1
1
0
From the New York Times Sunday Review
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/saving-the-nuclear-deal-with-iran.html?_r=0
Saving the Nuclear Deal With Iran
Twice recently, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, has acted boldly in support of his biggest political gamble, pursuit of a nuclear agreement with the major powers. In a speech last Sunday on Iran’s troubled economy, he argued that Iran will never enjoy sustained growth if it is isolated from the rest of the world. Three weeks earlier, he made clear that he would confront Iran’s hard-liners in his efforts to clinch a deal in which Iran would agree never to produce a nuclear weapon in return for the lifting of crippling international sanctions.
But Mr. Rouhani is not the only leader trying to keep a potential agreement from being savaged by domestic opponents. President Obama has a similar problem in Congress, where Senators Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, and Mark Kirk, a Republican from Illinois, are expected to introduce legislation that could torpedo any deal by imposing new sanctions on Iran, including tighter controls on its battered oil industry.
Negotiators for Iran and the major powers — the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany — resume their talks next week in Geneva. While they have made significant progress, they remain at odds over how large a nuclear program — geared for energy production and medical uses — Iran will be permitted to have.
Mr. Rouhani has shown his seriousness by openly challenging the Iranian hard-liners who are hostile to a deal and by appealing for support from intellectuals, academics, businesspeople and others who are open, even eager, for one. To rally political support, he has also hinted that he might bypass established power centers and submit the issue to a popular referendum. “Our ideals are not bound to centrifuges,” Mr. Rouhani said in reference to the nuclear program.
Mr. Rouhani’s path to compromise is not easy. Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s chief negotiator, won an informal vote of confidence in Parliament on Tuesday after hard-liners forced him to answer questions on the nuclear talks. But Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who will have the last word on any agreement, voiced new doubts on Wednesday about whether “the enemy” — America — could be trusted to really lift sanctions.
[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Well? Can the US government be trusted to honour any deal reached? Or will some politician's overweening need to get re-elected scupper the whole thing? Please supply two answers - answer 1 to be based on what you think the US government would do if it actually supports the things it claims to represent and answer 2 to be based on the historical record. Please compare and contrast your answers. Spelling and lack of peanut butter stains on your exam sheets WILL be taken into consideration for your final mark.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/saving-the-nuclear-deal-with-iran.html?_r=0
Saving the Nuclear Deal With Iran
Twice recently, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, has acted boldly in support of his biggest political gamble, pursuit of a nuclear agreement with the major powers. In a speech last Sunday on Iran’s troubled economy, he argued that Iran will never enjoy sustained growth if it is isolated from the rest of the world. Three weeks earlier, he made clear that he would confront Iran’s hard-liners in his efforts to clinch a deal in which Iran would agree never to produce a nuclear weapon in return for the lifting of crippling international sanctions.
But Mr. Rouhani is not the only leader trying to keep a potential agreement from being savaged by domestic opponents. President Obama has a similar problem in Congress, where Senators Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, and Mark Kirk, a Republican from Illinois, are expected to introduce legislation that could torpedo any deal by imposing new sanctions on Iran, including tighter controls on its battered oil industry.
Negotiators for Iran and the major powers — the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany — resume their talks next week in Geneva. While they have made significant progress, they remain at odds over how large a nuclear program — geared for energy production and medical uses — Iran will be permitted to have.
Mr. Rouhani has shown his seriousness by openly challenging the Iranian hard-liners who are hostile to a deal and by appealing for support from intellectuals, academics, businesspeople and others who are open, even eager, for one. To rally political support, he has also hinted that he might bypass established power centers and submit the issue to a popular referendum. “Our ideals are not bound to centrifuges,” Mr. Rouhani said in reference to the nuclear program.
Mr. Rouhani’s path to compromise is not easy. Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s chief negotiator, won an informal vote of confidence in Parliament on Tuesday after hard-liners forced him to answer questions on the nuclear talks. But Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who will have the last word on any agreement, voiced new doubts on Wednesday about whether “the enemy” — America — could be trusted to really lift sanctions.
[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Well? Can the US government be trusted to honour any deal reached? Or will some politician's overweening need to get re-elected scupper the whole thing? Please supply two answers - answer 1 to be based on what you think the US government would do if it actually supports the things it claims to represent and answer 2 to be based on the historical record. Please compare and contrast your answers. Spelling and lack of peanut butter stains on your exam sheets WILL be taken into consideration for your final mark.]
Iran
War on Terror
Nuclear
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
- Typical biased article that I have come to expect from the NYT.
- The article essentially argues that the Iranian President is going out on a limb against the hard liners within his country and that the US Senate may/will block POTUS in his attempts due to short sighted domestic concerns.
- The US Constitution lays out the US approach to treaties. Simply stated, POTUS has lead in foreign policy but Congress has both the power of the purse and the Senate must approve all treaties negotiated by POTUS. POTUS, as a constitutional law teacher, should know this and know that he needs to engage Congress (the Senate) as much if not more than the Iranians. Media reports tend to make me think this is not happening. Sarcastic (but essentially accurate) comments indicate POTUS will talk with US enemies but will not talk with US allies or Americans.
- POTUS is not a poker player. Evidence from the last six years is that POTUS would get his clock cleaned in poker. International negotiations are a lot like poker: Don't show your cards prematurely, you play your opponent and not your cards, bluffing is a legitimate strategy and can work, know when to walk away. Several instances over the past six years in other areas that indicate an Iranian nuclear treaty would not help any other than the Iranians.
- Resembles most all of the treaties that the US and USSR made over the years. We did not trust each other so mechanisms were built into the treaty to independently verify compliance. Nowhere in an other the Iranian nuclear treaty negotiations reporting have I read anything about any sort of compliance mechanism.
- The article essentially argues that the Iranian President is going out on a limb against the hard liners within his country and that the US Senate may/will block POTUS in his attempts due to short sighted domestic concerns.
- The US Constitution lays out the US approach to treaties. Simply stated, POTUS has lead in foreign policy but Congress has both the power of the purse and the Senate must approve all treaties negotiated by POTUS. POTUS, as a constitutional law teacher, should know this and know that he needs to engage Congress (the Senate) as much if not more than the Iranians. Media reports tend to make me think this is not happening. Sarcastic (but essentially accurate) comments indicate POTUS will talk with US enemies but will not talk with US allies or Americans.
- POTUS is not a poker player. Evidence from the last six years is that POTUS would get his clock cleaned in poker. International negotiations are a lot like poker: Don't show your cards prematurely, you play your opponent and not your cards, bluffing is a legitimate strategy and can work, know when to walk away. Several instances over the past six years in other areas that indicate an Iranian nuclear treaty would not help any other than the Iranians.
- Resembles most all of the treaties that the US and USSR made over the years. We did not trust each other so mechanisms were built into the treaty to independently verify compliance. Nowhere in an other the Iranian nuclear treaty negotiations reporting have I read anything about any sort of compliance mechanism.
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM Colonel, Good points (bearing in mind that it always helps to know what "the other side" believes and is thinking).
On the other hand, and just as a theoretical exercise, start with the premise that the Iranian nuclear program is just as "robust" as the Libyan WMD program was. From there go on to consider what the cost/benefit ratio of "giving up" the possibility of building nuclear weapons would be for Iran. Now toss in "But they won't give us a dime if they don't think that we are actually about to build them.".
What do you come up with?
Is it very similar to the situation we see today?
Is the view we get of Iranian domestic politics as orchestrated as a DNC or RNC convention?
Is the bear Catholic?
On the other hand, and just as a theoretical exercise, start with the premise that the Iranian nuclear program is just as "robust" as the Libyan WMD program was. From there go on to consider what the cost/benefit ratio of "giving up" the possibility of building nuclear weapons would be for Iran. Now toss in "But they won't give us a dime if they don't think that we are actually about to build them.".
What do you come up with?
Is it very similar to the situation we see today?
Is the view we get of Iranian domestic politics as orchestrated as a DNC or RNC convention?
Is the bear Catholic?
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir,
- Do you have a better source?
- What evidence do you have that the President of Iran is not having to oppose internal conservatives that want an open war with the west? If the alternative COA is to invade (I have not seen an estimate that says it can be done from the air) why else would the GOP oppose a negotiation that gives us access to their nuclear program?
-Historically (particularly under Reagan) The advice and consent of the Senate comes down the road, if at all. It is in the same category of declarations of war. In theory there should be one before sending troops to occupy another country, in practice it works differently.
-Treaties are not poker. They are consensus building, particularly when your goal is to gain access to the production facilities for nuclear material. When I have read the accounts of difficult negotiations it is about finding a single agreement and then building so that everyone is a little unhappy and no one is truly pissed. I am sure that the total opposition policy towards North Korea was an amazing success and should be mirrored here.
-The inspection mechanisms is exactly the point. In exchange for reduction and eventual removal of sanctions the Iranians will move part of their processing to Russia and submit to inspections by the IAEA. This will provide us with sample of their material and insight into their program. The compliance mechanism is the 125 billion dollars that the US holds in frozen accounts that we let out in little drips when they balk at the negotiating table.
I have a hard time not viewing this whole thing as a domestic political ploy mostly because I have not seen a non-Obama centered policy from the GOP in the last four years.
Do you have reliable sources that disagree with the NYT article? (perhaps out of parameters?)
- Do you have a better source?
- What evidence do you have that the President of Iran is not having to oppose internal conservatives that want an open war with the west? If the alternative COA is to invade (I have not seen an estimate that says it can be done from the air) why else would the GOP oppose a negotiation that gives us access to their nuclear program?
-Historically (particularly under Reagan) The advice and consent of the Senate comes down the road, if at all. It is in the same category of declarations of war. In theory there should be one before sending troops to occupy another country, in practice it works differently.
-Treaties are not poker. They are consensus building, particularly when your goal is to gain access to the production facilities for nuclear material. When I have read the accounts of difficult negotiations it is about finding a single agreement and then building so that everyone is a little unhappy and no one is truly pissed. I am sure that the total opposition policy towards North Korea was an amazing success and should be mirrored here.
-The inspection mechanisms is exactly the point. In exchange for reduction and eventual removal of sanctions the Iranians will move part of their processing to Russia and submit to inspections by the IAEA. This will provide us with sample of their material and insight into their program. The compliance mechanism is the 125 billion dollars that the US holds in frozen accounts that we let out in little drips when they balk at the negotiating table.
I have a hard time not viewing this whole thing as a domestic political ploy mostly because I have not seen a non-Obama centered policy from the GOP in the last four years.
Do you have reliable sources that disagree with the NYT article? (perhaps out of parameters?)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
COL Ted Mc, Sir, 1. No state is a monolith. Ours in particular is set up to represent competing interests, making us difficult do deal with in negotiation (especially when negotiations involve CBRN capabilities and a different world-view). 2. The US hasn't done much word-keeping with Iran (or vice versa) since, maybe the Shah? I do hope it works out though, messy peaces are more orderly than organized wars.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Capt Richard I P. Captain,
[1] Someone (please don't ask) once said that "The American Government was designed to slow down a naturally fractious and impetuous people while the Canadian government was designed to speed up a naturally lethargic and methodical people." (or something incredibly similar) and they were most likely correct.
[2] The Iranians have absolutely no reason not to trust the government of a country which funded a war against Iran and also toppled a democratic government in Iran so that it could install an absolute monarch - both in the names of peace, freedom, and democracy. The fact that the Iranians don't trust the government of the United States of America is simply more proof that their leaders are insane and have no contact with reality - after all, America has had ELECTIONS since the time it funded Iraq in its war against Iran and since the CIA toppled the government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and ELECTIONS mean that a country is democratic and with an honest government - right?
[1] Someone (please don't ask) once said that "The American Government was designed to slow down a naturally fractious and impetuous people while the Canadian government was designed to speed up a naturally lethargic and methodical people." (or something incredibly similar) and they were most likely correct.
[2] The Iranians have absolutely no reason not to trust the government of a country which funded a war against Iran and also toppled a democratic government in Iran so that it could install an absolute monarch - both in the names of peace, freedom, and democracy. The fact that the Iranians don't trust the government of the United States of America is simply more proof that their leaders are insane and have no contact with reality - after all, America has had ELECTIONS since the time it funded Iraq in its war against Iran and since the CIA toppled the government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and ELECTIONS mean that a country is democratic and with an honest government - right?
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
The president needs to play with the rest of Congress not the lackeys like King and certainly not this executive branch who has used every trick in the book to get their agendas rammed through. It is disgraceful and the fake Colonels who act out of character. But what the hell, B.S.is alive and well.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
So you want to arrest the SrA and who gives you the right to tell him what to say?
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc Why do they have to derail each other? Why cant they keep a positive campaign and lay out their vision while telling the American citizens the truth? Personally, I want to hear the truth, good and bad, so I can make well informed decisions when it comes time to vote. Platitudes, pandering, and "derailing each other" are surefire ways to lose my support.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
How You Like Them Apples? - Good Will Hunting (2/12) Movie CLIP (1997) HD
Good Will Hunting movie clips: http://j.mp/15vV0KT BUY THE MOVIE: http://amzn.to/uRYwZC Don't miss the HOTTEST NEW TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/1u2y6pr CLIP DESCR...
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl (Join to see) - Corporal; You ask "Why do they have to derail each other? Why cant they keep a positive campaign and lay out their vision while telling the American citizens the truth?" - which is an excellent question.
The unfortunate answer to that question is "Because they want to get elected/re-elected and 'telling the truth' simply doesn't sell well with the mass of voters who really don't want to think about the actual issues but would rather be promised 'pie in the sky' (especially 'pie in the sky that someone else is going to pay for').".
However, congratulations for belonging to the minority of Americans who want to actually cast an informed and well considered vote rather than voting based on whether there is a the big " [R] " or a big " [D] " after candidate's name.
The unfortunate answer to that question is "Because they want to get elected/re-elected and 'telling the truth' simply doesn't sell well with the mass of voters who really don't want to think about the actual issues but would rather be promised 'pie in the sky' (especially 'pie in the sky that someone else is going to pay for').".
However, congratulations for belonging to the minority of Americans who want to actually cast an informed and well considered vote rather than voting based on whether there is a the big " [R] " or a big " [D] " after candidate's name.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google