpose sanctions if Iran were found to be cheating?
Clearly, sanctions have hurt the Iranian economy, but they have not impeded the ability of Iran to acquire all the materials needed to advance their nuclear program. It didn't stop North Korea either. The release of assets held to Iran also will help rejuvenate the Iranian economy and enable the current gang to bask in another victory over the Satanic Powers.
The hope that a mystical Iranian desire to become like Western countries and overthrow the current system of Iranian government is pure, ahistorical fantasy.
As usual, the deal was oversold because the money released to Iran can, and probably will, be used to finance the acquisition of truly awesome conventional weapons, develop long-range missiles, and finance terrorism throughout the world - remember the role of Iran's proxies in the terrorist attack in Argentina. Does anyone, even Secretary Kerry, really believe that Russia and/or China would not veto any attempt to reimpose sanctions if Iran were found to be cheating?
Clearly, sanctions have hurt the Iranian economy, but they have not impeded the ability of Iran to acquire all the materials needed to advance their nuclear program. It didn't stop North Korea either. The release of assets held to Iran also will help rejuvenate the Iranian economy and enable the current gang to bask in another victory over the Satanic Powers.
The hope that a mystical Iranian desire to become like Western countries and overthrow the current system of Iranian government is pure, ahistorical fantasy.
2
So you think a nuclear bomb making operation can be upped and moved without any trace in 24 hrs. Wrong. Do believe that Russia and China will continue sanctions if the US rejects the deal? Wrong again.
BRAVO!!!! Yes, the diplomatic agreement may have some flaws, but, WAR is riddled with flaws. The U.S. must begin to distance itself from the Israeli warmongers and our own leaders who accept bribes from AIPAC and other Israeli lobbyists. Thank you NYT for publishing this article.
14
It far better to talk to our enemies than to not to talk. I am quite sure this is just the beginning of an improved relationship with Iran and its people. Neither one of our countries innocent of aggressive activities towards other nations.
5
First off, there is no deal that is acceptable to hardliners in Iran, Israel, and the US. Most of the rest of the world thinks the deal is desirable or acceptable. Hardliners had determined to say "No" before there was a deal.
Second, the Right here in the US has a long record of prancing out the same objections to important international "deals", conveniently forgetting the past. It should be remembered that the Right criticized Truman over the MacArthur matter; Ike on his Korean compromise, Nixon regarding China, and Reagan for talking with Gorbachev (i.e. and Obama on Cuba). For those who don't remember, look it up.
The arguments by those former critics are mostly the same as they are currently. They include the old standards such as (1) we should never talk with enemies; (2) we'll be duped by the clever adversary; (3) if we threaten more forcefully we'll get a better deal; (4) if we're strong the other side will capitulate and simply cave in; (5) the bad guys will cheat; (6) the status quo is better that any alternative.....
I offer an exercise for the naysayers: (1) Outline what YOU would have done had you been in the shoes of Truman, Ike, Nixon, or Reagan. And (2) apply your conclusions to the present "deal".
Second, the Right here in the US has a long record of prancing out the same objections to important international "deals", conveniently forgetting the past. It should be remembered that the Right criticized Truman over the MacArthur matter; Ike on his Korean compromise, Nixon regarding China, and Reagan for talking with Gorbachev (i.e. and Obama on Cuba). For those who don't remember, look it up.
The arguments by those former critics are mostly the same as they are currently. They include the old standards such as (1) we should never talk with enemies; (2) we'll be duped by the clever adversary; (3) if we threaten more forcefully we'll get a better deal; (4) if we're strong the other side will capitulate and simply cave in; (5) the bad guys will cheat; (6) the status quo is better that any alternative.....
I offer an exercise for the naysayers: (1) Outline what YOU would have done had you been in the shoes of Truman, Ike, Nixon, or Reagan. And (2) apply your conclusions to the present "deal".
12
Too many fallacies in Nick's arguments.
1) It is not that we did not get what we wanted. It is what we were told that we will get (by Obama) and what we got in the end.
2) No one claims that Iran's regime represents the people of Iran. And the deal is done with the regime, not the people. All it does is legitimizes and strengthens the hard liners in Iran, not the moderates.
3) He claims that hard liners will get access to frozen billions of dollars anyway because of Europe, Russia, and China anyway. That is just ridiculous.
4) Iran had been chanting death to America during the negotiations, and has made statement about wiping Israel off the map. And the logic that Iran has not used biological weapon against Israel is just stupid. You don't engage someone who is twice your size in a fight, just because you have put on a few more pounds.
5) Good of Nick to bring up North Korea. Clinton signed a treaty with North Korea in 1994 and NK got neuclear weapons 12 years later. No matter how the liberal media tries to spin it, the pacifist agreement resulted in a rogue country getting nuclear weapons.
6) Finally, its negotiations. Anyone who objectively looks at the deal, the leverage that both parties had before the negotiations, and the outcome, can easily conclude that the outcome should have been much better in favor of U.S. and rest of the world.
1) It is not that we did not get what we wanted. It is what we were told that we will get (by Obama) and what we got in the end.
2) No one claims that Iran's regime represents the people of Iran. And the deal is done with the regime, not the people. All it does is legitimizes and strengthens the hard liners in Iran, not the moderates.
3) He claims that hard liners will get access to frozen billions of dollars anyway because of Europe, Russia, and China anyway. That is just ridiculous.
4) Iran had been chanting death to America during the negotiations, and has made statement about wiping Israel off the map. And the logic that Iran has not used biological weapon against Israel is just stupid. You don't engage someone who is twice your size in a fight, just because you have put on a few more pounds.
5) Good of Nick to bring up North Korea. Clinton signed a treaty with North Korea in 1994 and NK got neuclear weapons 12 years later. No matter how the liberal media tries to spin it, the pacifist agreement resulted in a rogue country getting nuclear weapons.
6) Finally, its negotiations. Anyone who objectively looks at the deal, the leverage that both parties had before the negotiations, and the outcome, can easily conclude that the outcome should have been much better in favor of U.S. and rest of the world.
3
Including today, there are 539 days left in the Obama Presidency.
Supporters of Israel concerned with that country’s safety and survival should immediately seek every opportunity to publicly ask all candidates for the Presidency in 2016 to provide a yes-or-no answer to the question of whether they would be willing to commit themselves now to providing Israel – on the very first day of their Presidency -- with the military and diplomatic support needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.
A good place to start would be the upcoming Republican Presidential debates.
Supporters of Israel concerned with that country’s safety and survival should immediately seek every opportunity to publicly ask all candidates for the Presidency in 2016 to provide a yes-or-no answer to the question of whether they would be willing to commit themselves now to providing Israel – on the very first day of their Presidency -- with the military and diplomatic support needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.
A good place to start would be the upcoming Republican Presidential debates.
3
Great idea - let's announce our intention to bomb Iran 18 months in advance. If I understand what the warmongers are saying, they should have their bomb by then.
Not asking the U.S. to bomb Iran.
Not asking Israel to do it either.
Just would like to know which Presidential candidates would support ISRAEL, if THEY decided to do it.
Not asking Israel to do it either.
Just would like to know which Presidential candidates would support ISRAEL, if THEY decided to do it.
1
Rubbish. The only reason Iran has gotten as far as it has is because this administration let it. We are now going to release billions to a fascist theocracy that supports terrorism throughout the world. We have accepted an unenforceable inspection regime. We are subject to a secret deal with an international agency - so secret our own Congress is not let in on it. And, 0Bama has shredded the Constitution (again) by bypassing Senate approval of what is clearly a "treaty."
Nothing, repeat nothing, good can come of any of this.
Nothing, repeat nothing, good can come of any of this.
1
Diplomacy also involves principal, and good will.
At least when we negotiated with North Korea, whose nuclear ambitions were openly stated as a strategy to annihilate South Korea and Japan, the South and Japan were at the table.
Iran has been openly calling for the destruction of Israel for years. Israel wasn't present. A major reason we're having the talks in the first place - Iranian threats against Israel - and the subject of those threats doesn't even get a voice?
And this deal doesn't force Iranian leaders to renounce their "death to Israel, death to the United States" rhetoric. It didn't even require them to recognize Israel's right to exist or even to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate state.
Those mild gestures and symbols of good will might have been good bedrock on which to build a deal.
At least when we negotiated with North Korea, whose nuclear ambitions were openly stated as a strategy to annihilate South Korea and Japan, the South and Japan were at the table.
Iran has been openly calling for the destruction of Israel for years. Israel wasn't present. A major reason we're having the talks in the first place - Iranian threats against Israel - and the subject of those threats doesn't even get a voice?
And this deal doesn't force Iranian leaders to renounce their "death to Israel, death to the United States" rhetoric. It didn't even require them to recognize Israel's right to exist or even to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate state.
Those mild gestures and symbols of good will might have been good bedrock on which to build a deal.
1
Most of the objections to the Iran nuclear deal coming from Republicans are motivated solely by their crazed determination to deny Pres. Obama a major achievement. Nonetheless, some more reasoned voices might still say that they are concerned that Iran cannot be trusted, i.e, Iran is likely to cheat. From what I have read the deal contains more than adequate provisions to detect and respond to any such cheating. It would be better if the 24-day waiting period for inspections was two days or four days, but I am convinced that Iran would be very, very unlikely to be able to cover up any significant impermissible activities even during the 24-day waiting period. I think that on balance this is an excellent deal for the U.S., Israel, Iran and the entire region and world. I think it makes it much less likely that Iran will develop nuclear weapons than the present course or any alternative. Of course the Republicans have failed to present any alternative that is likely to occur. Further, the idea that we should have negotiated as part of the deal the release of the journalists, et al, that Iran has wrongly jailed is so fallacious. This could ONLY have led to a weakening of the deal, i.e., Iran would have wanted something in return. The Administration was very right to segregate the issues.
2
We shouldn't forget that during the Bush administration, Iran went from zero to 6000 centrifuges (http://cdn.defenseone.com/) using the "Zero strategy."
And let's also not forget that Israel started the nuclear race in the Middle East.
This deal puts us on a sustainable path toward a peaceful equilibrium. Iran is not 1930s Germany nor is it ISIS. We have a chance to alter the course here. It's not perfect, but building trust starts on a shaky foundation and then strengthens it.
We need to explore this path because it's the best chance of changing the trajectory that we are on.
And let's also not forget that Israel started the nuclear race in the Middle East.
This deal puts us on a sustainable path toward a peaceful equilibrium. Iran is not 1930s Germany nor is it ISIS. We have a chance to alter the course here. It's not perfect, but building trust starts on a shaky foundation and then strengthens it.
We need to explore this path because it's the best chance of changing the trajectory that we are on.
5
The first clue that Kristoff might be off is about inspections. Neither he, nor John Kerry, as he admitted on Tuesday, nor Obama know how intrusive the inspections are. That is only in the side agreements that give the specific procedures. Therefore, it cannot be said "the inspections are the most intrusive..." Even a Democratic Senator learned from a leak that part of the procedures calls for Iran itself to supply soil samples. That contains no intrusion whatsoever. Secondly, we now find that even the "24 days" before visits from IAEA, which was bad enough, does not include a preamble of many days that occurs before the 24 days even starts. The bottom line, Iran gets to continue doing what is has been doing all along, but now with billions more in funds AND a lifting of the arms embargo. THAT is why they've been celebrating in Terhan.
"The public weariness with the regime’s corruption, oppression and economic failings is manifest. I would guess that after the supreme leader dies, Iran will begin a process of change like that in China after Mao died."
And the world got the iPhone but the Chinese got the Tiananmen Square crack down. Speculative thinking that the Iranians will evolve politically? Certainly. Is this a huge gamble? Yes, but then what diplomatic solution to a very difficult problem isn't?
And the world got the iPhone but the Chinese got the Tiananmen Square crack down. Speculative thinking that the Iranians will evolve politically? Certainly. Is this a huge gamble? Yes, but then what diplomatic solution to a very difficult problem isn't?
2
Diplomacy is the only way to be sure that Iran does not secure a nuclear weapon. It keeps the United States from another catastrophic war in the Middle East. The arduous work of international negotiators, including the Iranian team, should be lauded.
This deal is the only way to address claims that Iran cannot be trusted. Iran has many reasons to distrust the U. S. To name a few: The U. S. and Britain carried out a coup against their democratically elected Prime Minister in 1953; The U. S. supported Sadam Hussein against Iran in the 1980-1988 war; CIA records show that the U. S. was complicit in Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iran; and after the Iranian revolution, the U. S. sought regime change. Iranians are still dying from the after effects of those chemicals.
In light of this history, the Vienna agreement is an historic investment in goodwill between Iran and the West, especially the U. S. It is a great opportunity for congress to invest in a constructive future rather than shouting hostile, unthinking and extremist threats fabricated by others. On July 16, 100 former ambassadors wrote to President Obama, praising the agreement. Congress should form task force to study ways this deal improves the security of Israel and
U. S. allies.
Please note that Iran is an original signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty while Israel never signed the NPT and possesses 100 to 400 nuclear bombs in its never-inspected Dimona facility.
This deal is the only way to address claims that Iran cannot be trusted. Iran has many reasons to distrust the U. S. To name a few: The U. S. and Britain carried out a coup against their democratically elected Prime Minister in 1953; The U. S. supported Sadam Hussein against Iran in the 1980-1988 war; CIA records show that the U. S. was complicit in Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iran; and after the Iranian revolution, the U. S. sought regime change. Iranians are still dying from the after effects of those chemicals.
In light of this history, the Vienna agreement is an historic investment in goodwill between Iran and the West, especially the U. S. It is a great opportunity for congress to invest in a constructive future rather than shouting hostile, unthinking and extremist threats fabricated by others. On July 16, 100 former ambassadors wrote to President Obama, praising the agreement. Congress should form task force to study ways this deal improves the security of Israel and
U. S. allies.
Please note that Iran is an original signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty while Israel never signed the NPT and possesses 100 to 400 nuclear bombs in its never-inspected Dimona facility.
2
The internationally-negotiated accords establish that Iran is under perimeters and globally accountable. The alternative is to keep Iran as an outlier. Which is safer?
1
Mr. Kristof, We need to emphasize that rejecting the "Iran deal" means: (1) Iran gets will have nuclear weapons in just a few months instead of at least 10 years; (2) the sanctions regime ends and Iran gets most of its (yes, it really is their money) unfrozen as the other major world powers who also negotiated and approved the deal like China and Russia end the sanctions; (3) the U.S. becomes a big diplomatic loser in the eyes of the rest of the world and becomes an untrustworthy ally; and most importantly (4) a nuclear arms race begins in the Middle East, currently the most volatile region in the world with wars raging in three countries (Iraq, Syria, and Yemen) as Saudi Arabia races to produce a bomb. I'm a American first and Jewish second, and as a recent poll shows 60 percent of us approve this deal as do many Israelis, especially those in its intelligence and security services. Israel, the United States, and the world is a much, much safer place with this deal. The last thing we all need is a nuclear-armed Middle East with its on-going sectarian wars and a murderous radical cult like ISIS getting their hands on such a weapon.
Suppose iran does get as nuclear weapon capability. If MAD prevented any use of nuclear weapons for 40 years, why would one assume that the combined Israeli and US retaliatory power would not have the same effect on Iran? India and Pakistan (who have a feud as old as the Israeli-Arab standoff) both have nuclear weapons but have not come close to using them. And how likely is it that a regime based on Islamic Law (however ineffectively) would use a nuclear weapon on the third holiest place in Islam, namely, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, where Mohammed is said to have ascended to heaven and where stand the Dome of the Rock?
2
Thanks for this one, Nick, because once again the American media has been missing in action in educating the public about Iran, its people, and the benefits of the nuclear agreement versus the likely consequences of turning our backs on this multilateral agreement and an opportunity to have a foot in the Iranian door, monitor its nuclear situation, and have a more positive influence in Iran.
While our public opinion polls measure whether Americans are "for" or "against" the agreement, I wonder how many of those polled could say what is in the agreement and name the 5 other nations that negotiated the agreement on the U.S. side.
The Republicans, the Israeli lobby, Netanyahu, and the GOP presidential candidates have dominated the airwaves, disinformed the pubic, and beat the war drums to make sure nothing hopeful happens between the U.S. and Iran.
Both Iran and the U.S. are divided into the hardliners and the doves, and our hardliner neocons, religious right, and Republicans have a lot more in common with the Iranian ayatollahs, Muslim extremists, and religious revolutionary Iranians than they do with people in their own countries who favor peace.
Israel, Iran, and the world will be much more threatened without an agreement. But then how would the hard right in the US, Iran, and Israel manage to stay in power if nuclear threats were lessened and peace became more possible?
Take "fulmination" and "finger-wagging" away, and the Republicans are without a foreign policy.
While our public opinion polls measure whether Americans are "for" or "against" the agreement, I wonder how many of those polled could say what is in the agreement and name the 5 other nations that negotiated the agreement on the U.S. side.
The Republicans, the Israeli lobby, Netanyahu, and the GOP presidential candidates have dominated the airwaves, disinformed the pubic, and beat the war drums to make sure nothing hopeful happens between the U.S. and Iran.
Both Iran and the U.S. are divided into the hardliners and the doves, and our hardliner neocons, religious right, and Republicans have a lot more in common with the Iranian ayatollahs, Muslim extremists, and religious revolutionary Iranians than they do with people in their own countries who favor peace.
Israel, Iran, and the world will be much more threatened without an agreement. But then how would the hard right in the US, Iran, and Israel manage to stay in power if nuclear threats were lessened and peace became more possible?
Take "fulmination" and "finger-wagging" away, and the Republicans are without a foreign policy.
12
Weaknesses abound in the anti-deal arguments put forward by the Republicans and Israel lobbyists, and Kristof has done a good job of puncturing some of them.
Mire needs to be said. First, it is false that Obama set out to end Iran's nuclear program. He did say in the 2012 debate with Romney that "the deal we'll accept is they end their nuclear program", but it is quite clear from the context that "program" meant "weapons program". At no time did Obama ever commit to denying Iran the ability to maintain nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes.
Second, Kristof omits to mention that Khamenei has issued a religious edict against the development of nuclear weapons, as noted by the official IRNA news agency in 2005 and publicly referred to by Obama himself in April. There is reason not to cynically write this off.
When Iraq repeatedly attacked Iran in the 1980s with nerve agents and toxic gases, causing thousands of casualties whose effects still linger today, Iran could have responded in kind. Iran chose not to.
This leads to the third point. When Marco Rubio declares: "Give Iran a very clear choice: You can have an economy or you can have a weapons program", it must be pointed out to him that Iran HAS NO such program. This has been attested to by intelligence agencies of both the U.S. and Israel, most famously in the 2007 NIE. Let's not leave an impression that there is a question among reasonable people about whether or not Iran has such a program. There isn't.
Mire needs to be said. First, it is false that Obama set out to end Iran's nuclear program. He did say in the 2012 debate with Romney that "the deal we'll accept is they end their nuclear program", but it is quite clear from the context that "program" meant "weapons program". At no time did Obama ever commit to denying Iran the ability to maintain nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes.
Second, Kristof omits to mention that Khamenei has issued a religious edict against the development of nuclear weapons, as noted by the official IRNA news agency in 2005 and publicly referred to by Obama himself in April. There is reason not to cynically write this off.
When Iraq repeatedly attacked Iran in the 1980s with nerve agents and toxic gases, causing thousands of casualties whose effects still linger today, Iran could have responded in kind. Iran chose not to.
This leads to the third point. When Marco Rubio declares: "Give Iran a very clear choice: You can have an economy or you can have a weapons program", it must be pointed out to him that Iran HAS NO such program. This has been attested to by intelligence agencies of both the U.S. and Israel, most famously in the 2007 NIE. Let's not leave an impression that there is a question among reasonable people about whether or not Iran has such a program. There isn't.
8
The alternative is war so lets get real. No more war.
5
Iran is highly unlikely to use nuclear weapons against Israel. It knows that Israel has the capacity to respond massively. In addition, any use of nuclear weapons is likely to affect Jerusalem, the third holiest shrine in Islam. Finally, any use of nuclear weapons would affect the Palestinians, whom the Iranians support. More should be made of the last 2 points in public discourse, I believe.
Netanyahu gains support in Israel and the US by fearmongering, which is why he opposes the deal.
Netanyahu gains support in Israel and the US by fearmongering, which is why he opposes the deal.
4
Excellent overview of the American debate over the Iranian Nuclear Agreement. It seems very strange that a country in which the majority of everyday citizens have favorable opinions of the US, should be categorized as such an existential threat. It reminds me of classic literary themes of Giovanni Boccaccio's novel, "The Decameron." As many will recall, this masterpiece was set in Florence during the time of the Black Plague. As chaos, death & misery surrounded the main characters (much like the carnage surrounding modern day Iran) they decide to retreat to a country villa and surround themselves with peace & tranquility. There the ten young Florentines, 7 women & 3 men settle in to their digs & proceed to tell wonderful stories within a "deca" (ten) frame. The 7 women represent the Four Cardinal Virtues (Prudence, Justice, Temperance & Fortitude) & the Three Theological Virtues (Faith, Hope & Charity while the three men represent the classical Greek tripartite division of the soul (Reason, Spirit, & Appetite as outlined in Plato's Republic.) The concept of the Wheel of Fortune & the stories satirize the Catholic Church while gravitating toward the newly independent mercantile class. This lighthearted story telling was a send off of the feudal & monastery values of the past including the magical thinking of the church while upholding the monetary values of the city. It is ironic that they feel so optimistic & frivolous given the Black Plague that surrounds them.
6
While I think it's quite possible that the terms of this deal will lead to a lot of cat-and-mouse interactions, I don't see good alternatives to it either. I think it might make sense for us to put more of our energy into trying to counter Iran's behavior using conventional weaponry and money to get its way in the region, rather than that we solely focus on the issues of this agreement -- if we let ourselves be distracted from the big picture, that's on us, that's not even the fault of the details of this deal. Acting as if there is a perfect solution I think is also a distraction from doing the things we can do (helping to strengthen other nations in the region, for example), things which I heard President Obama lay out in one of his sets of remarks regarding what this deal does and doesn't do.
9
When war as means exceeds its' benefit , peace ,it is no longer a tenable alternative. If war causes more destruction than it can prevent then it should not be pursued. The Iran agreement seeks a means which might eliminate war and foster peace. The benefit of the agreement is in the interest of Israel and the global community.
6
The high profit of the progressive faith has spoken, the naysayers are wrong. No they are not. The agreement does not do anything to help in the long term, only the short term. It cost a lot of money, and makes Iran financially more powerful. Money really is power. It does nothing to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons in the long term, and in fact makes it easier, even if all the provisions are follow. From the US standpoint, it simply kicks the problem down the road.
3
Your "kicking the can down the road" is the time for progressives and the many pro-USA citizens of Iran to introduce change when the Ayatollah kicks the bucket. Your suggestions of what's wrong with the agreement don't include suggestions of what to do instead. Remember, we are not the only ones negotiating, and the others have a lot more skin in the game than we do. Criticism is cheap, solutions are the only credible currency.
3
Having already illegally invaded Iraq and caused the power vacuum that created ISIS perhaps the US should be very careful about the road to war associated with walking away from this 6 nation diplomatic solution
3
"It does nothing to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons in the long term, and in fact makes it easier, even if all the provisions are follow. From the US standpoint, it simply kicks the problem down the road."
By that standard, it does exactly what is required, then. If "kicking the problem down the road" means that Iran will not have any nuclear weapons til we actually walk far enough down the road to encounter the can again, what, precisely is so bad about that?
Once a nation has a cadre of scientists and engineers who know enough about the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear power, there is no way to take that away from that nation. The only thing an external party can do is to persuade those scientists and engineers to direct their efforts towards a peaceful application of their knowledge.
When we do "go further along the road, if we find there is still a problem to be solved (and that is a big if in any culture with a civil society), other methods may be used to address it.
By that standard, it does exactly what is required, then. If "kicking the problem down the road" means that Iran will not have any nuclear weapons til we actually walk far enough down the road to encounter the can again, what, precisely is so bad about that?
Once a nation has a cadre of scientists and engineers who know enough about the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear power, there is no way to take that away from that nation. The only thing an external party can do is to persuade those scientists and engineers to direct their efforts towards a peaceful application of their knowledge.
When we do "go further along the road, if we find there is still a problem to be solved (and that is a big if in any culture with a civil society), other methods may be used to address it.
"An imperfect compromise." The goal had been to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, not slow them down and guarantee they get them.
Kristof ignores the simplest of facts is that for Iran to be found to be in violation of any violation found by anyone, 6 of the 8 countries must vote on it being a violation. So, will Russia, China & Iran say Iran violated the deal forcing the "Snap Back" of sanctions? Russia is building a railroad to Iran to dramatically increase trade via Azerbaijan, so the Mullahs could walk around with Plutonium and it will be fine. Iran will always vote it's not a violation. So the entire enforcement provision of the deal lays with China's Vote? If you don't think everybody knows the deal here, you're nuts. They'll say "we had no idea that Russia and China would ignore the violations."
More simply stated, if Russia & China can't be counted on to continue the sanctions now, which made this deal so necessary, how can they then be counted on to, in essence, vote themselves to enforce the sanctions later, when there's less of an incentive?
Nuts.
Kristof ignores the simplest of facts is that for Iran to be found to be in violation of any violation found by anyone, 6 of the 8 countries must vote on it being a violation. So, will Russia, China & Iran say Iran violated the deal forcing the "Snap Back" of sanctions? Russia is building a railroad to Iran to dramatically increase trade via Azerbaijan, so the Mullahs could walk around with Plutonium and it will be fine. Iran will always vote it's not a violation. So the entire enforcement provision of the deal lays with China's Vote? If you don't think everybody knows the deal here, you're nuts. They'll say "we had no idea that Russia and China would ignore the violations."
More simply stated, if Russia & China can't be counted on to continue the sanctions now, which made this deal so necessary, how can they then be counted on to, in essence, vote themselves to enforce the sanctions later, when there's less of an incentive?
Nuts.
4
I think it is only five countries that need to agree -- so China, Russia, and Iran have no veto. Check it out.
1
Conservatives oppose this treaty because today's extreme right oppose most efforts at peace and moderation in the affairs of state. They blindly support war and the manufacturing of weapons because it helps enrich the 1%. Having an argument with them based on rational discourse will never work. They knew that they opposed this treaty before they even had the time to read it in its entirety.
25
As usual the right wing opinion- shapers have yelled louder than progressives and used its favorite weapon to line up the true- believers: fear.
It is unreasonable to expect non-experts, including most of Congress, to understand all the details of an agreement like this that took months of diplomacy. The fact that other countries, including some belligerents like China and Russia were involved and agreed, is dismissed out of hand by scowling John Boehner and his equally ignorant sycophants.
In the end it's all about denying the President a victory, and keeping the haters stirred up regardless of the value of the agreement.
It is unreasonable to expect non-experts, including most of Congress, to understand all the details of an agreement like this that took months of diplomacy. The fact that other countries, including some belligerents like China and Russia were involved and agreed, is dismissed out of hand by scowling John Boehner and his equally ignorant sycophants.
In the end it's all about denying the President a victory, and keeping the haters stirred up regardless of the value of the agreement.
17
But as ever, the right wing noise machine is so very effective in its propaganda-- which is the complete explanation as to why americans (who know nothing of foreign policy) "oppose" this deal.
1
Many naysayers have indicated that the US cannot trust Iran to uphold their part of the agreement. Haven't 15 of the 16 Republicans vying for the nomination say that they would abrogate the JCPOA if elected? Also, this deal will provide the US with intelligence about Iran's nuclear capabilities given the fact that there will be extensive inspections of declared nuclear sites via electronic monitoring and inspectors, and that suspicious sites will be inspected within a 24 day time frame. Iran is also giving up nuclear materials as a result of this deal. Sure,they will receive about $70 billion of their own money and a lifting of sanctions but at what cost to their security?
3
Opponents of this deal frequently make the analogy to Munich. Though I support the accord, I accept that this analogy is reasonable enough to give one pause. What the opponents never bring up, however, is what is for me a more telling analogy to the Iran situation i.e. the Iraq War, given the much closer link in time of that war to the present, its origin in the Mideast, not Europe, and the centrality of, at best, a regional power not a world power like Nazi Germany. Who but the most obdurate of neo-cons can possibly think that the Iraq war, based on the false premise of supposedly planet-threatening WMDs, was worth a single dollar of the trillions that were spent on it - unless one finds edifying the spectacle of lots of dead American soldiers and dead Iraqi civilians?
Yet the same people who promoted that war are now assuring us that with respect to Iran, this time they are certain they are right in what is their second go at doomsday predictions, despite their first go being completely nonsensical and despite their not admitting it. If ever an assurance should be greeted with skepticism, it's this one.
Yet the same people who promoted that war are now assuring us that with respect to Iran, this time they are certain they are right in what is their second go at doomsday predictions, despite their first go being completely nonsensical and despite their not admitting it. If ever an assurance should be greeted with skepticism, it's this one.
29
If we work constructively for real engagement, deal particulars for 15 years out (or a lack of "synchronization" of Iranian policies with ours) will be irrelevant. By then, Iran will be a vested & fully integrated member of an international political/economic order that no Iranian (military or civilian) will permit its government to turn its back on. This is not wishful thinking, but pure & simple pragmatism (did engagement "transform" or give "destructive license" to post WWII Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan?).
Let us learn from the continuing negative fallout from our failure to welcome Russia, after the fall of communism, into Europe and the world (we chose instead to expand NATO), & pull out all the stops to pull Iran into the global community.
Instead of a blinkered focus on nuclear limitations & "what Iran can do for us" in regional conflicts, we need to spend a lot more time thinking about & doing things that help the Iranian people. There is no action that would be more constructive to ultimately achieving the policy actions we want from Iran than deeply entrenched & meaningful engagement with the Iranian people (benefitting their daily economic & cultural life). Simply imposing demand upon demand (or expectation) upon the Iranian government & its people, must be viewed as the certain recipe for failure to obtain the many benefits that the current agreement makes possible. We have to "earn" the right to expect Iran to align its policies more closely with ours.
Let us learn from the continuing negative fallout from our failure to welcome Russia, after the fall of communism, into Europe and the world (we chose instead to expand NATO), & pull out all the stops to pull Iran into the global community.
Instead of a blinkered focus on nuclear limitations & "what Iran can do for us" in regional conflicts, we need to spend a lot more time thinking about & doing things that help the Iranian people. There is no action that would be more constructive to ultimately achieving the policy actions we want from Iran than deeply entrenched & meaningful engagement with the Iranian people (benefitting their daily economic & cultural life). Simply imposing demand upon demand (or expectation) upon the Iranian government & its people, must be viewed as the certain recipe for failure to obtain the many benefits that the current agreement makes possible. We have to "earn" the right to expect Iran to align its policies more closely with ours.
17
It is disgusting to see Republican politicians willing to undermine our security, our health and our economic success to get elected. The major "planks" of their campaigns are to stop the nuclear deal with Iran, overturn Obamacare, prevent immigration reform and de-fund the Import-Export Bank.
They have not been able to propose an effective alternative solution for any of these issues. Instead they repeat false criticisms ad nauseum to create an illusion of truth based only on repetition.
No Effective Alternatives to Deal with Iran
The deal negotiated will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons longer than would bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. We cannot continue effective sanctions when Russia, China, Germany, France and the U.K. will not.
Criticizing the Iran Deal by Claiming It Doesn't Do Things Never Intended
The Iran deal was not intended to release prisoners, prevent Iran from funding terrorism, etc.
Obamacare
Only criticisms left are glittering generalities - "economic disaster"
Only alternative proposed is to return to failed prior health system
Immigration
No proposal to deal with 11 million - most have been in US for many years
No cooperation on attracting educated/skilled immigrants we need for economic growth and limited number of unskilled we need to do jobs Americans won't
Claiming the Import-Export Bank is Corporate Welfare
Corporations pay back more than they receive in loans
They have not been able to propose an effective alternative solution for any of these issues. Instead they repeat false criticisms ad nauseum to create an illusion of truth based only on repetition.
No Effective Alternatives to Deal with Iran
The deal negotiated will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons longer than would bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. We cannot continue effective sanctions when Russia, China, Germany, France and the U.K. will not.
Criticizing the Iran Deal by Claiming It Doesn't Do Things Never Intended
The Iran deal was not intended to release prisoners, prevent Iran from funding terrorism, etc.
Obamacare
Only criticisms left are glittering generalities - "economic disaster"
Only alternative proposed is to return to failed prior health system
Immigration
No proposal to deal with 11 million - most have been in US for many years
No cooperation on attracting educated/skilled immigrants we need for economic growth and limited number of unskilled we need to do jobs Americans won't
Claiming the Import-Export Bank is Corporate Welfare
Corporations pay back more than they receive in loans
23
Neat trick to argue we need to approve the deal because unless we do the sanctions will erode anyway. Seems to me the sanctions are currently being dismantled because of the deal Mr Obama made. That they will unravel regardless of what Congress does is specifically because of the way in which Mr Kerry structured it so as to make it more difficult for Congress to refuse. This argument is like a patricide pleading for clemency because he's an orphan.
Agreed that by all accounts the civilian population of Iran is by far the best disposed towards us of any Middle Eastern country other than Israel. And it is certainly desirable to encourage that. But that sentiment is not what sets the foreign or even domestic policy for that country, any more than average German opinion controlled the Nazi regime, Russian opinion set the tone for the Soviets, Chinese for Mao, Cubans for Castro, French peasants for Louis XIV, Romans for Augustus,...
This deal legitimizes Iran's nuclear program and allows it to progress to where its breakout period to build nukes is so close as to make no difference. Now Iran was going to be a nuclear power because stopping it would require military action. Fair enough. But we don't have to approve of them doing so (now the Saudis, Turks, and Egyptians will demand the same) and we certainly didn't have to give them access to $100 billion in impounded funds with which to make more trouble.
Disastrous deal we will long rue.
Agreed that by all accounts the civilian population of Iran is by far the best disposed towards us of any Middle Eastern country other than Israel. And it is certainly desirable to encourage that. But that sentiment is not what sets the foreign or even domestic policy for that country, any more than average German opinion controlled the Nazi regime, Russian opinion set the tone for the Soviets, Chinese for Mao, Cubans for Castro, French peasants for Louis XIV, Romans for Augustus,...
This deal legitimizes Iran's nuclear program and allows it to progress to where its breakout period to build nukes is so close as to make no difference. Now Iran was going to be a nuclear power because stopping it would require military action. Fair enough. But we don't have to approve of them doing so (now the Saudis, Turks, and Egyptians will demand the same) and we certainly didn't have to give them access to $100 billion in impounded funds with which to make more trouble.
Disastrous deal we will long rue.
36
The sanctions in place would have been eroded regardless. Maybe the U.S. could have kept them up, but other countries were getting more and more reluctant to renew the sanctions each time. Imagine the position we'd be in if we don't have a deal in place AND the sanctions regime breaks down. Essentially, Iran would be given economic life again (admittedly without the U.S.) AND it would continue its nuclear program without even token supervision. So we were out on wobbly ledge thinking we could continue the sanctions indefinitely. Given the choice between an uncontrolled tumble from the ledge or taking our chances jumping, we (as a nation) chose to jump. Sure it's a hard landing, but at least we didn't land on our head!
I was last year in Iran. The population, half of them under 30 is incredibly well educated, so many speak well English. Young people in the majority dislike the Mullahs and are enourmously interested in situations in Europe and USA. Sooner or later they will take over and might decide just like Germany: "Yes we can build a bomb - but will not do it"
No, the sanctions are not eroding because of the deal, rather they are eroding because the other nations applying them no longer wish to enforce them. Your premise is faulty thereby rendering your conclusions dubious. Kristoff is spot on.
" No deal is better than a bad deal . " This from the same Rick Perry who now says the latest theater shooter could have stopped there had been other armed theater goers to shoot back.He's talking about dark theater,mind you,so for once Trump is right to say that eye glasses don't make Perry smart,and Trumps point is further proven if Perry really thinks that if Congress rejects this deal and overrides Obama's veto ,that an alternative is a better deal. It isn't because that would require new negotiations.But the negotiations are over,Iran certainly won't agree to new negotiations,nor will Russia or China ,who because they're so eager to do business with Iran ,also won't agree to resuming the sanctions.So the only alternative to the current deal will be bombing Iran's nuke sites,but because Iran would then still be just three years away from bomb,we would have follow the bombing with a ground invasion and regime change,further destablizing the region and eliminating a key ally against Islamic State.
Worse,an override of the veto by sinking the deal would loudly and clearly tell an international community that supports it,that it will no longer be able to trust the word of the U.S. President,totally isolating us. That would be worst thing for our national security.
Worse,an override of the veto by sinking the deal would loudly and clearly tell an international community that supports it,that it will no longer be able to trust the word of the U.S. President,totally isolating us. That would be worst thing for our national security.
38
The naysayers aren't trying to be "right" about the Iran deal. Between the naysayers who simply hate Obama and the naysayers who want to preserve every single defense-related job in the country from any possibility of a cutback due to peace breaking out (horrors!) -- it isn't a matter of what's a good deal. It's a matter of legislators and others who are operating on a completely different agenda.
50
So we should fire them asap and elect people who respect the American people who pay them….not the feudal corporate lords who currently own our Congress (w/ an 8% approval rate, the lowest in history).
Our present situation reminds me of Wilson's return from Europe with the treaty that included the League of Nations. Congressional Republicans rejected that treaty and forced a return to isolationism that lasted until the Second World War. Thus the world was left without any leadership by the United States.
Now, if they could, Republicans would do the same thing again. The other nations, including Russia and China, will accept the agreement. If we reject it, then we will not be there if Iran does break the agreement. It is not too hard to predict that any response will be as ineffectual as was the League's to German and Japanese aggression.
Now, if they could, Republicans would do the same thing again. The other nations, including Russia and China, will accept the agreement. If we reject it, then we will not be there if Iran does break the agreement. It is not too hard to predict that any response will be as ineffectual as was the League's to German and Japanese aggression.
24
It's just a peace of paper that contains loopholes large enough to drive a dozen suitcase nukes through. Exhibit number one being the fact Iran has cheated on previous nuclear non-proliferation dealings.
I can see from at least some of the comments that the left is gearing up to blame the "naysayers" when Iran does develop a nuclear arsenal.
I can see from at least some of the comments that the left is gearing up to blame the "naysayers" when Iran does develop a nuclear arsenal.
8
Lest anyone forget:
It was Eisenhower who GAVE nuclear technology to his favorite Iranian stooge, Reza Pahlavi, the boy shah.
It was known as the Atoms For Peace program.
Another scintillating US success in our 62 year Crusade of Fools in the Middle East.
It was Eisenhower who GAVE nuclear technology to his favorite Iranian stooge, Reza Pahlavi, the boy shah.
It was known as the Atoms For Peace program.
Another scintillating US success in our 62 year Crusade of Fools in the Middle East.
3
So we should NOT have eyes on their facilities, and NOT have any inspections, AND allow sanctions to lapse, as they always were going to? And we should allow them to rebuild the huge number of centrifuges that they have already destroyed as a result of these talks? And to reverse their monitored disposal of the 95% of weapons-grade material they had already refined, which they did just to keep the talks going? Rejecting this deal hands Iran lots of cash via every other country in the world dropping sanctions, as they were always going to; it blindfolds us as to what they are doing; and it removes restrictions on enrichment. This type of Bush-era thinking is how Iran got so close to making nukes in the first place - and also, how North Korea GOT 8 nukes. Bush abrogated Clinton's deal just like you want the GOP to abrogate this one, and the result was a nuclear North Korea and an Iran near nukes. Please, explain to us how rejecting this deal, allowing Iran out of sanctions, and blindfolding us is going to STOP Iran from making nukes. Please - elucidate for us. We're waiting.
1
It's depressing for me to see the immaturity or our elected officials when it comes to commonsense issues such as nuclear war. Accepting this deal is not a difficult decision. Those opposed to it are simply afraid or corrupt. Hats off to Obama, for at the very core of his effort stands a long time abstinent opportunity for us to take a courageous step forward in bringing peace to the middle East. Don't underestimate what is happening here. Choose Life.
38
this scrape of paper changes nothing! In fact, it will lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia and Egypt (among other nations) doing what is necessary to acquire nuclear weapons. Just because all the signatories to the agreement want a part of that $150 billion dollar nest egg for advanced weaponry doesn't mean the Middle Eastern countries don't know what Iran's true goals are.
The GOP objections really boil down to "but it might not work." Iran might cheat (although it has had a surprisingly good record of honoring its past international agreements). But the alternative is that Iran proceeds at high speed to develop a nuclear bomb and the capacity to deliver it. This is supposed to be the better choice?
37
"this (nuclear bomb) is supposed to be a better choice?" well, yes Peter ,it is the better choice for the right wing: then they get to finally "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." It will have taken a long time, but they will get there. To quote one of their friends, "mission accomplished."
The loudest Republican reactions to the Iran deal is thoroughly consistent with the Republican approach to domestic politics: My way or the highway. The comments suggest that we should get everything we want out of a negotiation because... well.. we're the US of A and that's the least we deserve. Other countries should bow to our needs and desires.
This is not a attitude for successful negotiation nor successful governing. This attitude in Congress has left the country stagnating and drifting. Like a two year old, they have a limited mindset and limited vocabulary: More! (for me), No! ( to everything else). Should they get hold of the Presidency, we can expect full blown decline.
This is not a attitude for successful negotiation nor successful governing. This attitude in Congress has left the country stagnating and drifting. Like a two year old, they have a limited mindset and limited vocabulary: More! (for me), No! ( to everything else). Should they get hold of the Presidency, we can expect full blown decline.
57
First off, "anywhere anytime" inspections were sold as critical and now...? Also all military bases are off limits. SO.....now what? And as for "Remember too that this deal isn’t just about centrifuges but also about the possibility that Iran will come out of the cold and emerge from its failed 36-year experiment with extremism. " Really? You may think it's failed, I may think it's failed but why do Iran's leaders think it's failed? They are the same hardline terrorists now as they were in 1979. Why would this change? Why doesn't this deal embolden Iran's government? As for the "people" in Iran, really, no one in Iran's government cares about their opinions, any more than the Chinese govt does about Chinese opinion. As for the U.S. isolated on the deal, well, that's now our fault. We should not have put ourselves in this weak position. This is the most awful foreign policy disaster, maybe ever and it will lead to war.
8
The Chinese leaders might care more about Chinese opinion than you might think. Chairman Xi does not have a dialogue with God, as does the Ayatollah, and unlike Chairman Mao, he is not god incarnate.
Surely you realize that Iranians remember your government propped up the murderous government of the Shah, that you illegally invaded Iraq and let chaos reign, and that your government is the only government in the world that incinerated civilian populations of women and children with an atomic weapon? Citing historical precedents is a slippery slope yes?
Our most urgent national problem is the bipartisan spirit in Washington D.C.
We don’t talk here about a lack of it but the surplus of it.
America is being seriously harmed by extremely dangerous bipartisan spirit in our national capital. We have been on the wrong course for so long. Such a development was possible only if BOTH PARTIES were equally incompetent.
Waging the endless foreign wars for 7 decades since the end of the WWII is tragically bad. Having $18 trillion national debt is a direct consequence of our failing foreign policies. The free trade that syphons off about $600 billion dollars in cash every year from America and ships millions of the US jobs overseas is equally harmful. Having our elected officials corrupted by the global corporations is extremely dangerous because they serve the corporate interests, not the national ones.
We have spent about $18 trillion over the last three decades on our military just because our leaders are tragically bad. If they knew how to make the North and South Koreans good neighbors, or the Israelis and the Palestinians or the Sunnis and the Shiites we wouldn’t not have those problems.
But our leaders believe their job is to support one side in those conflicts instead of teaching them to tolerance, justice, and love.
Don’t protect them eternally. Just teach them how to be the good neighbors.
If you don’t know how to accomplish such a simple objective, please resign for the sake of our country!
We don’t talk here about a lack of it but the surplus of it.
America is being seriously harmed by extremely dangerous bipartisan spirit in our national capital. We have been on the wrong course for so long. Such a development was possible only if BOTH PARTIES were equally incompetent.
Waging the endless foreign wars for 7 decades since the end of the WWII is tragically bad. Having $18 trillion national debt is a direct consequence of our failing foreign policies. The free trade that syphons off about $600 billion dollars in cash every year from America and ships millions of the US jobs overseas is equally harmful. Having our elected officials corrupted by the global corporations is extremely dangerous because they serve the corporate interests, not the national ones.
We have spent about $18 trillion over the last three decades on our military just because our leaders are tragically bad. If they knew how to make the North and South Koreans good neighbors, or the Israelis and the Palestinians or the Sunnis and the Shiites we wouldn’t not have those problems.
But our leaders believe their job is to support one side in those conflicts instead of teaching them to tolerance, justice, and love.
Don’t protect them eternally. Just teach them how to be the good neighbors.
If you don’t know how to accomplish such a simple objective, please resign for the sake of our country!
2
It is Mystifying and Mind-Boggling to read Nick Kristof's jejune interpretation of the Iran Nuclear "Deal".
Oh yes, the Nuclear "Deal" is a "Deal" for the militant forces within the Iranian Regime. The Iranians have displayed their notorious ability to "Wheel and Deal" and haggle out great business deals in the markets by manipulating the United Nations and the United States negotiators.
The Iranians followed their centuries old script of winning the best deal in the market square by out maneuvering John Kerry etal.
If the Nuclear "Deal" goes through as it stands--The World Will Regret It Soon.
Oh yes, the Nuclear "Deal" is a "Deal" for the militant forces within the Iranian Regime. The Iranians have displayed their notorious ability to "Wheel and Deal" and haggle out great business deals in the markets by manipulating the United Nations and the United States negotiators.
The Iranians followed their centuries old script of winning the best deal in the market square by out maneuvering John Kerry etal.
If the Nuclear "Deal" goes through as it stands--The World Will Regret It Soon.
5
How odd
I thought the Iranian hardliners were opposed to the deal...just like the unthinking right wing reactionaries in the United States
Your "markets" analogy of the crafty Persian is offensive and borderline racist
I thought the Iranian hardliners were opposed to the deal...just like the unthinking right wing reactionaries in the United States
Your "markets" analogy of the crafty Persian is offensive and borderline racist
>
It is not about being right or wrong with these characters. They want war with Iran. They're obessed about it, from Tom Cotton to McCain singing bomb bomb Iran....... Need more proof? So you can talk reason and facts until you are blue in the face with them. Facts and reasons just bounce off of them like bb's bounce off a battleship.
The only just and hope is will the Dems hold.
It is not about being right or wrong with these characters. They want war with Iran. They're obessed about it, from Tom Cotton to McCain singing bomb bomb Iran....... Need more proof? So you can talk reason and facts until you are blue in the face with them. Facts and reasons just bounce off of them like bb's bounce off a battleship.
The only just and hope is will the Dems hold.
30
I have said this once and I will say it again: When all these war hawks in congress are willing to send their children or grandchildren into war with boots on the ground to fight other folks wars, then maybe war might be justified. If they want war, then the draft should be reinstated with no exceptions. We would then see how many in congress would be willing to start yet another useless conflict that solves nothing.
Nicholas Kristof is wrong about this treaty. The U.S. public does not fully
understand the long term ramifications of an armed Iran. As long as
Iran calls tor the destruction of Israel, and death to Americans. we simply
can not trust Iran. The U.S. is repeating the world history of the thirties when
the West trusted Hitler, after Munich.
understand the long term ramifications of an armed Iran. As long as
Iran calls tor the destruction of Israel, and death to Americans. we simply
can not trust Iran. The U.S. is repeating the world history of the thirties when
the West trusted Hitler, after Munich.
8
Ok... it's the best deal we can get. Let's sign off on it and begin developing the best system of defenses to any possible Iranian threat possible. The only real deterrent to aggression is to make it an exceedingly painful venture.
3
Kristof has little credibility in this arena. He is the person who has called Israel an apartheid state while have very little or next to nothing to say regarding the slaughter of Christians by ISIS and Islamic extremist groups often funded by Iran. Iran is the single largest global sponsor of terrorism but if Israel's security and right to exist isn't on your radar this deal is great !
14
ISIS is Sunni.
Iran is Shia.
Iran is helping the US fight ISIS.
Iran is Shia.
Iran is helping the US fight ISIS.
1
@Lucy
It is Saudi Arabia that is funding ISIS not Iran.
It is Saudi Arabia that is funding ISIS not Iran.
Thank you, Nick Kristof - you have made President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran reasonable and acceptable to us. No deal is always far worse than a "bad" deal. A bad deal is when President GWBush dismissed chances for resolving differences with Iran ( the "grand bargain") in 2003, and Iran has inarguably grown its nuclear capability for the past 12 years. The Republicans are against this deal which would again bring laurels to Barack Obama's presidency, and though five former US ambassadors to Israel endorsed the present accord (what do five former US Ambassadors to Israel know that that the Republicans don't know?), this Iran deal makes us all safer. Not just Israel, but all the countries that would be part and parcel of agreeing to this international accord - China, Russia, Europe - would be safer. Sanctions on Iran don't mean diddly any longer. 36 years of American sanctioning has allowed a new and younger Iran to emerge - as you said - "the most pro-American and secular of any country [you've been to] in the Middle East". The 1979 (post-Shah Pahlevi) revolutionary regime's corruption is leading to a process of change in Iran. Compromise is imperfect and messy, as life is, and as Richard Holbrooke said "all conflict ends at the negoriating table". Holbrooke also said "diplomacy is like jazz: endless variations on a theme." For all of our sakes, Let us hope that the outraged and obstructionist GOP Tea Party will not but the kibosh on this Iran deal.
213
Good point! The Iran deal does indeed bring laurels to the presidency of President Obama. The GOP/TeaParty Obstructionists just cannot seem to allow our president the legacy he so richly deserves. It offends them deep down in their souls. Gee, I wonder why that is?
do you still support the deal, without knowing about the contents of the side deal between Iran and the IEAE? If so , why... makes no sense to me, and I am a liberal democrat not a right wing tea party guy.
1
Should we do this deal? Yes! Do we and can we trust them? No, of course there is no reason to trust them but we do need to engage them. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"…true words and excellent advice.
For some in this country there is nothing the President or his administration can do that passes muster. When they're not busy trying to repeal Obamacare for the umpteenth time, they're waving the bloody Benghazi shirt or humming a badly transcribed Beach Boys hit, "Bomb, bomb Iran."
As we scan the world for the faults of various regimes, it's a pity that we don't look more closely at our own history: throughout, our forebears have claimed the right to displace other peoples and thus "improve" lives. "Come over to Macedonia and help us," we are told was the voice heard by Saul of Tarsus who became the Christian Saint Paul.
"Come over to Iraq and help us," was the voice heard by an erstwhile President.
"Come over and help us" inspired the Puritans of New England to ally with and betray the trust of Native Americans. You see, anyone who is not bathed in the blood of the lamb (or some such shibboleth) is in danger of everlasting fire, and it is worth maiming that person to try to save his soul. Later, New England missionaries performed the same feat in the Hawaiian Islands, converting a stable, hedonistic society into a blue-nosed open invitation to the US government to "help." And we did--in 1893.
Terrorism is the tool of the underdog, and what better way to assure that the Iranian government will continue to feel like an underdog than to threaten it constantly with fiery ruin? Our Christian Republicans, heirs to the Puritan mindset, would like to come over and help.
As we scan the world for the faults of various regimes, it's a pity that we don't look more closely at our own history: throughout, our forebears have claimed the right to displace other peoples and thus "improve" lives. "Come over to Macedonia and help us," we are told was the voice heard by Saul of Tarsus who became the Christian Saint Paul.
"Come over to Iraq and help us," was the voice heard by an erstwhile President.
"Come over and help us" inspired the Puritans of New England to ally with and betray the trust of Native Americans. You see, anyone who is not bathed in the blood of the lamb (or some such shibboleth) is in danger of everlasting fire, and it is worth maiming that person to try to save his soul. Later, New England missionaries performed the same feat in the Hawaiian Islands, converting a stable, hedonistic society into a blue-nosed open invitation to the US government to "help." And we did--in 1893.
Terrorism is the tool of the underdog, and what better way to assure that the Iranian government will continue to feel like an underdog than to threaten it constantly with fiery ruin? Our Christian Republicans, heirs to the Puritan mindset, would like to come over and help.
9
I live in TA, and although I spent last summer running into bomb shelters at the initial sound of a siren, I still I look at this deal with optimism. If the alternative is war, whether conventional or nuclear, nobody comes out a winner. The possibility of getting along with our neighbors is possible and achievable (i.e. Egypt & Jordan). These might not be the warmest of relationships but it beats the alternative! You never know what can happen in 10-15 years, so you have to keep trying to find that path to peace. I wish that our leadership here in Israel would stop their fear-mongering and try a little statesmanship diplomacy.
328
There is no alternative to war. You can't negotiate with terrorists. All the deal did is delay an inevitable war.
1
Bless you. Good luck. Thanks.
Israel will probably lead the way. It's what they've wanted all along.
AIPAC will not stop until we have endless wars. They need to be stopped or they will destroy our country.
14
All of your points are well reasoned but you haven't gotten to the real reason the Republican Congress is lining up to throw mud on it. This is an agreement that is backed by (cue spooky organ music) 'The Obama Administration. You can knock holes in the critics points one by one and they still wont budge. Even though this is good for the nation and let's face it if this happened during a Republican administration (see Reagan's agreement with Russia, a real existential threat) there would be at least one Republican on board. Congress knows this ship has sailed and next year brings an election, so it's best to object no matter what. Even if it means a diminution of Americas standing with the rest of the world. The GOP stopped being a positive force in America at President Obama's inauguration.
26
The subtext for all of these objections is that Bibi Netanyahu wants to go to war with Iran and a collapse of the nuclear deal will justify such madness . Many republicans think of Netanyahu as their "foreign policy president" as seen in the many ovations he got when addressing Congress this year.
What is surprising, however, is how many democrats are caving under pressure to the objection about immediate inspections, ignoring the "snap-back" provisions and the ultimate knowledge that we can still use military options if Iran breaks the deal.
We know that Bibi Netanyahu, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush et al can engage in this insane talk of war against Iran but why do democrats March with them?
What is surprising, however, is how many democrats are caving under pressure to the objection about immediate inspections, ignoring the "snap-back" provisions and the ultimate knowledge that we can still use military options if Iran breaks the deal.
We know that Bibi Netanyahu, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush et al can engage in this insane talk of war against Iran but why do democrats March with them?
17
With respect, do you really have to be reminded of the power held by political action committees and individual donors?
Kristoff your arguments are a compendium of logical fallacies.1) You assert we are better off then before the deal because Iran will never use the bomb if it ever gets it. "Iran is widely believed to have developed biological and chemical weapons back in the 1980s, and it hasn’t used those weapons of mass destruction against Israel. " If this is true, then by the same premise, there is no reason for the deal as Iran will never use the weapon it may get, and the real danger Iran poses is secondary- the proliferation of unrest and terrorism-which this deal, by admission of every person who has seen it, advances . 2) We are better off then before because we have more inspections than before. While this is factually contested (opponents point to Iran's recent statement that they will not permit access to military sites, and in any event "they-the Iranians)" will provide the soil samples), the argument proceeds from the conclusion. It assumes that the best desired end should be preventing Iran from getting a bomb. Even if this is a desired end, opponents argue that the desired end should be "changing the regime and thus ending a terror state". If that is the best end, then clearly this deal has the opposite result. The deal strengthens Khomeni, and restores an anemic terror regime by providing it with time and money. One may rightly debate the "best end" but the polemics and false arguments deny us a real debate about the most desired end.
3
Americans have an odd concept of diplomacy. It matches our current concept of politics: winner take all.
Diplomacy rarely results in both sides being happy, and it is required to recognize the other side's point of view, even if we don't support the opposing point of view. And above all, diplomacy is the result of realism. As in, this is the best we will be able to get.
We can base our foreign policy on the idea that our substantial military can go in, unseat a government, and replace it, so that we have built a natural ally in the midst of enemies, and assert regional influence. Or we can build our policy on the idea that trying to grow an emerging de-escalation of enmity, in accord with other world powers, will assert our influence, and promote more stability.
The first idea, the neo-con dream which treated the Middle East like a big RIsk game board, resulted in years of occupation and failure. Why not try something new?
Diplomacy rarely results in both sides being happy, and it is required to recognize the other side's point of view, even if we don't support the opposing point of view. And above all, diplomacy is the result of realism. As in, this is the best we will be able to get.
We can base our foreign policy on the idea that our substantial military can go in, unseat a government, and replace it, so that we have built a natural ally in the midst of enemies, and assert regional influence. Or we can build our policy on the idea that trying to grow an emerging de-escalation of enmity, in accord with other world powers, will assert our influence, and promote more stability.
The first idea, the neo-con dream which treated the Middle East like a big RIsk game board, resulted in years of occupation and failure. Why not try something new?
15
Really when is someone going to ask my Senator who does he work for? My Senator is starting to lose his some of his luster. Guess he never read you can't serve two masters. Either he is for it or he is against it. Sitting on the fence must be kind of painful. When is Chuck going to take the leap?
6
Chuckie is waiting for enough TV cameras in the conference room to appear, then he'll make a statement, preferably on a Sunday afternoon when he can garner the most attention.
1
In the real world issues are resolved in a manner that requires both parties to compromise. As Kristof notes, "The U.S. didn’t get all it wanted (and neither did Iran) in an imperfect compromise."
And, of course, as expected, this has sent the right wingers into conniptions. Why can't Kerry wait and get a better deal, say some. What constitutes that "better deal" is never specified. Unless it is a complete lock down on Iranian capability. What is conveniently forgotten is that even as we press for a better deal, Iran will make progress. As has already been established by the fact that since GWB turned down an offer to negotiate in 2003, Iran has multiplied its centrifuges many-fold.
Another aspect that is conveniently overlooked is that in the P5+1 group, we are the least affected by sanctions on Iran. All others in that group have much more at stake and will withdraw from the sanctions regime, if not publicly, very discreetly. And that will leave America as the loser.
Lastly, there is no mention of the rather huge white elephant in the room. Israel, a non-signatory to the NPT regime, has nuclear weapons. Will Israel agree to keep their nukes under international supervision?
It is not a perfect deal, but it is a very good deal. Let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
And, of course, as expected, this has sent the right wingers into conniptions. Why can't Kerry wait and get a better deal, say some. What constitutes that "better deal" is never specified. Unless it is a complete lock down on Iranian capability. What is conveniently forgotten is that even as we press for a better deal, Iran will make progress. As has already been established by the fact that since GWB turned down an offer to negotiate in 2003, Iran has multiplied its centrifuges many-fold.
Another aspect that is conveniently overlooked is that in the P5+1 group, we are the least affected by sanctions on Iran. All others in that group have much more at stake and will withdraw from the sanctions regime, if not publicly, very discreetly. And that will leave America as the loser.
Lastly, there is no mention of the rather huge white elephant in the room. Israel, a non-signatory to the NPT regime, has nuclear weapons. Will Israel agree to keep their nukes under international supervision?
It is not a perfect deal, but it is a very good deal. Let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
187
A better deal would involve the P5 +1 next turning their attention and tactics towards the nuclear weapon armed ethnic sectarian NPT rogue states like Israel, India and Pakistan. Adding Japan to the mix of nations would be a good idea. Japan has more enriched uranium than any other party to the NPT that does not have nuclear weapons. Japan also has Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan has it's bloody imperial World War II legacy.
1
Perhaps a better deal would have been the ability to inspect Iranian military bases. And who is to determine what constitutes a "military installation"? Iran.
Reminds me of 1215 when it was a crime n England to hunt without permission in the King's Forest which was whatever fancied the king. Not surprisingly, most of the"forests" had little if any trees., but a lot of land and game. The punishment ws being castrated and blinded. Seems like some of the US's deal team had that down prior to meeting with Iran.
Reminds me of 1215 when it was a crime n England to hunt without permission in the King's Forest which was whatever fancied the king. Not surprisingly, most of the"forests" had little if any trees., but a lot of land and game. The punishment ws being castrated and blinded. Seems like some of the US's deal team had that down prior to meeting with Iran.
I am appalled at the outcry against this deal. In some (GOP politicians) there are echoes of the current position that 'compromise' is a dirty word; that one enters a negotiation as if it was simply an opportunity to dictate demands; and that any agreement which is short of complete capitulation on the other side is simply a sign of weakness.
I think that the possibility of Iran becoming more open is of major importance. Iran has long had a well educated upper class which tends to be positively disposed to the US and the west. Unlike some other Middle Eastern countries, which were formed into nation states by the West in the last century, Iran has an ancient and rich culture. Its people self-identify as Iranian (rather than by tribal affiliation). If we abandon the western looking, more open elements in this society at this point we certainly have more to loose than gain. Additionally, it is not likely that there is a better deal to be had. Crushing a people into submission as the "nuclear free" and the GOP seem to favor inevitably backfires and that will most certainly mean bloodshed and loss of life for us, for Israel, and for Iranians.
I think that the possibility of Iran becoming more open is of major importance. Iran has long had a well educated upper class which tends to be positively disposed to the US and the west. Unlike some other Middle Eastern countries, which were formed into nation states by the West in the last century, Iran has an ancient and rich culture. Its people self-identify as Iranian (rather than by tribal affiliation). If we abandon the western looking, more open elements in this society at this point we certainly have more to loose than gain. Additionally, it is not likely that there is a better deal to be had. Crushing a people into submission as the "nuclear free" and the GOP seem to favor inevitably backfires and that will most certainly mean bloodshed and loss of life for us, for Israel, and for Iranians.
124
Where do you get your information that Iran's upper class tends to be positively disposed to the US and west?
Nick, excellent observations.
About the war option: would it even be "legal" without a UN resolution? Or does the issue of legality not matter anymore to the pro-war constituency within America and Israel, these friends of Dick Cheney? Do they somehow imagine themselves as above the rule of law, just as Cheney was above the law?
If we bomb Iran without a UN resolution, we set back whatever program they currently have a bit, but also make the current Iranian regime that much more sympathetic to the Islamic street (while merely prompting them to move their next program safely under ground.)
But how would it make us look: Two current nuclear powers deciding unilaterally that another nation had no right to the technology, despite the fact that the nation being bombed has a population roughly 10x larger than one of the current nuclear powers behind the attack?
I wonder: How many innocent Iranians would die in such an attack? Do these bloodthirsty warmongers even care? And how many others currently sympathetic to the US would be converted to the now slowly fading "Death to America" movement?
Nick, is perpetually threatening to bomb (or sanction) weaker nations any way to win friends, influence nation states, and stem nuclear proliferation?
I tend to doubt it - but I, of course, reside in the reality-based community.
About the war option: would it even be "legal" without a UN resolution? Or does the issue of legality not matter anymore to the pro-war constituency within America and Israel, these friends of Dick Cheney? Do they somehow imagine themselves as above the rule of law, just as Cheney was above the law?
If we bomb Iran without a UN resolution, we set back whatever program they currently have a bit, but also make the current Iranian regime that much more sympathetic to the Islamic street (while merely prompting them to move their next program safely under ground.)
But how would it make us look: Two current nuclear powers deciding unilaterally that another nation had no right to the technology, despite the fact that the nation being bombed has a population roughly 10x larger than one of the current nuclear powers behind the attack?
I wonder: How many innocent Iranians would die in such an attack? Do these bloodthirsty warmongers even care? And how many others currently sympathetic to the US would be converted to the now slowly fading "Death to America" movement?
Nick, is perpetually threatening to bomb (or sanction) weaker nations any way to win friends, influence nation states, and stem nuclear proliferation?
I tend to doubt it - but I, of course, reside in the reality-based community.
110
Do you have some evidence to back this up? Do we now have less wars than in 2009? No we don't. That seems to be a reality you ignore.
The UN ? Are you serious ?
Don't you remember the Republican offensive against the UN before the Iraq War ? Calls for abolishing it. Poking fun at it's uselessness every day and night for a year ? Parking ticket scandals ?
And what about Colin Powell's speech at the UN that he had to admit was pure fiction ? There's no length's war mongers won't go to.
Do you really think that the people looking to go to war with Iran are going to let the UN stop them ?
Don't you remember the Republican offensive against the UN before the Iraq War ? Calls for abolishing it. Poking fun at it's uselessness every day and night for a year ? Parking ticket scandals ?
And what about Colin Powell's speech at the UN that he had to admit was pure fiction ? There's no length's war mongers won't go to.
Do you really think that the people looking to go to war with Iran are going to let the UN stop them ?
" ... is perpetually threatening to bomb (or sanction) weaker nations any way to win friends, influence nation states ..."
The answer to your question can be seen in the history of the Jewish state. Israel and its Jewish predecessors was founded and maintains itself by force of arms. It does not appear to me that a foreign policy exclusively based on beating the snot out of their neighbors has made Israel any more secure.
The answer to your question can be seen in the history of the Jewish state. Israel and its Jewish predecessors was founded and maintains itself by force of arms. It does not appear to me that a foreign policy exclusively based on beating the snot out of their neighbors has made Israel any more secure.
The programs and reports I see on the Iranian people portray a people who are modern, friendly, and hopeful. It is but a matter of time before those people insist on modernity in their politics We must ensure that time, and in my view this agreement is the best way to do that. Anything else is folly, and we've engaged in more than enough folly in the region.
Speaking of regions, why is it that we essentially ignore an already nuclear armed, hostile nation utterly detached from modernity yet sitting in as close proximity to key allies, while demonizing Iran and this agreement at every turn? Of course, I am speaking of North Korea, a country not at all as progressive as Iran, ruled by a complete lunatic. Japan is an ally, right? As is South Korea? Maybe the difference is lobbying money? Just a guess.
Speaking of regions, why is it that we essentially ignore an already nuclear armed, hostile nation utterly detached from modernity yet sitting in as close proximity to key allies, while demonizing Iran and this agreement at every turn? Of course, I am speaking of North Korea, a country not at all as progressive as Iran, ruled by a complete lunatic. Japan is an ally, right? As is South Korea? Maybe the difference is lobbying money? Just a guess.
36
Sadly, there is an influential group of legislators who want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon so they can bomb Iran. They are the same legislators who perpetuated the lies behind the invasion and occupation of Iraq that has created the never ending war against the never ending terrorist groups created from the War.
Peace scares these legislators because without a fight, their rationales for endless war disappear. Some are motivated by the trillions funneled to the military industrial complex, while others are just evil like Cheney.
If Congress kills this deal and Iran develops a nuclear weapon, we have only ourselves to blame for what happens next.
Peace scares these legislators because without a fight, their rationales for endless war disappear. Some are motivated by the trillions funneled to the military industrial complex, while others are just evil like Cheney.
If Congress kills this deal and Iran develops a nuclear weapon, we have only ourselves to blame for what happens next.
479
Maybe i'm naive about this, but I think it is ludicrous to believe that our legislators are so crass about the nuclear arms deal that they actually think it would be good to get us into a war with Iran. The reason some legislators are opposed to the new deal is that they think it will make a nuclear bomb more possible for Iran to develop. That would be a factor that very probably would foment a war.
1
We must accept the fact that the literal merchants of death & destruction want war w/ Iran because it is lucrative for them, they do not want peace because peace would hurt their profits. How hard is it to grasp their true motivations? Orwell wrote about it warning us, Republican President Eisenhower vividly warned us all about it when he left office, and now it's our reality. Are Americans really so stupid as to continue to buy into this?
Weigh in to this argument Israel's role as an exporter of weaponry, and its dependence on the rhetoric of fear and confrontation.
Kristof takes the only rational approach to evaluation of the choice Congress is making -- what are the ramifications going forward. Don't look back, were not going that way.
The Iran agreement can only improve the stability of the Middle East and the security of Israel, it cannot under any scenario make it worse.
Those members of Congress who would vote to go to war with Iran at the behest of military contractors who finance their campaigns will not be sending their sons and daughters to fight. In addition we should take heed of the fact that the West cannot point to even one military action in the Middle East over the past 150 years which has improved the well-being of its citizens or increased stability.
The Iran agreement can only improve the stability of the Middle East and the security of Israel, it cannot under any scenario make it worse.
Those members of Congress who would vote to go to war with Iran at the behest of military contractors who finance their campaigns will not be sending their sons and daughters to fight. In addition we should take heed of the fact that the West cannot point to even one military action in the Middle East over the past 150 years which has improved the well-being of its citizens or increased stability.
209
Dr. Goldschmidt knows little to nothing about military contractors or the defense contracting industry. His comments have no basis in fact and contribute nothing to this discussion. As a former military contractor we do not want war. We want to insure the United States can defend its interests. Defense contractors do not care who is the President. In addition, I have many relatives in uniform. I do not want them going to war in the region. I fought in two wars in the region. I am well aware that is area is a foreign policy nightmare. It is also obvious that the doctor has spent little or no time on the in the region. The Sunni and Shiite Moslems, the Arabs and the Persians have not learned to live in peace with each other. Thrown into this volatile mix are the Israelis. They due not trust each other and live in fear of each other. Liberals like the doctor need to grow up an face that fact. Again, it is the job of defense contractors to provide any President of the United States the capabilities they need to implement their foreign and military policies. This includes President Obama, our current Commander-in-Chief.
Although Mr. Kristof makes perfect sense, as do many eminent people in the world, I keep wondering why Mr. Netenyahu is so opposed to the deal. What does he know that would explain his opposition? It just does not make sense based upon the available facts in the open. There is something missing here.
3
Some in Israel are as committed to the destruction of Iran as many in Iran are committed to the destruction of Israel. Mr. Netanyahu is another hard-liner who cannot come up with an alternative to war, just as many Republicans cannot come up with an alternative to hating Mr. Obama and everything he does.
85
Netanyahu also thought that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.
79
Prime Minister Netenyahu has never missed a chance to consolidate political power, even if it means installing fear in his citizens. Remember that two days prior to his recent re-election, he garnered votes by warning Jewish voters that they need to vote to counteract the voting as a block of Arab citizens. A leader who is not above dividing his own country with fear to get re-elected is not above scaring Israelis in order to consolidate his fragile coalition.
10
Thanks to NK for these details. But the naysayers would reject a cure for all cancers if it were an Obama discovery. Zionists who are in Bibi's corner will also react like Pavlov's dogs. No detailed analysis needed there. And those hungry for something more to be worried about, plus those who long for Armageddon, will never support the sensible, peaceful way.
168
The Salient feature of the Republican objection to the agreement is that it was hammered out by the Obama Administration. No agreement is ever 100% perfect. That's why compromise is the descriptive adjective. The Republicans ultimately want to force the United States in to a war with Iran, the final stage of diplomacy, and they don't want Obama to get credit for preventing it.
If we reject the Deal, we will be out of step with the rest of the major countries of the world, and will ultimately be pushed into another one of those unilateral actions by some president of the future. A compromise is much better than no agreement. It is up to both sides to live up to the bargain so that the final evaluation happens over time. The Republicans want to shoot first, ask questions later. In effect, maintain the sanctions so that Iran is forced to build nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the US and Israel. While the rhetoric doesn't change, other than terrorist activity, Iran has not attacked Israel militarily. The deal reduces the likelihood that it would happen. Rejection of the deal pushes both sides closer to conflict. Why? Political posturing by right wing elements of both countries trying to maintain their power and control at home. Both sides play disgusting political games with the world to solidify their standing at home. While Iranian threats cannot be completely ignored, they should be taken "with a grain of salt."
If we reject the Deal, we will be out of step with the rest of the major countries of the world, and will ultimately be pushed into another one of those unilateral actions by some president of the future. A compromise is much better than no agreement. It is up to both sides to live up to the bargain so that the final evaluation happens over time. The Republicans want to shoot first, ask questions later. In effect, maintain the sanctions so that Iran is forced to build nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the US and Israel. While the rhetoric doesn't change, other than terrorist activity, Iran has not attacked Israel militarily. The deal reduces the likelihood that it would happen. Rejection of the deal pushes both sides closer to conflict. Why? Political posturing by right wing elements of both countries trying to maintain their power and control at home. Both sides play disgusting political games with the world to solidify their standing at home. While Iranian threats cannot be completely ignored, they should be taken "with a grain of salt."
92
The stark and undeniable truth of the matter is that had Obama and his negotiating team gotten everything they wanted, Republicans would still oppose it. Fecklessness is their new religion.
383
They have proven, many times, that they don't mind looking like fools. They remind us of it every single day.
1
This agreement strongly reduces the likely hood of a war. Do the naysayers truly want more war?
55
If it's profitable for their constituents (the ones who provide the funding), yes.
2
Of course they do. It's their bread and butter.
2
Sadly yes they do want more war, in fact they want endless war because it's very lucrative for some people/businesses and they really don't care about the consequences to others. They do love their profits from wars and they want to perpetuate gravy train as long as possible. They are war mongers and I see them as very anti American. These simply are not decent people.
2
The reasons why this is a very good deal are very well explained in this column. We should remember, though, that the opposition is not about being 'right', but is merely interested in opposing President Obama, and in pretending that he (and the other countries involved-- but we ignore them) has made a 'bad' deal.
122
If it's good for the country, and the world, the Greedy Oppressive Poopheads don't want anything to do with it.
Mr. Kristof is 100% correct. The biggest problem is the hyperbole thrown out by the GOP. There are many in Israels elite (current and ex defense officials) who who like more, but believe this program is better than war. None of the GOP has given a realistic alternative. New negotiations. Neither Iran nor other members of the P5 + 1 have any reason to do this. They are satisfied with the deal. More sanctions. The other P5 + 1 will not keep these in place since they believe the deal is good. We can pressure our allies to go back to the negotiating table. If they truly believe this is the best deal that could be had, why would they do that? Keep our sanctions in place. Yes, we can do that, but that will not have the effect needed, plus it will put American companies in the penalty box. People that still believe we have the power to do anything we want in the world and our allies will willingly follow us are not attuned to the real world. They have to wake up. If Iran cheats, we do not lose any of our current options. Even if they don't cheat and there are concerns 10 to 15 years down the line, we do not lose any options.
59
The argument that "this is the best we could get" is a terribly weak argument.
Given Obama's failures in negotiating with the GOP, we should not be surprised at a weak compromise here.
The problem is not making a deal -- it's THIS deal. As usual, Obama lacks guts. He gives in at every turn.
Given Obama's failures in negotiating with the GOP, we should not be surprised at a weak compromise here.
The problem is not making a deal -- it's THIS deal. As usual, Obama lacks guts. He gives in at every turn.
The biggest competitor for "friends" on the world stage is China. China, a state capitalist, prioritizes business interests, scouring the globe for resources, bringing local governments into its influence by exchanging development for minerals and other assets.
The US has performed a different role. It has never been as perfect as our ideals; but we have engaged to state a clear preference for freedom and the rule of law.
Now the Progressive wing would like to "let the flowers bloom" and withdraw our historical involvement around the world in preference for a flatter, shared sense of responsibility for peace. It starts with the naive (I believe) sense that we will be able to rely on other governments to do the right thing (climate control is a good test) and move toward a better future with less conflict, anchored in the UN.
The skeptic in me says that the removal of a freedom-tilt, enforced by our strong military, will be replaced by a capitalism-tilt, empowering China's national mission with a state desire to control the sources and distribution channels for its products. With lower expectations (no one travels to Shanghai for heart surgery), the Chinese population demands more modest wages, health care, and social services; and the government, unabashedly capitalist, will be free to lock up raw materials and markets.
The Iran nuclear deal falls flat for our traditional freedom march. They have only one other suitor and model for future growth. It's a big gamble.
The US has performed a different role. It has never been as perfect as our ideals; but we have engaged to state a clear preference for freedom and the rule of law.
Now the Progressive wing would like to "let the flowers bloom" and withdraw our historical involvement around the world in preference for a flatter, shared sense of responsibility for peace. It starts with the naive (I believe) sense that we will be able to rely on other governments to do the right thing (climate control is a good test) and move toward a better future with less conflict, anchored in the UN.
The skeptic in me says that the removal of a freedom-tilt, enforced by our strong military, will be replaced by a capitalism-tilt, empowering China's national mission with a state desire to control the sources and distribution channels for its products. With lower expectations (no one travels to Shanghai for heart surgery), the Chinese population demands more modest wages, health care, and social services; and the government, unabashedly capitalist, will be free to lock up raw materials and markets.
The Iran nuclear deal falls flat for our traditional freedom march. They have only one other suitor and model for future growth. It's a big gamble.
1
"Our traditional freedom march"? Like the one through Baghdad?
This is disappointingly flip - something Nicholas Kristof rarely is. Like the way he brushes what even he admits is the strongest argument: that Iran will get an infusion of billions of dollars. Excuse me Mr. Kristof, but if the US rejects the deal then all those US-frozen assets will stay frozen (and some of the European). $100 billion buys a lot more death than $50 billion.
5
If, of course, it's used that way rather than to salvage a crumbling economy. Starving Iran into submission won't work, and if the hard-liners really want a bomb, they'll get one anyway, no matter what Israel persuades the U.S. to do (short of all-out war). Whether they'd ever use it is another matter: after the Soviets got the bomb in 1949, people were sure they were foaming at the mouth to use it, but they didn't; so far, the only country which has actually used nuclear weapons is, er, the U.S.
The Iranians know that if they dared to nuke Israel, Tehran would disappear in a mushroom cloud. Their fear is that it may do so anyway if Israel's own hard-liners get their way--unless Iran has its own nuclear deterrent.
The Iranians know that if they dared to nuke Israel, Tehran would disappear in a mushroom cloud. Their fear is that it may do so anyway if Israel's own hard-liners get their way--unless Iran has its own nuclear deterrent.
Obama and Kerry out U.S. In the position that if we don't take this deal we are "alone". They are twisting the arm of the American people by making the sanctions relief instantaneous allowing Russia and China to benefit from this. When prior to their "outreach" to Iran, the Iranian economy was crumbling. And yes the sanctions on Cuba and n. Korea has made them talkers not doers. With the squeeze in its and their bark bigger than their bite, and the iranianpeople being so "secular" change would have come from within once the grand mullah dies. Or mr. Kristof is your foreshadowing of what would have happened just sound like a happy fairytale that just happens to give our dear leader Obama a defense narrative to push his continuing of lighting the world on fire in his naive attempts at utopia?
2
If the U.S. rejects this deal, the sanctions regime will collapse. The UN has already approved the agreement, and there is no chance any of the other members of the coalition will back the foolish actions of our Congress and maintain sanctions. Iran will face only sanctions from us, which will isolate the US more than the mullahs. Whether the inspections agreement would work in that case is uncertain, but we would gain nothing by our refusal to act responsibly.
The Republicans are not going to be happy with ANYTHING that Obama proposes. If he were for tougher sanctions, they'd be against that! Unfortunately, their knee-jerk, all-the-time, anti-Obama strategy greatly reduces their credibility. The president predicted what their reaction would be even before the agreement was made public. Is there anything that Obama has done that the Republicans are happy with? I can't think of a thing. Too bad. I would be much more inclined to listen to their arguments if I thought they were arguing on merit...and not just to thwart the president.
113
Celebrations by the Iranians when the nuclear deal was announced were not inspired solely by the prospective removal of economic sanctions. To them, particularly the young, this agreement is also the start of a transformation to less Islamic fundamentalism and more democracy. U.S. should urgently do its best to accelerate economic and other social transformations in Iran by nonmilitary means. Perhaps most important among them are immigration reforms pertaining to foreign students. Old and recent proposals in Congress focus on allowing them to work in the U.S. after graduation to help make America more competitive. The main issue: concern that expansion of work visas to foreign students would depress wages and limit employment opportunities for Americans. But this perspective is too narrow; it must be expanded to address impacts abroad. With specific regard to our relationships with Iran, these immigration reforms should focus on expanded opportunities for their students to get advanced STEM degrees and then work in the U.S. up to five years after graduation to gain hands-on experience. When these young people return to their home countries, they would be agents-of-change for democracy, producing pervasive and enduring benefits for both Iran and us.
8
When Iran’s leaders decide to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, they will not be consulting their peace loving, young people about it. It will simply be missiles away.
1
This is simple. Is not Obama for this agreement? Ergo, Republicans are dead set against it. Republicans and their right-wing media are busy misleading the public about this agreement just like they misled the public about the ACA creating death panels; only this time the Republicans intend to set up death panels that will send American soldiers to die in Iran.
33
This editorial presupposes that the Iranians who are proclaiming "Death to America" are going to mend their attitudes and policies spontaneously and become good neighbors. Is this wishful thinking, or not?
6
The editorial supposes nothing of the sort. To assume that all Iranians - or even a significant minority of them - are the death to America crowd, is pretty simplistic. Are all Americans the confederate flag waving racist demonstrators that make the news? Of course not. They are not even all Republicans (which is a harder argument to make).
Diplomacy is not about changing the attitudes of the worst individuals. It is about changing the dynamic of a society and the dynamic of a relationship. And none of it is spontaneous or magic.
Diplomacy is not about changing the attitudes of the worst individuals. It is about changing the dynamic of a society and the dynamic of a relationship. And none of it is spontaneous or magic.
The irony here is that it is likely that more Americans see Iran as The Great Satan than vice versa. We know you can't bargain with the devil. Remember Munich. Unconditional surrender works: the U.S. civil war, W.W. I show otherwise but ignore that.
This deal is important for all the reasons Nicholas Kristol cites. It is also important as it resets the American relationship with Israel. This reset must take place because Israel's wagging of the U.S. is a major obstacle to U,S. relations in the Arab world and is the key reason we cannot broker peace there. Resetting our relationship to Israel and thus to the Arab world will render the competition between us and the Soviets and Chinese for influence there irrelevant to all three and gives extremists less breathing space and moderate Arabs more. This is an historic achievement to end one of the lingering tragedies of the cold war.
This deal is important for all the reasons Nicholas Kristol cites. It is also important as it resets the American relationship with Israel. This reset must take place because Israel's wagging of the U.S. is a major obstacle to U,S. relations in the Arab world and is the key reason we cannot broker peace there. Resetting our relationship to Israel and thus to the Arab world will render the competition between us and the Soviets and Chinese for influence there irrelevant to all three and gives extremists less breathing space and moderate Arabs more. This is an historic achievement to end one of the lingering tragedies of the cold war.
22
Frankly, the cat is out of the bag regardless because the U.S. is not a one country policeman regarding sanctions. Russia and China are done with this messy idea and Iran will join the world anyway. No one is willing to bomb Iran (including Israel) and they are ill prepared to become a nuclear power. Frankly, Iran figured out that a hot bomb would do little because they could not use it without inturn their own total destruction. So, why bother?
11
Since the UK, France, Germany, China and Russia have agreed to the deal and will implement it, an American refusal may look like our half century isolation of Cuba. The rest of the world will make our sanctions useless. We will not engage with the Iranians; our oil service industry will not participate in the Iranian boom; our other businesses from agriculture to pharmaceuticals would be frozen out. How well did our boycott of Cuba work out?
230
Arthur,
Two points! The same trustworthy folks that "Guaranteed" the existence of the Ukraine are doing this deal too! How's that working out?
Unless the Cubans become wealthy by selling all those '40s and '50s cars they still drive to collectors, the embargo worked just fine! The Cubans in Florida who voted with their feet are an example of what Cuba without Castro might have been!
Two points! The same trustworthy folks that "Guaranteed" the existence of the Ukraine are doing this deal too! How's that working out?
Unless the Cubans become wealthy by selling all those '40s and '50s cars they still drive to collectors, the embargo worked just fine! The Cubans in Florida who voted with their feet are an example of what Cuba without Castro might have been!
Further evidence that countries do not have allies, they have interests. What are our interests? A share in oil sales, in the sale of machinery to extract and refine oil products.
Forgive me, I was under the impression that we wanted to reduce global oil production and usage. So this entire enterprise is about enhancing the lives of people through global trade.
Forgive me, I was under the impression that we wanted to reduce global oil production and usage. So this entire enterprise is about enhancing the lives of people through global trade.
Is this the "Everyone else is doing it." argument?
Mr. Kristoff does a very good job of summarizing the benefits of the Iran agreement but clearly points the dangers from the torpedo squad in Congress who will try to scuttle the agreement.
I find it particularly galling that Israel, dominated by a group of religious extremists, itself sitting on a huge undeclared arsenal of atomic weapons, including hydrogen bombs, would so vocally oppose this sensible agreement. Perhaps the only thing more galling is that this tiny nation, the largest single recipient of US foreign aid over the last 4 decades, can skillfully use checkbook lobbying to so influence our Congress that there can be concern that Congress might block the agreement. My own Congressman, Jerry Nadler, wrote me saying that he was there to defend the interests of Israel! Hey, who elected him? He is there to protect the interests of Americans!!
Israel with at least 200 nuclear weapons is not a member of the IAEA, refuses to sign the NPT & allows NO international inspections of its nuclear facilities. How is it possible that so many members of Congress blithely condone this behavior while criticizing the agreement with Iran? The answer is money spread widely throughout the halls of Congress by the clever operatives of the AIPAC.
I find it particularly galling that Israel, dominated by a group of religious extremists, itself sitting on a huge undeclared arsenal of atomic weapons, including hydrogen bombs, would so vocally oppose this sensible agreement. Perhaps the only thing more galling is that this tiny nation, the largest single recipient of US foreign aid over the last 4 decades, can skillfully use checkbook lobbying to so influence our Congress that there can be concern that Congress might block the agreement. My own Congressman, Jerry Nadler, wrote me saying that he was there to defend the interests of Israel! Hey, who elected him? He is there to protect the interests of Americans!!
Israel with at least 200 nuclear weapons is not a member of the IAEA, refuses to sign the NPT & allows NO international inspections of its nuclear facilities. How is it possible that so many members of Congress blithely condone this behavior while criticizing the agreement with Iran? The answer is money spread widely throughout the halls of Congress by the clever operatives of the AIPAC.
168
Well said!
1
Please note that (AIPAC notwithstanding), American Jews lean heavily toward Congressional approval of the deal, 53 percent for versus 35 percent. You might write Rep. Nadler back on that, and also tell him that friends don't write friends blank checks.
1
@Richard Huber: And the gall of it all is the Israelis are likely use our taxpayer $$$ to pay off our Congress. Congress wants to cut foreign aid. Let's start with Israel and Egypt.
1
Kristof writes: "The U.S. didn’t get all it wanted (and neither did Iran)..." But the US had IRAN on one knee with the sanctions. Iran will now play games with the parameters of the treaty and sanctions will never be imposed again. We had a much better relationship with Russia when sanctions were imposed. Russia wouldn't lift sanctions without international embarrassment, but now due to the complexity and loopholes in the treaty, Iran can make their compliance blurry giving Russia an opportunity to save face and solidify their alliance with Iran. Through this treaty Obama is unwittingly about to finance terrorism around the world. That will be a sad legacy for someone seeking one at any price. Obama is so desperate for any kind of foreign policy achievement he believes his own propaganda. This will go down in history, if there is anyone left to write it, as an infamous time for the US and the world.
3
"That’s speculative. The real impact of the deal is that it will unlock tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets and new oil revenues, giving Iranian hard-liners more resources to invest in nuclear skulduggery and in extremist groups."
False, false, false.
Read "Treasury: No, Iran Is Not Getting $150 Billion From The Nuclear Deal," particularly testimony of Treasury Secretary Lew:
“There is a lot of discussion out there that Iran is going to somehow get $150 billion as soon as sanctions are lifted. That is incorrect,” said Lew. He explained that Iran will not be able to access much of its money that has been locked up overseas due to sanctions because the money has already been committed elsewhere.
Last week, Lew told a group of senators that over $20 billion of Iran’s frozen assets has already been committed to infrastructure projects with China, and that Iran owes an additional "tens of billions" of dollars on nonperforming loans to its energy and banking sectors.
On Wednesday, Lew estimated that Iran’s demand for domestic investment surpasses $500 billion, and that it will cost between $100 billion and $200 billion to restore production levels in its oil and gas sector.
“I have never argued that a penny can’t be put to a malign purpose,” Lew said. “But this is not going to change the shape of Iran’s resources for good or bad purposes.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/treasury-iran-150-billion-nuclear-de...
False, false, false.
Read "Treasury: No, Iran Is Not Getting $150 Billion From The Nuclear Deal," particularly testimony of Treasury Secretary Lew:
“There is a lot of discussion out there that Iran is going to somehow get $150 billion as soon as sanctions are lifted. That is incorrect,” said Lew. He explained that Iran will not be able to access much of its money that has been locked up overseas due to sanctions because the money has already been committed elsewhere.
Last week, Lew told a group of senators that over $20 billion of Iran’s frozen assets has already been committed to infrastructure projects with China, and that Iran owes an additional "tens of billions" of dollars on nonperforming loans to its energy and banking sectors.
On Wednesday, Lew estimated that Iran’s demand for domestic investment surpasses $500 billion, and that it will cost between $100 billion and $200 billion to restore production levels in its oil and gas sector.
“I have never argued that a penny can’t be put to a malign purpose,” Lew said. “But this is not going to change the shape of Iran’s resources for good or bad purposes.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/treasury-iran-150-billion-nuclear-de...
5
Let us be clear. The hysteria about Iran’s nuclear program has had nothing to do with a nuclear bomb but has been used as an excuse to keep Iran down and to bring about regime change, while diverting attention from Israel’s nuclear arsenal and expansionist policies. After the most intrusive inspections in the history of the world the IAEA has not found a single trace of diversion to military uses. In 2007 the NIE said that Iran had stopped her weapons program prior to 2003, but even that was based on fabricated account of a laptop allegedly smuggled out of Iran that has been proved to be false.
All that the naysayers are saying is that they want to make sure that Iran cannot have the possibility of amassing enough enriched uranium for a single bomb if she decides to build one. The fact that Iran does not have reprocessing capabilities, that she has no way of testing a bomb without being discovered, that she has no means of delivery are totally ignored. The deal with Iran will resolve a manufactured crisis, will bring Iran out of the cold, will empower Iran’s young and reformist generation and will change the face of the Middle East. If in the case of Iraq some officials falsely claimed that they were not sure whether Saddam had WMD or not, in the case of Iran all but the self-deluded know the truth. Iran’s “nuclear program” has been milked for all it’s worth. Bibi and his allies in Congress should now find another excuse to justify stealing more Palestinian lands.
All that the naysayers are saying is that they want to make sure that Iran cannot have the possibility of amassing enough enriched uranium for a single bomb if she decides to build one. The fact that Iran does not have reprocessing capabilities, that she has no way of testing a bomb without being discovered, that she has no means of delivery are totally ignored. The deal with Iran will resolve a manufactured crisis, will bring Iran out of the cold, will empower Iran’s young and reformist generation and will change the face of the Middle East. If in the case of Iraq some officials falsely claimed that they were not sure whether Saddam had WMD or not, in the case of Iran all but the self-deluded know the truth. Iran’s “nuclear program” has been milked for all it’s worth. Bibi and his allies in Congress should now find another excuse to justify stealing more Palestinian lands.
20
Mr. Kristov's first hand, boots on the ground knowledge of the middle surpasses that of most members of the US congress. I agree with his assessment of the Iranian deal, that in the long run, (which many in congress do not think in long term other then their next election) will prove, maybe not perfectly, but sustainable. We do have choices if failure to uphold the agreement occur.
11
Mr. Kristof claims the Iranian deal makes us safer. Whatever else one can say about the deal, one cannot say it makes us safer as we were never threatened by Iran. However many nukes they could build we have thousands more. There are 80 million Iranians versus 320 million Americans. The US is over 6 times the size of Iran. We have nukes which can reach Iran. Iran has no nukes which can reach the US.
Iran does threaten Israel. Iran has 10 times the population and is 60 times the size of Israel. If Iran killed 5 million Israelis, Israel would be destroyed. If Israel killed the same or twice that number of Iranians, Iran would survive. Iran has rockets which can reach Israel and Israel has rockets which can reach Iran. But, Iran has proxies in Hezbollah on Israel’s border, but not the US border and Israel has n proxies on Iran’s border.
Kristof cavalierly says he would be nervous if he lived in Israel with Iran having nukes, but takes solace in maybe a 10 year waiting period and with pro-American youth will somehow overcome the Ayatollah’s and change Iran. NOT!
Perhaps more American Jews support the agreement than most Americans, but more American Jews voted for Obama, myself included, than did most Americans.
Mr. Kristof feels safe and that’s good enough for him to support the deal. If Israel is the most endangered, shouldn’t their concerns and not former ambassadors or American Jews matter to Mr. Kristof.
Iran does threaten Israel. Iran has 10 times the population and is 60 times the size of Israel. If Iran killed 5 million Israelis, Israel would be destroyed. If Israel killed the same or twice that number of Iranians, Iran would survive. Iran has rockets which can reach Israel and Israel has rockets which can reach Iran. But, Iran has proxies in Hezbollah on Israel’s border, but not the US border and Israel has n proxies on Iran’s border.
Kristof cavalierly says he would be nervous if he lived in Israel with Iran having nukes, but takes solace in maybe a 10 year waiting period and with pro-American youth will somehow overcome the Ayatollah’s and change Iran. NOT!
Perhaps more American Jews support the agreement than most Americans, but more American Jews voted for Obama, myself included, than did most Americans.
Mr. Kristof feels safe and that’s good enough for him to support the deal. If Israel is the most endangered, shouldn’t their concerns and not former ambassadors or American Jews matter to Mr. Kristof.
1
I agree completely. Last sentence, " sure it is flawed, and yes, it makes us safer". Define "us".
Your whole premise is wrong because within one hour of launching an attack on Israel the United States would wipe Iran off the map. And the only way Iran would ever launch any kind of attack on Israel is if they were forced into it or were attacked first.
Mel:
1. The agreement postpones or potentially eliminates Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. The absence of an agreement permits and inspires them to obtain such weapons quickly. Which do you want?
2. Israel hard-liners (including Netanyahu) want the US to destroy their adversaries, notwithstanding the adverse effect on the U.S., world politics, efforts toward peace, or general stability in the region. THIS is what motivates their "concern" with the agreement. The agreement protects their security, but strips them of "I have a cousin from the Bronx who'll beat you up if you don't do what I want." [Sorry, to those in the Bronx!]
3. ALL hard-liners trust and approve of war, and believe it can be used effectively to solve problems. That is true in Iran, Israel, and the U.S. When these hard-liners are allowed to hijack diplomacy, we ultimately get wars. When collaborative efforts (especially economic ones, like the EU for example) are implemented, the chances for peace and prosperity increase geometrically. When greater prosperity comes to Iran, the attractiveness of their hard-liners will diminish (we have even seen that, to some extent, already!). Peaceful, productive solutions will be more likely to prevail.
Let's think this through like adults, not like hysterical children.
1. The agreement postpones or potentially eliminates Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. The absence of an agreement permits and inspires them to obtain such weapons quickly. Which do you want?
2. Israel hard-liners (including Netanyahu) want the US to destroy their adversaries, notwithstanding the adverse effect on the U.S., world politics, efforts toward peace, or general stability in the region. THIS is what motivates their "concern" with the agreement. The agreement protects their security, but strips them of "I have a cousin from the Bronx who'll beat you up if you don't do what I want." [Sorry, to those in the Bronx!]
3. ALL hard-liners trust and approve of war, and believe it can be used effectively to solve problems. That is true in Iran, Israel, and the U.S. When these hard-liners are allowed to hijack diplomacy, we ultimately get wars. When collaborative efforts (especially economic ones, like the EU for example) are implemented, the chances for peace and prosperity increase geometrically. When greater prosperity comes to Iran, the attractiveness of their hard-liners will diminish (we have even seen that, to some extent, already!). Peaceful, productive solutions will be more likely to prevail.
Let's think this through like adults, not like hysterical children.
1
This deal kicks the can down the road for 10-25 years, in hopes that Iran may have changed for the better by the end of that period, when its nuclear program will be unfettered. Any diplomatic deal (as this retired diplomat knows) is, almost by definition, a half-loaf. You don't get the whole loaf unless you militarily have conquered your opponent.
So what is the alternative to this deal now? The alternative is a war with Iran, for which the US public probably has no stomach after 15 years of war already in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So if Congress chooses to reject the deal, it should at the same time vote a resolution authorizing the President to go to war with Iran. Do those gutless wonders on Capitol Hill have the stomach for that? I doubt it.
So what is the alternative to this deal now? The alternative is a war with Iran, for which the US public probably has no stomach after 15 years of war already in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So if Congress chooses to reject the deal, it should at the same time vote a resolution authorizing the President to go to war with Iran. Do those gutless wonders on Capitol Hill have the stomach for that? I doubt it.
9
I agree, particularly with your point about the importance of strengthening the hand of the moderate Iranians.
I was in Iran earlier this month when the agreement was reached and the enthusiasm of the Iranian people for this deal, and for the prospect of better relations with the West, particularly with the US, was unmistakable. None of the ordinary Iranians I spoke to expressed any interest in their country having a nuclear weapon, and all of them criticized the hardliners in their government. On Friday, July 17, when some American media speculated that the mullahs might block the deal, I could see this would not happen. Had they blocked it, Iran's streets would have been filled with angry citizens in demonstrations more disruptive than those of 2009. There is simply no hiding the fact that the people of Iran are a force to be reckoned with and, in light of this deal, I expect will be a very positive force.
This deal is important for us, for the Iranians, and for a general reduction of tensions in that part of the world.
http://cultureworld21c.blogspot.com/2015/07/iran-on-sixty-six-million-to...
I was in Iran earlier this month when the agreement was reached and the enthusiasm of the Iranian people for this deal, and for the prospect of better relations with the West, particularly with the US, was unmistakable. None of the ordinary Iranians I spoke to expressed any interest in their country having a nuclear weapon, and all of them criticized the hardliners in their government. On Friday, July 17, when some American media speculated that the mullahs might block the deal, I could see this would not happen. Had they blocked it, Iran's streets would have been filled with angry citizens in demonstrations more disruptive than those of 2009. There is simply no hiding the fact that the people of Iran are a force to be reckoned with and, in light of this deal, I expect will be a very positive force.
This deal is important for us, for the Iranians, and for a general reduction of tensions in that part of the world.
http://cultureworld21c.blogspot.com/2015/07/iran-on-sixty-six-million-to...
33
Perhaps any dialogue with Iran is preferable to the current non-relationship based on Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) regime of sanctions, which I enforce as part of my Federal law enforcement duties on a daily basis...whatever leverage the USA may gain from opening the door slightly, while waiting for a regime change in Iran, is perhaps an improvement. But one doesn't feel secure or trusting about this agreement, rather that we have been sold the proverbial bill of goods. To bandy another cliche about, the leopard Persia never changes his spots. And he's been an adversarial actor against Israel for thousands of years already.
2
American foreign policy since WWII has been a series of dangerous mistakes....Korea, Iran, Vietnam, Chile, Afghanistan, Iraq, and misplaced support of IsraelI nuclear arms.
The difficulty in making these kind of treaties increases with increased mistrust of America.
It is a miracle that hate for the US has not already resulted in a nuclear terrorist attack.
American incompetence in foreign policy is a very dangerous game indeed! There is no reason to believe this will change.
The difficulty in making these kind of treaties increases with increased mistrust of America.
It is a miracle that hate for the US has not already resulted in a nuclear terrorist attack.
American incompetence in foreign policy is a very dangerous game indeed! There is no reason to believe this will change.
5
It just seems logical that we go with this deal. It's unfortunate that so many
republicans have made it political - their prime goal to deny the President any
international diplomatic effort , or anything else he wants to do. The naysayers
have dominated the airways consistently - much more than the defenders of
the deal. It also appears to me that most of the deniers of the deal don't
appear to understand it - it is complex apparently and deserves a statesman-like
perspective - which we so sadly lack in our congress today. Then there is
Netanyahu and the Jewish vote - rarely do I hear mentioned that the Israeli
military agrees with the deal and disagrees with Bibi on this.
republicans have made it political - their prime goal to deny the President any
international diplomatic effort , or anything else he wants to do. The naysayers
have dominated the airways consistently - much more than the defenders of
the deal. It also appears to me that most of the deniers of the deal don't
appear to understand it - it is complex apparently and deserves a statesman-like
perspective - which we so sadly lack in our congress today. Then there is
Netanyahu and the Jewish vote - rarely do I hear mentioned that the Israeli
military agrees with the deal and disagrees with Bibi on this.
15
A few months ago I was at a seminar where the now retired Abe Foxman from the ADL spoke about the recent survey measuring world anti semitism.He stated that Iran's number of 57% was among the lowest in The Middle East. I am not saying that is good, but our "good friends", the Saudi's, have a far higher number.Iran has the largest permanent Jewish community of any Muslim country.Plus, does anyone really believe that the Iranians want to start the atomic war that will destroy the entire planet?
13
Mr Kristof - I hope you are right - but I fear you are wrong about this flawed deal.
Think about it. Why did Iran dig its heels in and not agree to random inspections without notice. There can be but one reason. That reason is that receiving plenty of notice from the inspection authority gives Iran plenty of time to mask/conceal enrichment activities. Mr Obama needed a marker for his presidency. But at any cost? I'm disappointed and dismayed on this short term pragmatism. I shall reflect upon this deal in 10 years time. I hope that I am wrong - but my guess is that Hezbollah et al will have access to Iran's fissionable material in 2025. Then it will be too late for the planet.
Think about it. Why did Iran dig its heels in and not agree to random inspections without notice. There can be but one reason. That reason is that receiving plenty of notice from the inspection authority gives Iran plenty of time to mask/conceal enrichment activities. Mr Obama needed a marker for his presidency. But at any cost? I'm disappointed and dismayed on this short term pragmatism. I shall reflect upon this deal in 10 years time. I hope that I am wrong - but my guess is that Hezbollah et al will have access to Iran's fissionable material in 2025. Then it will be too late for the planet.
1
Not to mention the threat Saudi Arabia will feel to a nuclear armed Iran.
1
It is hard to understand Israel's, and so many Republicans', opposition to any deal. For according to this column, Iran is on the verge of 'coming into the family of nations', or at least ameliorating the dangers it is said to pose to its neighbors, especially as to Israel.
Supplying Israel with the most advanced defenses against attacks through airspace, might assuage their concerns. But the fact Israel is within a few hundred miles of places from which Iran could launch advanced rockets carrying A-bombs, or very fast jets carrying them ... could make even that a risky thing.
Iran does have very advanced delivery systems. They claim Iran's current leaders could be so rash, as to launch an A-bomb even though they know they would receive an extreme destruction in return.
Is that really true. And why would Iran's people allow that to happen? How could the Ayatollah be that insane?
So, as many people suspect, Israel just wants to keep an excuse for the sanctions going, in order to keep Iran in economic distress. They also must know Iran is on the verge of having a govt. less restrictive, but don't care about that at all(?)
They see Iran as a competitor. They also want, like the U.S., to keep Russia as weak as possible, don't care if Russia even exists; and the U.S. is like that also.
We just don't even care to have any diplomatic relations, or as little to do as possible, except war, with any country we can't dictate to!
Britain wasn't that bad with its Empire.
Supplying Israel with the most advanced defenses against attacks through airspace, might assuage their concerns. But the fact Israel is within a few hundred miles of places from which Iran could launch advanced rockets carrying A-bombs, or very fast jets carrying them ... could make even that a risky thing.
Iran does have very advanced delivery systems. They claim Iran's current leaders could be so rash, as to launch an A-bomb even though they know they would receive an extreme destruction in return.
Is that really true. And why would Iran's people allow that to happen? How could the Ayatollah be that insane?
So, as many people suspect, Israel just wants to keep an excuse for the sanctions going, in order to keep Iran in economic distress. They also must know Iran is on the verge of having a govt. less restrictive, but don't care about that at all(?)
They see Iran as a competitor. They also want, like the U.S., to keep Russia as weak as possible, don't care if Russia even exists; and the U.S. is like that also.
We just don't even care to have any diplomatic relations, or as little to do as possible, except war, with any country we can't dictate to!
Britain wasn't that bad with its Empire.
2
Will we ever see a media that tries to inject some intelligent conversation, educate the public instead of giving a megaphone to neocons to spew their warmongering?
Hannity: “I believe history will prove this deal with Iran is worse than Munich 1938 …
Huckabee: “You are wrong, you are right, in part because it took incredible apparatus to kill people one at a time or few hundred at a time a nuclear weapon can wipe out millions. I think we underestimate the radical nature of these animals who run Iran. “
Hannity: “What is wrong with this President?"
Kristol on Morning Joe “A- The day before this deal there was a clear choice that didn’t involve immediately going to war which involved increasing sanctions which allegedly was doing a lot of damage, B- this talk of going to war is misleading , you can have strikes to set back their programs that aren’t quote "going to war””.
Hannity: “I believe history will prove this deal with Iran is worse than Munich 1938 …
Huckabee: “You are wrong, you are right, in part because it took incredible apparatus to kill people one at a time or few hundred at a time a nuclear weapon can wipe out millions. I think we underestimate the radical nature of these animals who run Iran. “
Hannity: “What is wrong with this President?"
Kristol on Morning Joe “A- The day before this deal there was a clear choice that didn’t involve immediately going to war which involved increasing sanctions which allegedly was doing a lot of damage, B- this talk of going to war is misleading , you can have strikes to set back their programs that aren’t quote "going to war””.
2
A Muslim nation in agreement with the evil west! What's this world coming, to? What's an Islamic extremist to do?
Whatever deficiencies this deal has it's rectified by Iran's war against Isis. Iran has talked about attacking Israel, the West, et al. Isis pummels whatever it can.
Iran has demonstrated it's bad side, Hezbollah. Cyprus is still in trouble, but now that the deal is signed, Iran and the European Union have agreed to start talks on various issues.
To my mind, the bottom line is this: Iran has its, not nice guy, Shia radicals, but they have yet to demonstrate the acute, suicidal tendencies that would culminate in mass, nuclear destruction.
Whatever deficiencies this deal has it's rectified by Iran's war against Isis. Iran has talked about attacking Israel, the West, et al. Isis pummels whatever it can.
Iran has demonstrated it's bad side, Hezbollah. Cyprus is still in trouble, but now that the deal is signed, Iran and the European Union have agreed to start talks on various issues.
To my mind, the bottom line is this: Iran has its, not nice guy, Shia radicals, but they have yet to demonstrate the acute, suicidal tendencies that would culminate in mass, nuclear destruction.
8
In a WSJ piece titled:
"Israel’s Choice: Conventional War Now, or Nuclear War Later"
NORMAN PODHORETZ
goes on saying"
"Unfortunately, however, I am unable to escape the conclusion that Mr. Obama is right when he dismisses as a nonstarter the kind of “better deal” his critics propose. Nor, given that the six other parties to the negotiations are eager to do business with Iran, could these stringent conditions be imposed if the U.S. were to walk away without a deal. The upshot is that if the objective remains preventing Iran from getting the bomb, the only way to do so is to bomb Iran.”. He then goes on defending an Israeli strike on Iran.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/israels-choice-conventional-war-now-or-nucle...
John Bolton on Fox "The unpleasant reality is the only way to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons is for somebody is ready to use military force. “
Rep. Louie Gohmert “I don’t think we ought to put Israel in a position of having to say both themselves and the United States, I think it’s time to bomb Iran anything that resembles a nuclear facility with centrifuges, it’s time to bomb Iran".
All that, and more while the so-called liberal paper of Judith Miller fame keeps the JCPOA discussions as far from reader view as possible, forget any editorial outrage.
"Israel’s Choice: Conventional War Now, or Nuclear War Later"
NORMAN PODHORETZ
goes on saying"
"Unfortunately, however, I am unable to escape the conclusion that Mr. Obama is right when he dismisses as a nonstarter the kind of “better deal” his critics propose. Nor, given that the six other parties to the negotiations are eager to do business with Iran, could these stringent conditions be imposed if the U.S. were to walk away without a deal. The upshot is that if the objective remains preventing Iran from getting the bomb, the only way to do so is to bomb Iran.”. He then goes on defending an Israeli strike on Iran.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/israels-choice-conventional-war-now-or-nucle...
John Bolton on Fox "The unpleasant reality is the only way to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons is for somebody is ready to use military force. “
Rep. Louie Gohmert “I don’t think we ought to put Israel in a position of having to say both themselves and the United States, I think it’s time to bomb Iran anything that resembles a nuclear facility with centrifuges, it’s time to bomb Iran".
All that, and more while the so-called liberal paper of Judith Miller fame keeps the JCPOA discussions as far from reader view as possible, forget any editorial outrage.
1
Iran has been less than two months from a massive nuclear arsenal since 1979. Thanks entirely to President Obama's nuclear deal, it is certain that Iran will be prevented from getting any nuclear weapons for the lifetimes of his grandchildren, a signature achievement, and a great legacy for his administration.
After Vietnam, Reagan tried to prove the US had recovered by waging war on the ferocious Grenada. When that wasn't enough, Bush, sr waged war on Panamá. Ben Sargent drew a cartoon of Uncle Sam in his trophy room with the heads of two mice on the wall. So Bush, sr painted Iraq as the world's greatest military power and defeated them in 100 hours.
Bush, jr suggested (without directly saying) that Iraq and Iran were responsible for 9/11, waged war on Iraq, and most assumed Iran was next. Con Coughlin of the London Telegraph said the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis and Iranians. The presence of irrefutable evidence that both nations were uninvolved still hasn't seeped into the minds of the hawks. Why do we need any proof or evidence when we have President Bush and Con Coughlin?
And why should the US return any of Iran's own money to Iran? We took it, and possession is 9 points of the law.
And if the Congress votes that sanctions must continue, the US can use its control of the international banking system to intercept any money from other nations and block all trade with Iran.
Iranian innocence can't stop the US!
After Vietnam, Reagan tried to prove the US had recovered by waging war on the ferocious Grenada. When that wasn't enough, Bush, sr waged war on Panamá. Ben Sargent drew a cartoon of Uncle Sam in his trophy room with the heads of two mice on the wall. So Bush, sr painted Iraq as the world's greatest military power and defeated them in 100 hours.
Bush, jr suggested (without directly saying) that Iraq and Iran were responsible for 9/11, waged war on Iraq, and most assumed Iran was next. Con Coughlin of the London Telegraph said the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis and Iranians. The presence of irrefutable evidence that both nations were uninvolved still hasn't seeped into the minds of the hawks. Why do we need any proof or evidence when we have President Bush and Con Coughlin?
And why should the US return any of Iran's own money to Iran? We took it, and possession is 9 points of the law.
And if the Congress votes that sanctions must continue, the US can use its control of the international banking system to intercept any money from other nations and block all trade with Iran.
Iranian innocence can't stop the US!
14
The only sane, logical reason Iran asked for restrictions on inspections is that they intend to cheat. Because of those restrictions and secret deals with the IAEA, Obama and Kerry abjectly failed to produce a mutually beneficial agreement. All Kerry brought home is a new set of rules for the cat and mouse game.
3
What about the total restrictions that Israel (and for that matter the US) have placed on inspections?
Actually, not. The sane logical reason for Iran's insistence on negotiated and binding rules for a restricted inspection regime is that they do not trust the US and its Middle East allies. And who can blame them in this regard given the history of relations among Iran, Israel, and the US? Do you think the United States would like its confidential protocol with the IAEA released to its enemies? And, of course, Israel won't let the IAEA within a whisker of its nuclear weapons facilities. ..... they won't even admit that these facilities and weapons exist.
3
the obama administration did 3 things good so far : healthcare, cuba and iran.
5
The points Kristoff makes are obvious. The naysayers are trying to score political points and get donor dollars. For the 52% who want no deal add the following qualifiers: alternative: war, a war tax (no more credit card wars), revival of the draft (no deferments/all face conscription) and more dead Americans. Israel is not our 51st state and is capable of defending herself or acting preemptively on her own without US support. Can we please take a short break from wars?
30
The chicken hawks crow
And their bank accounts grow
Say Iran, and they salivate
Nuke 'em, they pontificate
War, war and more war
As long as it's from afar...
And their bank accounts grow
Say Iran, and they salivate
Nuke 'em, they pontificate
War, war and more war
As long as it's from afar...
31
What struck me about how the Republican party has handled this Iran nuclear deal, is how similar it is to the build up to the Iraq war. There was the WMD scare and the sentiment that if we did not act Iraq was going to use those weapons. Negotiations were rejected as being merely a delaying tactic by Iraq to allow them time to use there weapons despite the fact that inspections were being carried out. Finally, George Bush began the war with Iraq because there was no alternative. Except for perhaps Jeb Bush, I wonder whether any of the Republican presidential candidates have a cogent foreign policy agenda that doesn't involve shoot first and ask questions later. It's really scary.
45
Jeb! ( remember that he does not like to use his last name as he is pathetically trying to distance himself)) does not have any plans, and remember who he is and where he comes from and who he answers to….hint: it's not the American people.
2
Eisenhower had to fight his own party when it came to funding foreign aid, and he, a moderate Republican and five star general, famously coined the phrase, "military industrial complex." Using fear, anxiety and pessimism for political advantage are baked into the GOP's DNA. Wilson could not overcome the knuckleheads' politicking against the "League of Nations," so that the same kinds of objections being mouthed today sound just as familiar as those bellicose characters of yesteryear. The American public, ever tuned in to Faux News, buys into these "serious objections." Now, the presidential hopefuls, being led by The Donald, are screaming that Obama doesn't know how to make a deal-- because, of course, international diplomacy is exactly the same as negotiating the purchase real estate or organizing state legislatures to destroy public sector unions.
17
Critics of the Iran deal deeply want to be seen as hard-headed realists but the fact is they really have no precedent for believing their preferred course of action would succeed. Economic sanctions simply don't bring countries to their knees - ever. The people of any country on Earth are too proud to capitulate to such tactics.
Perhaps these critics could consider a hypothetical: suppose a group of countries around the world banded together and threatened to cut off trade with the US, causing our economy to plummet, unless we reduced our military forces by half. Would they give in to the demand? If anything such demands and extortion would cause them to retrench, convincing them that the military is that much more important. This deal can work precisely because it is not too much for the Iranians' pride to bear.
The truth is that the US is getting the better end of this deal. We give up basically nothing and ensure a long cooling off period in which Iran can't realistically develop nuclear weapons without advanced notice. There is no possible deal that could prevent them from developing nukes forever. Even war probably wouldn't prevent that. The only realistic way to prevent it in the long run is to convince Iran not to want one by offering them something they want more - economic integration with the rest of the world.
Perhaps these critics could consider a hypothetical: suppose a group of countries around the world banded together and threatened to cut off trade with the US, causing our economy to plummet, unless we reduced our military forces by half. Would they give in to the demand? If anything such demands and extortion would cause them to retrench, convincing them that the military is that much more important. This deal can work precisely because it is not too much for the Iranians' pride to bear.
The truth is that the US is getting the better end of this deal. We give up basically nothing and ensure a long cooling off period in which Iran can't realistically develop nuclear weapons without advanced notice. There is no possible deal that could prevent them from developing nukes forever. Even war probably wouldn't prevent that. The only realistic way to prevent it in the long run is to convince Iran not to want one by offering them something they want more - economic integration with the rest of the world.
419
No. They want to destroy Israel much more than they want a better economy. There will never be a 2 state solution. War is inevitable.
3
Thank you for your well reasoned post. It heartens me!
2
Edward, i really, honestly think you have hit on the core truth: " No action in the Middle East ever succeeds (for long).
But. may i asks if two of your key points seem a bit contradictory?:
1) No possible deal could prevent Iran from developing nukes forever
2) The only realistic way to prevent Iran from developing nukes in the long run is to give them a deal with something else they want.
"Forever" seems pretty much like the "long run" to me.
If i were playing cards here i would ask for a new deck.
But. may i asks if two of your key points seem a bit contradictory?:
1) No possible deal could prevent Iran from developing nukes forever
2) The only realistic way to prevent Iran from developing nukes in the long run is to give them a deal with something else they want.
"Forever" seems pretty much like the "long run" to me.
If i were playing cards here i would ask for a new deck.
1
I think this is a very good thing. Talking to Iran will get us a lot further along the road to peace than isolating them. Sure the GOP is against this because the President is for it and Israel is against it. Do they have any idea except more sanctions, which is out of their very outdated play book.
19
When the opposition is without facts, or logic, and all about politics then trying to argue facts and logic is pretty much a waste of time.
People need to understand the only real alternative to stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is war, which, unfortunately is exactly what the opposition wants. Nothing would make the rightwing here and in Israel happier then to have America involved in a centuries long battle with the middle east because that is exactly the result of going to war in Iran.
People need to understand the only real alternative to stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is war, which, unfortunately is exactly what the opposition wants. Nothing would make the rightwing here and in Israel happier then to have America involved in a centuries long battle with the middle east because that is exactly the result of going to war in Iran.
13
The comparison to the good ol' days of the shah is particularly obtuse. If the shah had been even slightly worthwhile, there wouldn't have been a revolution.
American rightwingers just can't learn not to love fascists.
American rightwingers just can't learn not to love fascists.
16
Talk about the left leaning pot calling the right leaning kettle, black.
And what part of having a Supreme Leader for Life like the dogmatic theocrat Ayatollah Khamenei, isn't fascist?
And what part of having a Supreme Leader for Life like the dogmatic theocrat Ayatollah Khamenei, isn't fascist?
4
Norman Podhoretz let the cat out of the bag. The alternative to the
deal is war. The neocons and his ilk want war. They are so generous
with the lives of other people's children.
deal is war. The neocons and his ilk want war. They are so generous
with the lives of other people's children.
73
Thank you Nicolas Kristof. What seems to be lost in the translation is that in terms of destructive capabilities we are a big cat and Iran is a small mouse. Any attempt to destroy Israel will guarantee the full destruction of Iran. Everything else is politics as usual.
69
You forget that it would only take a few missiles with a short time from launch to impact to wipe Irael out. Who would respond? And, would it matter?
2
Mikejc,
The Iranians working on nuclear capabilities are not lunatics. If our own and Israeli intelligence cannot establish links to the Iranian nuclear community which is largely friendly to both Israeli and US culture and science we are in deep do do.
I would suggest that we would know at least 24 months months ahead of time that the crazies had gained control of Iran's nuclear program.
Iran's nuclear scientists and engineers are saner that at least half of our GOP Presidential candidates.
The Iranians working on nuclear capabilities are not lunatics. If our own and Israeli intelligence cannot establish links to the Iranian nuclear community which is largely friendly to both Israeli and US culture and science we are in deep do do.
I would suggest that we would know at least 24 months months ahead of time that the crazies had gained control of Iran's nuclear program.
Iran's nuclear scientists and engineers are saner that at least half of our GOP Presidential candidates.
3
"We have a glimpse of what might happen. In 2003, Iran seemingly offered a comprehensive “grand bargain” to resolve relations with the United States, but George W. Bush’s administration dismissed it. Since then, Iran has gone from a tiny number of centrifuges to 19,000, getting within two months of “breakout” to a nuclear weapon."
We've done this the Republican/AIPAC way already. It was a disaster.
What reason is there to think it would work any better now? None.
In fact, having already maxed out the sanctions help from our friends, if we turn our backs on what they agreed, we are done. We go on alone, as Kerry put it.
What would we get from our sanctions alone? Nothing. We hadn't traded with Iran since 1979. We've got nothing to sanction.
So it is this deal or war. We fight the war. Why? Because we refused this deal, when the rest of the world agreed.
Now what can we expect from the rest of the world when we fight a war we start like that? What can we expect they'll do to Israel? What help can we expect Iran to get?
At this point, even the war would be a loser. This deal is as good as it can get.
We've done this the Republican/AIPAC way already. It was a disaster.
What reason is there to think it would work any better now? None.
In fact, having already maxed out the sanctions help from our friends, if we turn our backs on what they agreed, we are done. We go on alone, as Kerry put it.
What would we get from our sanctions alone? Nothing. We hadn't traded with Iran since 1979. We've got nothing to sanction.
So it is this deal or war. We fight the war. Why? Because we refused this deal, when the rest of the world agreed.
Now what can we expect from the rest of the world when we fight a war we start like that? What can we expect they'll do to Israel? What help can we expect Iran to get?
At this point, even the war would be a loser. This deal is as good as it can get.
543
If I understand it correctly, the large majority of those 19,000 new centrifuges were installed during the Obama administration, not the Bush administration.
2
ArmsControl.org - In 2003, Iran offered to cooperate with France, Germany, and the UK to resolve international concerns, agreeing to suspend key parts of its enrichment program temporarily and make it more transparent to help build global confidence that Tehran was not developing nuclear weapons. In the United States, however, the George W. Bush administration adopted the view that Iran should not be allowed to operate even a single centrifuge. When diplomacy failed, Iran resumed its enrichment program and has built and installed large numbers of centrifuges—the first-generation IR-1 and the second-generation IR-2m—at its Natanz facility, developed designs and prototypes for more-powerful machines, and constructed a second, deeply buried enrichment plant at Fordow. The international community imposed sanctions on Iran to pressure it to suspend its nuclear program again and to bring it back to the negotiating table.
Iran didnt build those centrifuges over night. Only 10,000 are operational (GuardianUK online) and the ambitions Khamenei has outlined would require 200,000.
The point is that Obama has had little additional leverage beyond what has been applied. Even if "the large majority" of those centrifuges were installed during his administration HE HELPED GET THE ACCORD SIGNED to limit/destroy them. Who in the Republican camp has even helped make it happen, versus go back to the status quo ante? No accord, no further weapons development? Dream on.
Iran didnt build those centrifuges over night. Only 10,000 are operational (GuardianUK online) and the ambitions Khamenei has outlined would require 200,000.
The point is that Obama has had little additional leverage beyond what has been applied. Even if "the large majority" of those centrifuges were installed during his administration HE HELPED GET THE ACCORD SIGNED to limit/destroy them. Who in the Republican camp has even helped make it happen, versus go back to the status quo ante? No accord, no further weapons development? Dream on.
6
Does every single New York Times reader understand what Mark states here: "It is this deal or war."
You who do not understand this had best reflect on what this will mean for your family and your children. When you have finished reflecting state in clear and unambiguous language what you believe that war will mean for Israel and the entire Middle East.
The destruction that G.W. Bush's war led to, destruction that becomes ever worse, will be nothing compared with what your war on Iran will result in.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
You who do not understand this had best reflect on what this will mean for your family and your children. When you have finished reflecting state in clear and unambiguous language what you believe that war will mean for Israel and the entire Middle East.
The destruction that G.W. Bush's war led to, destruction that becomes ever worse, will be nothing compared with what your war on Iran will result in.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
3
With Kristov I fully agree
A peaceful solution is key!
Turn it down, we are prone
To stand all alone,
Headed for War, relentlessly.
The hawks are consistently wrong
And sing the same destructive song,
Cost us blood and treasure
In profligate measure,
Their memory's short, Death is long!
A peaceful solution is key!
Turn it down, we are prone
To stand all alone,
Headed for War, relentlessly.
The hawks are consistently wrong
And sing the same destructive song,
Cost us blood and treasure
In profligate measure,
Their memory's short, Death is long!
386
While I am glad you can rhyme
But you have forgotten over time
The loss of 6,000,000 of your brothers
Those that forget
Are doomed to regret
And your memory is worse than Obama's
J street And NYT Jews may support this bill
the paid mouthpiece of capital hill
But what happens if once again the world is wrong
But you have forgotten over time
The loss of 6,000,000 of your brothers
Those that forget
Are doomed to regret
And your memory is worse than Obama's
J street And NYT Jews may support this bill
the paid mouthpiece of capital hill
But what happens if once again the world is wrong
7
Whether Iran is a threat
Is an entirely tolerable bet
Made from a recliner in the NYC
But not so much in Tel Aviv
Objects appear smaller with distance.
If your neighbor is crazy
Or even suspiciously shady
You may phone the NYPD
Who will stop by and see
They, unlike Kerry, have unlimited inspections.
Is an entirely tolerable bet
Made from a recliner in the NYC
But not so much in Tel Aviv
Objects appear smaller with distance.
If your neighbor is crazy
Or even suspiciously shady
You may phone the NYPD
Who will stop by and see
They, unlike Kerry, have unlimited inspections.
6
Frankly, I ad to stop reading the piece when he said, "we did not get any time anywhere" inspections. This is semantics as the message was clear from the beginning the IAEA would negotiate a structure in the same context as what is in place for every deal of it's kind. Secondly, the 24 day uproar is about inspecting in sights not likely to be nefarious but secret.
Like most liberals, they immediately settle for the false equivalence debate. Worse, their motive is not to actually solve something but rather to show all of us their "reason". It's bunk and don't get into a foxhole with most of these commentators on these pages, save Krugman and especially Friedman.
Like most liberals, they immediately settle for the false equivalence debate. Worse, their motive is not to actually solve something but rather to show all of us their "reason". It's bunk and don't get into a foxhole with most of these commentators on these pages, save Krugman and especially Friedman.
We can fight any time. But sooner or later e will talk.
Now we have already talked. No need to do the war.
Just make peace with the new generation in Iran and in ten years it will be a very new world.