Many people make the mistake of comparing Iran to the untenable situation with N. Korea. As we've seen first hand, we and the West can negotiate with the Iranian government. While they do have a sector of die hard religious fanatics, there are moderating forces in the governmental structure that exerts some considerable control over their military and culture. This does not exist in N. Korea. They remain unencumbered by any other power within their military or culture. Thus the madman at the helm enjoys total control. So any comparison is false and only misleads the American public.
trump pulling out of the "agreement" with Iran merely isolates us and gives them greater influence in the region.
1
Don't scrap the deal. Amend it.
Start with insisting that inspections include military facilities which are now off-limits. You mean to tell me that nuclear testing and development cannot take place at nuclear facilities out of the sight of nuclear inspectors at military facilities? Logically, that would be the first place you'd wanted to inspect. This trickery all fits in with the Iranians practice of "takia" which is lying, stealth and deception endorsed by the Koran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya
Trump likes to sound off.
Let's see him regularly take to Twitter, the internet, radio and TV to address the Iranian people directly to implore them to overthrow their illegal, unelected, religious-fanatic, Twelver rulers who run around in their little costumes and 6th century headgear and replace the illegitimate so-called "islamic republic" with a duly constituted form of government which more closely fulfills the aspirations of the majority of the Iranian people.
1
While I agree completely that the JCPOA must be preserved; I disagree with several of Dr. Bernstein's statements.
Iran is not able to "produce its first nuclear weapon in use months." Iran has not produced any HEU, which is defined by the IAEA as uranium enriched to 20% or above. Yes, Iran has produced a sizable quantity of almost 20% uranium, most of which has been moved to Russia, as the JCPOA required. By the way, the critical mass of 20% enriched U is more than 400 kg; such material could never be used to make a practical nuke.
This may be a misprint; however, a cascade of 164 centrifuges would take an eternity to enrich 20% U to over 90% U as is required to fabricate a practical implosion weapon.
It is verified in unclassified literature that Iran did experiment with normal or depleted uranium and explosive lens to test implosion before 2003, when they discontinued all weapons research. In 2007, all 16 Intelligence Agencies certified that Iran had discontinued weapons research as stated.
The ARAK reactor is almost identical to Israel's plutonium (Pu) production reactor at Dimona; it could have produced weapons-grade Pu. Over 90% of all nuclear weapons produced worldwide use Pu, rather than HEU. The Pu production is simpler, cheaper, and gives more bang the buck.
I think Dr. Bernstein knows Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons of all types and can deliver them anywhere in the world, including the USA.
The stopping of the proliferation of nuclear weapons is the most important task facing our world. We need to lead in this effort. Our meddling,subversion of elections,installing the Shah,and supporting Saddam Hussein's war against Iran have led Iran to distrust us. This treaty is a start at limiting Iran's building of nuclear weapons. It is very easy to start a war,and very difficult to end it The cost of war is like all tuition in the college of hard and knocks; it only continues to accelerate
The strategy here is to moan and groan about how bad the deal is so that more advantageous terms can be negotiated. Sort of like they do in the real estate industry.
Are we aware that, while the agreement requires that Iran submit to inspections, military installations are exempt from being inspected. You mean to tell me that nuclear activity cannot possibly be taking place at Iranian military bases?
Now here is an example of a term that needs some additional negotiating.
Re-read this paragraph:
'If indeed, as seems likely, Iran already has the design for a nuclear weapon...'
That's the key. The deal is based primarily on this premise.
Is the gun assembly too large to fit into a warhead of a missile? We know it works (Hiroshima). Why was that implosion design so critical if not?
"This provision (of the Joint Agreement) is enforceable, but Iran will not allow I.A.E.A. inspection of the sensitive military complexes where such systems might be developed..." So how is this provision enforceable?
1
There is a mechanism for that designed in the JCPOA. If a country suspect something is wrong, it will bring up the evidence and the IAEA will request a visit from that military site. So that's not an issue, and in fact there is a clear mechanism to address that.
What I never seem to hear from the Trump administration is their plan for what comes after cutting off negotiations or ripping up agreements. His childlike claims to have a "secret plan" or his transparent bluffs designed to play it close to the vest and keep them guessing are simple dodges to avoid conceding he has no plan or coherent strategy.
I'm not sure is even interested in having one. The only measure that matters to him on any subject is whether or not he feels the public perceives him as strong and successful. He loves to see himself on TV, swaggering about the international stage, talking big and hurling threats and insults. He thinks it makes him look powerful. When his posturing either fails to produce results or fails and we end up with a country like North Korea testing an H-Bomb, he blames " the failed policies of other administrations."
If he indeed backs out of the agreement of Iran it will have little to do with nuclear weapons and everything to do with his ego and need for attention.
3
Walking away from the deal is also perhaps the best confirmation of Iranian State TV narrative that the US government could not be trusted. It took more than 35 years after 1979 revolution for the two countries and nations to "somewhat" trust each other with a handshake.
4
Trump should have read "Physics for Future Presidents" by Richard Muller. If he had read it, like I am sure Obama certainly had, he wouldn't be quoted recently saying the following:
“You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things. But nobody talks about that.”
Words fail me to characterize his woeful ignorance.
2
It is time to reflect on the now not so exclusive club of Nuclear armed countries and the members of the UN Security Council. The UN Security Council has failed miserably in its promise to the UN General Assembly that they would dismantle all their atomic heads. There was some movement in that direction with the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I and SALT II) between America and the USSR. Can the UN be faulted for its treatment of India and Pakistan and Israel on the one hand and North Korea and Iran on the other. No doubt Israel should be brought under The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its reactors bought under the IAEA auspices too. Then perhaps we can regain the moral high ground once again in this and other debates.
TRUMP'S M/O is how things impact him personally. If he didn't make a deal, then the deal is worth nothing. Never mind that he has had a very high rate of business failures during his career, that hardly give anyone any confidence in his claims that he's a great "deal maker." A petty tyrannical narcissist with dementia is what he really is! Every time I think of how Trump was rolled by Schumer I smile. And there's lots more where that came from. The GOPpers are so involved in their civil war that they haven't even figured out how to roll Trump. That's probably the strongest indicator of the incompetence of the GOPpers. Beware! As the Confederate monuments are decommissioned and destroyed, imagine what it will be like when the bulwark of the GOPpers is shattered.
1
Why would Iran want to scrap the deal?
The pertinent information about the plane that Pakistan used to take vital material for the North Korea's nuclear programs should have emphasized the fact that it was a new plane that the US military gave Pakistan, and Pakistan used it in that mission as its maiden flight! It is apparent from the way Pakistani establishment is behaving against the Trump warning now, that that country has lots of leverage against the US. Brezhinsky is dead, but his legacy of supporting an Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan through Pakistan to do the Soviet Union in in Afghanistan is still alive and kicking!
The world is complicated.
“Iran’s sympathetic response to the American tragedy has been exceptional for a country under US economic siege for two decades. Only hours after the Sept. 11 attack, President Muhammad Khatami condemned it, as did Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Other officials have sent sympathetic messages, including one from the mayor of Tehran to the mayor of New York – the first public official contact between Iran and the US since the 1979 Iranian revolution. […]"
"More important, 60,000 spectators observed a minute of silence during a soccer match in Iran’s Azadi Stadium, and hundreds of young Iranians held a candle-lit vigil in Tehran.”
http://bit.ly/2cPHwTa
also in the NYTimes.
1
"Shouldn’t the dire situation in North Korea be enough of a headache already that we do not want to deal with another nuclear armed country?"
No, the dire situation in North Korea is enough to chasten us for permitting it to get to this point.
Do we really need to repeat the North Korean mistake in Iran?
Scrap the deal, or tighten it, keeping all options on the table.
No more Sudentenlands.
3
The lesson learned is that when a country gives up it's nukes, the US will invade. Look at Libya. They gave up their nukes and was destroyed. Same with Iraq. No nukes, so we invaded.
If I were Iran, is develop a time as fast as I can, because the US will destroy any country that it doesn't like that cannot defend itself.
2
Neither North Korea nor Iran has been an existential threat to the American homeland or to any vital American national security interests. But America has been and is such a threat to both nations. America is only one party to this multilateral deal and thus has no unilateral power to either scrap or tighten the deal.
The last time that American troops rolled up to the Yalu River boundary between China and North Korea Chairman Mao Zedong was unable to restrain a million Chinese "volunteers" who rose up to repel them. The Chinese are no less patriotic today.
The mistake was maintaining American troops and arms in South Korea and Japan while engaged in covert and overt regime change against North Korea.
While America encouraged or ignored nuclear weapons in Israel, India and Pakistan, when Saddam Hussein and Moammar Qaddafi gave up their nukes they both ended up dead. Russia and America have 96% of the world's nukes equally divided between them.
The option that I favor is Don, Jr and Eric and Ivanka Trump and their spouses and you and yours in an American military uniform on the frontline at the 38th parallel armistice line or on the Yalu River.
What part of the Korean peninsula is the "Sudentenlands" located in?
2
It is this kind of foolish rigidity that got us into Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq - none of which turned out well for us. The Sudetenland crisis is nothing like North Korea and Iraq. Czechoslovakia was a manufactured country carved up out of the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after WWI, filled with populations from several other existing countries. Iraq and Korea are nations with long histories and cohesive populations, as are Vietnam and Afghanistan. The Sudetenland was ceded to Hitler's Germany because the new country of Czechoslovakia was completely dependent on its allies for protection, and those allies were weary and spent from the previous war and subsequent economic depression. We need to realize that Iraq and North Korea expect and deserve to be treated as sovereign nations. Scrapping the Iraq nuclear deal to show how "tough" the US is will result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons and even fewer options for America's military. A much better historical analogy is the development of nuclear weapons in Pakistan, especially since it seems clear that Iraq's nuclear technology was obtained from Pakistani nationals. "Mutually Assured Destruction" means that if negotiation fails we all fail. It is the most stupid of strategies but it is the one we are stuck with. The current Iraq deal is the best we are going to get. Time to start building on that beginning and keep negotiating .
1
Saudi Arabia, whom Iran fears and despises even more than the US, was the source of the billions of dollars that funded the successful Pakistani nuclear program. Therefore, the Saudis have as much access to Pak nuclear weapons as they would ever find 'necessary.'
Thus, Iranian decision makers a very strong motivation for acquiring its own nukes. Why haven't they to date? Partly because they were tired of being sanctioned, but also because Ayatollah Khomeini disdained massively destructive human technology, which he considered an affront to God.
Now they've been again been sanctioned by the US, which in Trump has produced an unreliable partner for new 'negotiations' over the Iranian nuclear program.
As for Khomeini's disdain, that has less restraining power over Ayatollah Khamenei as Saudi opposition to Tehran becomes ever more ferocious (see Yemen), and as Iranians feel an ever more desperate need to deter possible destruction by Saudi nukes with nuclear weaponry of their own.
Add to this the fact that Iran has never experienced the economic relief from the lifting of sanctions that they understood would be forthcoming from the West after signing the Joint Agreement.
Given this array of facts, it's obvious that a strong faction in Tehran would actually welcome Trump's destruction of a treaty that's never brought them the expected benefits.
Does that mean that nuclear war in the Persian Gulf is becoming more likely? Well, it doesn't appear to be growing less likely.
3
We experienced eight years painful war against Saddam and his supporters. even now we can see the chemical bombs effects that Saddam used against us. no one in Iran wants experience it again. In Iran, everyone is looking for peace and friendship, not atomic bomb and war.
I hope that Mr. Trump does not stop the deal that has been achieved with difficulty and abnegation of both parties.
and Condolences to last night Las Vegas shooting victims.
5
Seems to me the writer is not being fully truthful. There is in fact testing for uranium traces (and perhaps other traces as well) on Iran's military sites by the IAEA, I believe. I am certainly not an expert but I have read about this testing.
But I am more taken aback by most of the comments posted here. Reminds me of the erroneous WMD and anthrax/chemical weapons claims we heard against Iraq in the lead up to the war by the Neocons. Amazing that the American people may fall for it again.
1
It says something that the idea that Israel should open the doors of its nuclear plants to UN weapons inspectors ... wait... I hear the laughs coming from the halls of Congress already. Or is that coming from across the ocean?
1
I sdo not believe a word in this article. Pakistan, and specifically Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, is a SAINT. He saved 200 million people from Hindi domination. The WORLD should recognise him as a SAVIOUR.
Every country WOULD AGREE to give up nuclear weapons when AMERICA gives up Nuclear BLACKMAIL. Until that moment, EVERY COUNTRY has a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS and APPROPRIATE DELIVERY SYSTEMS. Since America is the sole killer of human-beings through Nuclear attacks, other nations develop nuclear weapons as a bottom-line security imperative.
Since Muslims are under attack by the American President, every Muslim country should have Nuclear capability.
Jamil,
Your comment illustrates the greatness of America, whereelse in the world would you have the right to publicly demean your country. Certainly not in a Muslim country, where even the criticism of Mohamed who be enough to skin you alive, or behead you.
1
I am not demeaning the country, I am bringing out its hypocrisy. My purpose is to wean America away from two-faced-ness. I am a deeply patriotic American, who honours America values of truth, honesty and fair play, etc.
Stop bringing religion into the arguments. Why do you want to fulminate against the Prophet, or my God, when I am discussing human failings, within our nation. This is exactly what ANNIHILATION MAN (Trump) does.
1
Dubya tried the confrontational "stick" approach w/ North Korea & they responded by ramping up their program. We need to learn from this before its too late.
1
FDR used the confrontational stick w/Germany and Japan.
Japan struck first afterwards.
Yes, and a good thing they did and waked us up from our radical isolationist posture. FDR had to promise, in a speech, "I hate war, Eleanor hates war, I will not send any of our boys overseas" in 1939-40 to be re-elected. We were not going to get involved again in "Europe's troubles". Remember Neville Chamberlain: "Peace in our time" as he gave away the Sudetenland? How did that work out? Just 60 million or so dead in WW II.
Imagine that we had not entered the war when we did and Hitler had developed the atomic bomb. He was closer than you would believe. Some patriotic Norwegians sabotaged the transfer of a heavy water reactor from Norway that was destined for Germany, a major setback to his program.
We cannot trust dictators or any stripe, secular or religious, to adhere to agreements about nuclear weapons. They will cheat, lie and obfuscate and continue to develop them. Clinton made a huge mistake in 1976? when he made the agreement with N. Korea while their weapons program was very weak. Israel did not make that mistake with Saddam in Iraq. They wiped out the Osiris reactor site, which stopped that development cold. We should have done the same. Now, inaction may eventually result in millions more deaths. Watch and learn, please.
Yeah, let's continue to negotiate, to talk. That's been a winner for the United States over the years.
1
Might have been if we hadn't violated so many treaties ourselves.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/579fc2ad725e253a86230610/t/57ec7e...
According to statements from Iran's Foreign Minister, Mr. Zarif, last week, Iran had agreed to "pause" its program for 10 years (today they have only eight years to go!). Meanwhile, the Islamic regime has outsourced its nuclear and ICBM missile development program to North Korea. The sudden flurry of N. Korean activities is no coincidence, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards have diverted some of the $100 billion funds released by the nuclear agreement to the North Koreans to continue their nefarious weapon's program unmolested. IRGC's generals and engineers have recently been seen visiting N. Korea. The regime's nuclear weapon's development work goes on without any interruption.
Thanks for this. Few people understand how nuclear proliferation takes place, and what organizations and institutions are in place to limit or stop it. Every treaty is enforced, to extent possible, by a International consortium of nuclear scientists and specialists in seismology, atmospheric transport (fallout analysis).
Again, these are international bodies, the scope of which you can see in the Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO). Their web site is https://www.ctbto.org/.
While Mr. trump may feel it's his unilateral decision, the the reality is that it is not. It would be a very large affront to all nations of the world actively working to restrain nuclear proliferation.
1
This is a truly thoughtful -- and therefore rare -- piece on the subject. But the author seems to dodge the central problem.
One gets the impression that everyone, including"experts," has given up on recognizing that this will lead to significant proliferation. There is no North Korean Gorbachev any more than there is an Iranian one.
It is remarkably difficult to imagine this proliferation among crude societies will end well. So for those of us who think that war now is better than war later with nuclear equipped foes, the hard, awful choices are clear. Now.
Presidents from Clinton through Obama lived under the fantasy of these theories. Had we bombed Iran and N. Korea years ago, we wouldn't have this problem. Do you think that bullies -- especially theological ones -- respect "containment"?
Either we battle at great cost to avoid a pre-nuclear war, or we face a nuclear war. These are horrible choices, but they are choices resulting from hoping away a problem.
How about is we withdraw no one can ever accept our signature on a treaty as binding again because the next clown we elect, and we certainly have proven we can elect one, can just tear it up if he feels like it?
9
Except it wasn't a treaty (which would require Congressional approval). It was an executive order. Obama new that the deal was so flawed, it would not get Congressional approval, so he didn't call it a treaty. And neither should we.
1
Guess what? The designs for a nuclear bomb are available throughout the world. A determined person with access to materials could build one in a suburban basement.
The real factor is the will of the builder. There is no evidence anywhere that Iran had, has or will have a nuclear weapons program. Iran is permitted under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which the United States is a signatory along with nearly every nation on earth (but not Israel, Pakistan, India or North Korea) to enrich uranium and to pursue other peaceful uses of nuclear technology. 19 other non-nuclear-weapons nations enrich uranium and even sell the enriched product. These nations are not under any sanctions--only Iran! The Bush administration promulgated the false idea that Iran was engaged in a nuclear weapons program as a pretext for fomenting "regime change" in Iran--an idea that has once again resurfaced among neo-conservative dead-enders in the the Trump administration.
Thus the faux-apoplexy on the part of Trump about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA--the "Iran Deal") is not based on any reality or fact other than raw prejudice against Iran. Iran accepted limitations on uranium enrichment as the price of lifting economic sanctions imposed over the years, but primarily by the Bush administration. They have strictly adhered to all the provisions.
If Trump breaks the JCPOA--as seems likely on October 15. Iran will resume uranium enrichment as is their right.
11
Don't scrap the deal. Amend it.
Start with insisting that inspections include military facilities which are now off-limits. You mean to tell me that nuclear testing and development cannot take place at nuclear facilities out of the sight of nuclear inspectors at military facilities? That would be the first place you wanted to inspect. This trickery all fits in with the Iranians practice of "takia" which is lying, stealth and deception endorsed by the Koran.
Trump likes to sound off.
Let's see him regularly take to Twitter, the internet, radio and TV to address the Iranian people directly to implore them to overthrow their illegal, unelected, religious-fanatic, Twelver rulers who run around in their little costumes and 6th century headgear and replace the illegitimate so-called "islamic republic" with a duly constituted form of government which more closely fulfills the aspirations of the majority of the Iranian people.
2
You appear to be completely ignorant of history and reality. Please find out something about Iran before you insult Iranians and their current leader, who is a vast improvement over Ahmadinejad and an intelligent man and negotiator. Your caricature shows not the limitations of the people you attack but your own.
9
By the way:
Iran is *not* ISIS. Once upon a time, it was Persia. It is a sophisticated and large nation with a history of civilization that rivals any nation on earth.
8
One who reads the NYT recalls that when the Soviet Socialist Republic fell in 1991 Russian scientists emigrated to Iran where they taught Iranian physicists how to build uranium enrichment facilities which allowed them to make bombs. I used to enjoy traveling from Tehran to Natanz, an historic city south of Tehran, but during my last visit in 1991 the bus was not allowed to stop in one of their excellent restaurants for Chelo Kibab. because Natanz is out of bounds, even for Iranians.
1
It's hard to imagine Trump will support the Iran deal. Because it works.
4
That's irrelevant for him. Obama signed it, therefore he must trash it and prance around the ruins like a conquering hero.
The richest supporter of terrorism, aided by one Barack Obama, should be convinced the the biggest liars and miscreants unimpeded by Clinton, Bush and legitimized by the aforementioned should be further allowed stature on the world stage.
"...the Iranians have suggested that they will consider the provisions no longer binding."
I always thought, nobody is this stupid and still do, but somebody is this venal. Can you guess who?
1
Funny how you think other people are just like you. Trump has brought out the worst in his followers, ignorance and violence and rage. Tragic, since what is at risk is the lives of hundreds of millions in the path of nuclear armageddon. Luckily, many Iranians aspire to a higher level of civilization than our otherblaming haters.
We are better than this. If you call yourself Christian, please go back and read the Gospels.
6
Valid points to keep the Iran nuclear deal intact. Let's hope that the forces of reason (always based on facts) prevail, and negate the irrational behavior, and stupidity, of our deeply unscrupulous and irresponsible bully in chief. By now, given all the embarrassments caused by Trump's iniquities, we ought to be on high alert to disallow any dumb move by him in trying to break out of the agreement to contain a 'ready-to-go Iran if our surveillance is removed. Insofar Pakistan is concerned, let this be a lesson what a devious and secretive group can do, by selling nuclear 'know how' to other rogue countries, once international controls are sold short of effective deterrence. Can you imagine if nuclear arms fall in the hands of violent religious fanatics 'a la ISIS'? All hell would break loose; and to add insult to injury, aided by the stupid intervention of a malicious charlatan in the White House.
2
"Scrapping" the Iran Deal? Then what? We will needlessly place ourselves (and Israel) on a war footing with Iran, back to where we were in the years leading up to the Iran Deal signature in 2015. So, are we then going to end up bombing, and invading/occupying, Iran?
Alternatively, we keep the Deal in place for the (now) eight more years of its term, and certainly extend the Deal thereafter into perpetuity, precisely to avoid war. Is that not what we all want?
7
After how many failed agreements with NK, there is actually a living person who thinks iran is abiding by this deal? Really?
Who actually thinks that iran is not developing and enriching weapons at a site they've declared as a military one - exactly the premise of Trump's and everyone else's problems with this fake agreement - where IAEA inspectors cannot go?
Given the author admits but does not address how to overcome that fundamental failing, that human garbage like benny rhodes needed to lie repeatedly to the American public utilising pliable media outlets like this dreadful "publication" to "sell" the agreement, and that obama had to pay off the iranians and hide the fact he did so - why would ANYONE support this lunatic deal?
An agreement with such a rogue, diseased regime that has no compunction about slaughtering its own people (like in 2009) or in hundreds of thousands in syria to keep their puppet in power is utterly worthless.
After the disaster of NK, what makes anyone with any intelligence whatsoever believe that these cancerous rogue states will honor such agreements?
It is well known that the iranians are working closely with the N koreans to develop ballistic missil launch capablity, and can buy all the uranium they want from them, so who cares what constraints the iranians have on enrichment in their own country?
It is LONG past time to militarily strike and destroy the terrorist iranian regime, as well as the NK one.
1
Ah, you're for nuclear holocaust and hundreds of millions dead in Europe and the Middle East.
You appoint yourself an expert who dismisses the wisdom and expertise of inspectors who have verified Iran's compliance?
No thanks! I want to live.
6
A military strike will hand over power to the factions in Iran who are determined to defend Iran's national honor by building some nukes, and to prevent this we would have to militarily invade and occupy. Iraq was divided into feuding groups and sects, and we could befriend one and rely on it to oppress the others. Iran is much less divided in this way, so we would have trouble finding one group willing and able to do the dirty work of occupation for us. We would have to do most of it ourselves, and we know how well that works from our Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Vietnam experience.
1
With or without the deal, Iran has nuclear capability thanks to Obama. The deal was reminiscent of Chamberlain's deal with Hitler. There is zero reason to keep the deal.
3
If we do not end it now, in just eight years they will be free to do as they wish. By then, they will be much richer and considerably more influential worldwide and hence way more difficult to deal with.
Isn't the most important question why Iran invested reportedly more than $10 billion to develop nuclear weapons ? Was it just for "show" ? At best the "Deal" delays launch capabilities. But doesn't address the key question. Namely is the world comfortable with Iran possessing deliverable nuclear weapons when it has repeatedly boasted it will annihilate Israel ? And presumably others ? What will world leaders do when Iran launches nuclear weapons ? Go "tut-tut we should have done better" ? Does anyone believe Iran is not fully committed to securing nuclear weapons ? Is delaying that goal a real 'victory" ?
In other words, the Iranians are already cheating in their "sensitive military complexes", developing everything needed for the bomb, likely including an unmonitored centrifuge program producing highly enriched uranium.
How, exactly, does the "Agreement" constrain this? How would abrogating it, and putting real pressure on Iran (mining their harbors, for example), make things worse?
Before anyone says that mining their harbors is an act of war, remember that bombing the U. S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines, by Iranian proxy Hezbollah, was also an act of war. We didn't respond then, and that was how we got the the present state.
So, the risk of scrapping a landmark deal limiting nuclear work is that we will no longer have limits on said nuclear work? Astounding...
To me, the misperceptions on this deal is one of the most toxic things the highly partisan political environment in the US has produced to date. This is a landmark nuclear deal, like SALT I/II and START. When a country has the capability to acquire nuclear arms, getting them to not do so is extraordinarily rare. THAT is an enormous accomplishment, and honestly a huge concession by Iran. They made numerous other substantial concessions, but because a flip flopper and a black 'muslim' man were the deal's biggest proponents, Republicans made sure it never had a chance to be evaluated based on its merits. I don't know how you can be more short-sighted than that.
1
The "deal" seems apparently quite good as far as it goes, the question is did it go far enough? Are there a number of seriously apparent holes? For example, inspections exclude key areas- many of which seem the most likely place to inspect, such as Iran military areas. I don't blame Iran for the restrictions. Seems like the security restrictions in Oak Ridge or Los Alamos in the 1940's. Maybe that is the best deal Obama could have gotten. Then again, maybe that's the problem.
1
The only thing this deal accomplished was returning Iranian assets in cash loaded onto pallets. Without inspections you have nothing. A bad agreement is worse than no agreement. If you like this agreement you must feel comfortable with a nuclear Iran. The last administration gave away the store so the meaningful effect of sanctions was lost.
2
A better reason to stop pestering them is that they are holding their end of the agreement.
11
Iran never overthrew a democratic American government nor installed a royal tyrant to rule America nor shot down a civilian American plane nor invaded and occupied American neighbors Canada and Mexico after declaring America part of an axis of evil nor did Iran engage in cyber, drone and murder war against America nor encourage Saddam Hussein to invade and occupy America using chemical weapons nor did Iran ever use an atomic bomb.
2
Another reason: we may wish to sign another such deal in the future--with, say, North Korea. The US will have zero credibility, not just with future nuclear weapon states, but with other countries that went along with the Iran nuclear deal if we renege. We're committing ourselves to either attacking future weapons states or permanently dealing with their having weapons. It's game over for future nuclear diplomacy.
7
Remarkably, the author and many commenters refer to the Iran deal as a "treaty" now.
Back when Obama sidelined Congress in order to cram the deal through, I'm sure these same people called it anything but a "treaty", which of course would have required affirmative Congressional approval.
Instead, it was essentially an executive order, and is as reversible as an executive order.
But here we are: now that the deal is subject to review, its supporters want to call it a treaty.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
5
The "treaty" is a multi-state agreement and presidents are empowered to represent us in these negotiations. This one was years in the making, and did a lot of good. The people of Iran wanted to join the world, and the militants wanted us to continue excluding them so they could up-arm. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, you appear to want a nuclear armed Iran. So stupid to let your hatred of Obama overcome your common sense.
16
It is an agreement among 6 countries, not an executive order nor a treaty.
2
Ignorance is not a defense, especially when avoidable.
A good reason to keep the agreement in place is the
history of failure to prevent countries from acquiring the
bomb. Nations ranging from China to India/Pakistan
and N korea got one despite our opposition. Iran will
get one if Trump scraps the deal and IEA is kicked out.
If Europe doesn't follow US, congress as usually will
pass legislation to punish any company doing business
with Iran. This would anger Europeans and likely to
spur them to take counter measure. This action could cause
split with Europe.
2
The greatest issue is that if the treaty is abandoned in spite of Iran's adherence to it, the U.S. Government's word, which is becoming less valuable globally by the day, will be seen as worthless. But then, Trump would rather bluster, bloviate, and bomb into oblivion than try tact and diplomacy.
13
If we had an agreement with North Korea as good as the one with Iran, and if North Korea were adhering to it like Iran, the whole world would be celebrating or at least breathing a huge sigh of relief. Why is anyone even thinking about scraping the Iran Nuclear Accord?
12
LOL, you think the iranians are actually adhering to this lunatic agreement? Are you serious?
To Bob Jones from the moon. Yes, I do think that Iran is abiding by the Nuclear Accord. The inspections by I.A.E.A. are thorough except, according to the author, for sensitive military complexes where detonation systems might be developed. Iran has given up its plutonium reactor. As this article points out, Iran probably could make some nuclear weapons very quickly if they wanted to, but they are not doing so. Yes, Iran is internationally disruptive in other ways. My point is that we and the whole world would be happy to have a similarly successful nuclear agreement with North Korea. Again, why scrap the one with Iran?
This is a good article on the technical aspects, even if it is being met with the usual farrago of far-right loopiness, invented facts, and plain old hallucination.
Folks, that something might have happened doesn't mean it did.
7
If they can assemble a bomb in mere months, then the existing deal has achieved nothing.
6
No, it means those months won't happen for at least ten years. That gives time to remake our relationship. Some don't want that, they just want a war.
9
Try and use your brain. They gave up a lot of fissile material; this has been supervised and confirmed by outside authorities. The hot heads in Iran would love us to scrap the agreement, so they could join North Korea in holding the world (and particularly Israel) hostage to nuclear armageddon.
7
But they haven't. And they gave up an enormous amount of nuclear fuel.
2
Unfortunately all this writing falls deaf on the likes of Trump and his base. They don't understand what is at stake. They want to undo anything that Obama did even if it is not in their interest. They hate Obana more than they love their country. It's a curious phenomenon that anti Obama is the agenda.
3
Trump wants war so he can act out his fantasies plain and simple. Having two countries to attack would be all the better. Nuclear Winter anyone?
4
Four very big reasons not to scrap the Iranian nuclear deal are nuclear weapons in Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.
7
Truly the worst deal in American history. Full stop.
5
I get sick of hearing those words from the party where the only response to North Korea is the POTUS threatening WWIII.
2
There are seven other cosignors to the Iran Nuclear Agreement. If the US has to pull out of this Agreement now, it is better for the other parties too to do the same, which will not happen. If a new agreement has to be drawn, the other parties to the original Agreement should agree as well.
With the current situation posed by North Korea, the US needs the understanding of all other major powers, to address Iran and other areas, requiring diplomatic support. This is not a time for the US to act alone.
3
As if the North Korean nuclear crisis was not enough to terrorise the world Trump is actively trying to push Iran too toward the point when it's left with no option but to return to the abandoned nuclear path if for no reason than to secure itself against the unprovoked punitive actions threatened by Trump. It would be a double nuclear whammy to threaten the world peace and stability.
7
The deal should be cancelled, because it threatens all countries, Even the most senior Iranian, Mr. Salehi, says that they fooled the Americans by merely blocking the pipes to the reactor with cement, which can readily be reversed by switching the pipes. Salehi says it will only take 100 hours to enrich sufficient uranium for a bomb.
7
100 hours? So there would be nothing to stop them at all. Unless you are planning another crazy invasion - the deal is the best we can do.
2
It should be clear by now that Trump wants more than anything to get the US in a nuclear war. If he cant start one with N Korea than by voiding the Iran agreement he will eventually be able to start one with Iran.
5
Of course. North Korea has nuclear capability, Trump the cowherd, would probably avoid tangling with North Korea. Like all bullies Trump wants to chose a defenseless victim: Iran would fit that profile.
Mr.Bernstein,
I can’t understand why you and other supporters of the Iranian Nuclear deal choose to completely overlook the Iranian Nuclear fuel, that is necessary for Iran to build the bomb, was sent to the Russians for safe keeping, which is like the Fox watching the the Hen House., & for all we know never left Iran & is still in the hands of Iran, being hidden while they received the frozen Iranian money & the sanctions were lifted.The two allies Iran & Russia pulled the wool over Obama eyes, & the rest of the world,& apparently over Mr Bernstiens eyes as well.
6
Yes, we should scrap pact with Iran so that we will have two North Koreas to deal with.
5
Unfortunately, our President seems to enjoy making the world as frightening as possible, to his political advantage. His fans love it when he talks tough and pushes other countries into alarm mode. He and his base sometimes appear to want war just so the USA can win (see Rep. Duncan Hunter's recent remarks). When Trump rips up "bad deals", insists that no one tells us what to do, and threatens other humans with annihilation, his supporters puff up and cheer.
3
I would have thought that the biggest reason not to scratch the deal would be the fact that there is no upside to walking away at all. None. We have no leverage here. As you mentioned, the strength and safety were in the numbers. 7 other countries were cosigners, many more participated in the sanctions that brought Iran to the bargaining table. To rip up the agreement will only effect us. No one else wants to play nuclear chicken after they have already won. The president is acting like some deranged Yul Brenner who wants to continue fighting after the Magnificent Seven had already vanquished the enemy and gone home.
48
So you're saying that Obama already traded away all of our leverage? By sending billions of dollars in cash to his friends in Iran.
3
But the Israel AIPAC, AJC, ADL American lobby along with likes of Benjamin Netanyahu Chuck Schumer, Benjamin Cardin and Jared Kushner sees plenty of upside from America pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.
2
Trump is what Russians, probably Putin himself, call a "durak,"an idiot. If he scraps the Iran deal none of the other signatories, Russia among them, will follow suit, making U.S. sanctions unilateral and therefore useless. Other countries will continue to trade with Iran and buy Iranian oil and gas, and Iran will continue with its missile program while adhering to the nuclear treaty for the time limit specified. In other words, Trump will have accomplished nothing more than further eroding U.S. influence and leadership in the world.
18
Well this article smells suspiciously like all the arguments that were used before North Korea started popping off a-bombs.
Does anyone remember the oil, food, equipement we gave to North Korea as appeasement. Well now, that didn't work too well now did it ?
So now this article wants to do the same thing with Iran. DUH !!!! Perhaps not the gifts that we gave NK but time, time is a gift for the Mullahs.
How about turning the Israeli's loose on that Arak reactor, or some of their other sensitive armories . Seal some of those tunnels housing the missles they have been showing the world. What the heck is the use of sophisticated weapons if they are not used for self protection.
6
Not really. North Korea's response in 1993 to IAEA inspectors discovering discrepancies in its declaration made under its Safeguards Agreement was to limit cooperation with the IAEA and withdraw its membership, though inspectors were allowed to remain. That ended in 2002 when inspectors were invited to depart. Between 2007 and 2009 there was a brief renaissance in North Korea's cooperation with the IAEA, but that has been on ice since April 2009.
Iran, on the other hand, has subjected itself to IAEA monitoring and verification above and beyond anything required by the NPT, which is leaps and bounds beyond anything North Korea ever allowed.
11
Saudis and Mr Netanyahu found a fool in Trump, they are using his narcissistic obsession with destroying Obama's achievements. No logical explanation will help.
20
The agreement only gives us ten years to bring Iran among the reasonable countries, maybe with a spark of democracy. Our diplomacy should be actively working at that and involve our middle east allies, primarily the Saudis and the Iraqis. I doubt this has even been a consideration in the mind of our current administration.
12
1) Saudi Arabia is no ally...
2) ousting Saddam and letting Shiites take over the country sent Iraq into Iran's embrace. Do you have any idea why Iran and Iraq fought a years long war when Saddam was in power?
2
The US can cancel the deal but the Europeans will not. They will continue to trade with Iran and subvert any sanctions. We do not have any real influence here. We are still a superpower, but one that is rapidly declining in influence.
7
The Trump plan for stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons is at least as well thought out as the one for replacing Obamacare. The difference is that the American public (and Congress) has no interest in what happens in the middle east. When the most rabid partisans gin up Trump's machismo, it is unlikely that the sensible national security team will be able to prevent him going off the rails on this issue at some point. When Trump refuses to certify compliance we will be left with the insight and steady hand of Congress to prevent a dangerous escalation. Welcome to the next middle east war.
12
Scrapping the Iran deal will also signal to North Korea that no deal with the US can be trusted. Furthermore, Kim will use it as justification to the world for continuing his nuclear progam. So how does scrapping the Iran benefit actually benefit the US? The only thing it accomplishes is for Trump to check off another campaign promise he made, so he can boast he fulfilled a promise to destroy another one of Obama’s legacy achievements by an illegitimate President, to show himself and his followers that he is the real President. This kind of thinking along with so many other lies on healthcare, tax reform, white supremists, climate change, accusations of fake news, add up to Trump literally living in an alternative reality from consensual reality. How can we continue to entrust the future of the US and the world to this man?
60
America has broken every Peace treaty it entered into. Iran has NEVER broken a PEACE treaty it signed. America only signs TREATIES, when it gains something. The moment the advantage stops, America nullifies the treaty - attacks the other NATION. It is a sad story.
1
When it comes to nuclear weapons Kim Jong Un is playing and wagging China like Benjamin Netanyahu plays and wags America.
2
Since America is only one party to the Iran nuclear deal it cannot scrap this on it's own. Because the United Kingdom, France, the EU, Germany, Russia and China do not support scrapping the deal America will be isolated and neutered.
1
What stands out is that AQK, with the Pakistani establishment's blessing, sold nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea.
What is not told is that Pakistan is the recipient of American foreign aid in the form of military equipment.
Simple question:: Why?
8
Simple questions deserve simple answers. Here is my take on the issue. My conclusion is that Pakistan did all that with American instigation and blessing. Pakistan knew the deed would get them a bad reputation, and it did. So America is now paying reparations. Simple questions deserve simple answers.
I'm sure our President will brood on this thoughtful piece and take it to heart as he ponders this grave decision.
1
If and when Iran develops nuclear weapons and decides to employ them -- they may already have them -- their first and probably only target would be a country never mentioned in this article. That country is Israel.
Which is why blockbuster bombs were and still are the best way of proceeding for those who truly care about Israel.
1
There are two sides to that argument. It also means that the sooner a blockbuster is used on Israel, then the sooner everyone around it including Iran will be safe.
Peace is better, not least for those who care about Israel.
3
"No matter how much restraint Israel shows"
Its deterrence strategy of massive retaliation has repeatedly destroyed those neighbors, with massive slaughter of innocents and actions to prevent rebuilding. That is not "restraint" and that is why Israel is getting so much pressure.
Mr. Bernstein’s “One Very Big Reason Not to Scrap the Iranian Nuclear Deal” is exactly what the opponents of the Joint Agreement with Iran are looking for: an authoritative assertion that even now the Iranian nuclear program is actually on the verge of producing a “Nagasaki-like” bomb. Bernstein’s claim that “as seems likely, Iran has already the design for a nuclear weapon” combined with his unsubstantiated, and unconfirmed by the I.A.E.A., observation about “a suspicion that the Iranians did research on implosion” in secret bases “such as Parchin”, is, in essence, a devious mode of attack-mongering.
It’s most unlikely that the strong and Trump-backed anti-Deal camp will be willing to go with Bernstein’s proposition that because Iran is “within few months” from a weapon the U.S. better not scrap the agreement. On the contrary, it’s almost certain that based on Bernstein’s supposedly scientifically founded assumptions on the nuclear state of Iran, from the White House and the halls of mostly anti-agreement Congress to Netanyahu’s “Holocaust” pulpit, a dire alarm will be sounded – blast the Deal and bomb to prevent an Iranian atomic bomb.
Do you really think the Tweeter-in-Chief understands any of the technical detail of this? He will do precisely as his minders tell him to.
The hysteria in the media over Iran is comical. Putting Trump in charge of a huge nuclear arsenal is many times more dangerous than anything the Iranians could cook up.
10
Trump did not create the Iranian nuclear program. That is where the danger comes from. Not from Trump.
2
President Trump is on a mission to destroy anything that president Obama accomplished. While most Americans along with the rest of our allies know that we need the Iran deal to prevent yet another stupid war our fearless leader only cares about his base. Unless Fox news tells them that the Iran deal is good for America Trump is going to pull out of it.
He's not called the chaos president for nothing. We on the other hand get to live with the consequences. If Iran becomes a nuclear nation it will be entirely our fault.
7
Trump will lie and make misstatements again. Stephen Miller is in charge of his speeches.
9
" If the Trump administration does not recertify the agreement when it comes around in just a few weeks..."
America will have shown Iran and the World that it does not honour International treaties, cannot be trusted, believes it is right when everybody else by their position or understanding must therefore be wrong whether it's the other 5 Powers including the IAEO (or every other country in the World in regards to The Paris Treaty) and follows it's own Agenda against facts, reason or the best interests of the Majority and more often than not, that leads to conflict, destruction and death on a large scale to many others.
Ironically, as argued in this article and also proven to be the case on more than a few occasions in the past, It is those America's actions, behaviours and attitudes that have led others to develop Nuclear Weapon capabilities so as to ensure that they will not ever again risk American provocations or ire to do what it wants or has done previously against those that little chance to defend against or provide enough of a deterrence to force America to reconsider its actions.
Until these real and potential victims develop a Nuclear Weapon Deterrence ...to defend against American hostility or potential threats against them.
Russia, China, North Korea (and soon Iran ) being the best examples of American actions/attitudes that spurred policy leading to their acquisition and America reaping what it did sow.
5
The agreement is not a treaty. Treaties are required to be approved by the United States Senate. Obama struck this agreement himself with Iran. It has no authority other than the say-so of the last president.
"America will have shown Iran and the World that it does not honour International treaties"
Except that it wasn't a "treaty", which would have required affirmative Congressional approval.
It was essentially an executive order, and is just as reversible as an executive order.
If Obama had wanted an agreement that had the weight of a treaty, he should have pursued a treaty and the affirmative Congressional approvals that one requires.
1
President Barack Hussein Obama agreed to this multilateral deal Trump has no authority nor power over any other party to the deal.
1
A sane nuclear policy for the world is the most important issue facing world leaders. It makes climate change miniscule.
So you are right , it is important to keep the Iran deal in place while working on world order and nukes.
Another reason, of course, is that keeping your word is as important for countries as it is for people. And According to people who have done business with Trump it has not been important to him. But we can't have his reputation tarnish that of our country,
20
This country never gave its word. Obama did. He did not submit the agreement to the United States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Everyone knew there was no reason to rely on the statement of the former president and that it was subject to the whim of the electorate. You can believe that Iran took this into account.
1
Actually, climate change is not minuscule. It threatens all life on earth: that's why it's called The Sixth Extinction. Perhaps nuclear war *is* the solution, as it will reduce and destroy civilization, allowing remnants in non-target areas to rebuild and perhaps come to their senses before proliferating and exploiting again on our lovely hospitable finite planet.
What will the Iranians do the day after the 10 year agreement ends? Even if they follow the agreement to that point they will have amassed billions during the decade with which to, legally, produce more nuclear material.
3
To have Billions that belonged to them that were withheld? To deny billions to ensure their citizens can live better and have options to afford the goods and services denied them by sanctions?
And you just assume that Iran is amassing Billions over 10 years to then legally produce more nuclear material?
Even if it is and even if it does...so what? Iran hasn't gone to war against any Country in centuries...unlike America.
7
They can spend their "billions" on developing their people and their country, modernizing, infrastructure, health and education (as we have) because they feel safe and secure, or they can spend it on defense (as we have) because they are under threat. Threatening them also supports the arguments made by their reactionaries, who also opposed the treaty as a challenge to Iran's sovereignty.
Which would you prefer>
Why does Iran threaten Israel so frequently if it is as peaceful as Switzerland and Ireland? Does Switzerland need a nuclear weapon now, too? How about Ireland?
So if Iran is following the agreement, it's good, and if they're cheating, it's also good? That seems a bit of a stretch to me.
2
Trump's calculation of political advantage will determine his stance on the agreement with Iran. On the healthcare bill, his indifference to the measure's substance led him to issue contradictory statements on all three versions of the measure, his unchanging position limited to a demand for some kind of legislative victory. Outside the interests of himself and his family, Trump has exhibited very little curiosity over the content or impact of most government policies. He focuses his limited attention like a laser on the enactment of laws, because the signing ceremonies confirm the statutes as trophies which enhance his image with his base.
He can gain no political advantage by merely endorsing an agreement made by his despised predecessor, Mr. Obama, but cancellation would reinforce the illusion that Trump merits praise as an activist, energetic president engaged in his one-man crusade to make America great again. Just as, during the later stages of his business career Trump adopted the strategy of slapping his name on buildings constructed and owned by someone else, so as president he focuses his efforts on creating facades that the unwary confuse with substance.
That some of these false fronts, like the healthcare reform or withdrawal from the Paris climate accords, could prove toxic to the welfare of the American people, has no effect on the deliberations of a man who envisions the world as a place inhabited only by enemies and suckers.
16
Another very big reason. Iran is complying with the agreement.
Despite what Donald Trump thinks or wants.
Please don’t create another Nuclear power through his naïveté and bluster.
22
They are complying only to the extent of and because the agreement is riddled with massive loopholes. Iran has developed missiles and fomented terrorism, yet they haven't run afoul of the agreement because the agreement is so limited, Iran can claim they are in compliance even if they still do all these horrible things. It is a terrible deal, but we are stuck with it.
Pres. Trump should not scrap it, but let's not pretend it's anything but a bad deal we are stuck with.
Stopping another hostile country from building a nuclear weapon vs. mindless grandstanding to stoke his followers' adoration. Somehow I doubt Mr. Trump is capable of seeing a difficult choice here. I doubt there is even anyone with his ear who could explain the importance of the issue within his 10 second attention span. I don't mean to be flip, but we have to be honest about our situation.
26
America has proven to be a far more hostile Country than Iran has or ever will be.
Who has Iran ever declared war on or attacked?
2
if this is what will happen if the deal is scrapped do not American experts not know this.
Alas, Mr. Bernstein, your detailed analysis makes eminent sense. But set against that is the ignorance of the current American president. He probably has to be shown, by his advisors, where Iran is on a map.
Donald Trump is in office to do naught but obliterate the eight-year presidency of Barack Obama. His hatred of the man, his xenophobia about anything outside his worldview, supported wholeheartedly by his base, have given him what he thinks is the political impetus to denounce and denigrate the nuclear agreement. The wonder is that the Obama administration (and its allies) managed to clean the teeth of the lion (Iran) while its jaws were agape, getting the country to agree to terms that, while not to its precise liking, accepted them.
What the current president does not understand is the complexities of centrifuges and enriched uranium that you have outlined here. But worse, history has no hold on him, Mr. Trump being adverse to books, to study, to the long process of analysis; he would rather play golf.
He would, also, like an errant schoolboy, swing North Korea around by the tail as if it were a cat, delighting at its fright and anger while ignoring the quiet menace of a newly nuclear-powered Iran, a danger he does not seem to have contemplated.
He clearly knows more than his generals, including John Kelly, his (for now) chief of staff, who doesn't seem to have mastered his volatile subject very well at all.
North Korea and Iran, and America caught in the middle.
13
One could say that Iran is up for grabs, ideologically and religiously, between the very conservative mullahs, who are aligned and depend upon the military to retain their power, and the citizenry, who clearly have shown a desire to join the 21st Century. The overwhelming election win by the moderate Rouhani last year was evidence of this desire.
It is a situation that needs incubation and an acceptance of uncertainty, not black-and-white imposition by the U.S. we messed up Iran once, in the 1950's; our best course of action is to maintain the nuclear deal and so encourage the moderate, secular Persians that the U.S. can be trusted.
I'd be surprised if Trump understood these dynamics, or cared about them. If he only listens to Netanyahu, you can be sure he will reject the accord -- and the loss will be Isreal's and ours.
68
America has been trying to grab Iranian fossil fuel reserves since the 1950's through today.
America messed up in Iran in the 1950's by overthrowing a democratic government and installing a royal dictator Shah who reigned until the late 1970's. Then America supported it's ally Saddam Hussein in a war against Iran in the 1980's that left a million Iranian casualties. America shot down a civilian Iranian airplane. America declared Iran part of "an axis of evil" then invaded and occupied Iranian neighbors Afghanistan and Iraq. America has engaged in cyber, drone and murder war against Iran.
Shia Muslim Persian majority Iran is an implacable foe of the Sunni Muslim Arab extremists in Saudi Arabia, ISIS and al Qaeda and the Sunni Muslim Turkish extremists.
Trump only listens to Benjamin Netanyahu, Jared Kushner and Chuck Schumer on Iran.
4
Nobody can control the world. The best we can do is negotiate with countries diplomatically. We have so many problems in America, we have more than we can handle. We need to retrench.
5
Hoping our current president acts in a mature, responsible manner is somewhat akin to hoping that the lottery ticket you purchase today will be the gateway to a massive fortune.
In his mind, if it has Obama's fingerprints on it, it has to be terrible, and in need of his tiny fingers to set it right. Therefore my prediction is that he will find some excuse to scrap the deal, add the Ayatollah to his growing list of people to write taunting tweets about, and before long we'll be facing the prospect of imminent nuclear war with two rogue states instead of just one.
But don't worry - DT and his followers will be too busy "winning" to worry about it.
24
The most important reason to not scrap the deal is that it gives the Iranians political cover to moderate.
If the Iranians really want a bomb, they are going to get a bomb. The technology is not secret, at least not enough, there is a black market to supply material, and Iran is a big, populous country. It has its own geniuses.
A moderate Iran, with a successful trade economy, won't be all that disposed to use it. A cornered Iran, with strife and unrest, might not feel that have that much to lose.
Diplomacy is a game of compromise, pragmatism and realism. Ideology - ours or Iran's - is dangerous. That is why we shouldn't scrap the deal.
15
Thank you Cathy. You speak strong sense.
1
There,s another "Very Big Reason" for the US not to scrap the nuclear treaty with Iran and that is honouring America,s signature on a leagal document, something Washington has a very poor record of doing.
The George W. Bush administration cancelled the agreement with North Korea sensing that country's weakness after the Clinton administration had consistently dragged its heels meeting its obligations. In 2002, the Bush administration unilaterally cancelled its participation in the ABM. In 1956 the US abrogated section 13 of the Armistice Agreement with North Korea which limited the introduction of weapons to both sides of the DMZ to "replacement" only. WAshington went on to introduce nuclear weapons in the South, establish bases and make Sout Korea one of the most heavily armed regions of the world. Historically, of course, the US violated endless treaties it had signed with native Americans which Washington limited to large reservations only to take the area over when valuable natural resources were discovered.
Now Trump wants to dishonour America's signature when even his own generals say the other side is in compliance. Along with waging unnecessary wars, destroying weaker countries based on lies and deceptions (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) overthrowing democratically elected governments ( Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Chile, Haiti and many etceteras) it is no wonder the level of trust in America has become negligible even among its allies.
30
In short, because of covfefe's favorite demand: loyalty.
Let us not forget our pulling out of the 1954 Geneva accords on Vietnam, The U.S. believed had elections been held the result Ho Chi Minh would have won. The result of our failure in diplomacy cost was the murder of millions of south east Asians,and thousands of our own young men and women. It is more than our honor which would be lost in a war with Korea,or Iran.
The Article is clear that Pakistani scientist Khan was running a shop selling nuclear bomb Design and material. When this was being done how did it escape CIA sleuths and activity continued ?. A possible answer comes to my mind is US was concentrating on Soviet Afghan war and saw the demise of Communist Empire on the horizon. Pakistan's geographic position was of prime importance for US to arm Afghan Mujahidins to chase Soviets out. What Pakistan was doing during the War was marketing design and hardware not in late 2000 but in 1990. West chose to ignore antagonizing Pakistan for its collaboration in the war, and remained obsessed with achieving a monumental success to scrap Soviet Union from the face of the earth. By then Khan's goods were delivered to Libya, NK and Iran. I would not be surprised if Iran already has a few in its stock. Scenario also suggests that some European fast playing smugglers were supplying centrifuge and mechanical hard wares to Pakistan and Iran because both countries lack capacity to manufacture precision instruments. After the celebration of end of Soviet and Cold war, some European countries were marked by US for their citizens smuggling pieces of mechanism and tools to enrich the Uranium to Iran and Pakistan, of course for Profit like Khan. Hence the main actors of pocketing money of proliferation are European smugglers and Pakistan. Any attempt to scrap or revisit the Iran Treaty will give rise to yet one nuclear Godzilla in ME.
1
Iran will likely stick to the deal as long as the other 5 countries involved in the deal stick to it. Even if Iran were to leave the deal, Iran would still be part of the NPT. This means that Iran would still be subject to IAEA monitoring of its program. While Iran may then decide to pursue industrial scale enrichment, the IAEA would still monitor that process to verify that whatever is done is for the declared peaceful activities.
Iran could produce nuclear weapons at a fast pace if it left the NPT, but hst would lead to severe sanctions. It was this prospect of a potential breakout by Iran that prompted the Bush Administration to argue that Iran should be permanently banned from any enrichment activities. This led to a standoff where Iran build ever more centrifuges to secure its right to industrial scale enrichment. The deal that was ultimately reached guarantees Iran's access to nuclear fuel while it postpones Iran's right to produce its own fuel by about a decade.
So, if we seriously consider these facts, it should be clear that Iran will not produce nuclear weapons, no matter what Trump does. But the US can trigger the UNSC sanctions against Iran that were suspended as part of the deal, to come back into force again. This would likely cause the UNSC system to collapse, as it's unlikely that other UNSC members would stick to the sanctions, they would veto any finding of a violation by themselves or anyone else. This is the real danger of the US leaving the deal.
12
The logic of this article by Jeremy Bernstein will not be understood by Donald Trump, but it certainly was appreciated by the seven signatories of the Joint Agreement with Iran.
If there is anything the current standoff with North Korea should teach us, it is the value of the Iran deal and the need to preserve it.
15
"This provision is enforceable, but Iran will not allow I.A.E.A. inspection of the sensitive military complexes where such systems might be developed, such as at Parchin, a military base near Tehran suitable for testing high explosives. There is a suspicion that the Iranians did research on implosion there."
This is called a "sneak-out violation". By the time sneak-out violations are caught it is too late.
See the quotes below from the Washington Institute:
"The most difficult task is to detect a "sneak-out" violation in which Iran uses clandestine nuclear facilities. This scenario has several variants, including the possibility of an entirely separate, unreported enrichment cycle anywhere along the chain from uranium mining to enrichment. This scenario cannot be excluded because the IAEA has still not been permitted to verify the completeness of Tehran's declarations on nuclear materials and facilities.....
Iran has talented engineers and the necessary financial resources, and its nuclear infrastructure is much larger than what it actually needs. Therefore, a monitoring scheme that is merely "good enough" will not guarantee success in preventing Iran from breaking out and achieving a nuclear weapons capability.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-nuclear-br...
Until IAEA inspectors are allowed to verify compliance everywhere, there is no guarantee that the Iranians at this very moment are not working on producing a bomb.
4
There are three possible endings to the Iran nuclear situation. One is that the Iran observes the treaty and does not build any nuclear weapons. The second is that Iran does not observe the treaty or the treaty is scrapped and Iran builds some nuclear weapons and becomes a nuclear power like Israel, India, or Pakistan. The third is that Iran starts to build nuclear weapons and is stopped by military intervention and ultimately invasion and occupation.
The first of these is preferable to the second, and the second is preferable to the third. Military intervention will motivate Iran to build bombs as a matter of national pride. Military invasion will stop the bomb building until our forces go home again, and after that any Quisling government we created is liable to be swept aside in favor of a government that builds some bombs out of national pride. So our forces have to stay there and take casualties for the foreseeable future.
Living with a nuclear Iran is preferable for us; perhaps it is not preferable for Israel, but Israel will not be doing most of the occupying and probably will be doing none of it.
In terms of the power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Shiites are not into converting all Muslims to Shiism by force, but Saudi Sunnis regard Shiites in much the same way the Catholic Church regarded Protestants, as a heresy to be stamped out.
39
@ sdavudc9 -verified Cornwall - sdavid there is no need to say much more here, comments can be closed. Your priority ranking is correct given any serious risk analysis of this situation.
Sad to say, Trump does not understand risk analysis or, for that matter, any kind of reasoned analysis. Thus he will do everything in his power to insure that he gets 2 or 3.
Comments may close.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
3