Posted on Jul 14, 2015
4
4
0
Congrats! Let's assume that Congress will approve. Don't make your answer about domestic politics, but a chance for peace with Iran. The deal is done, what does this mean to the Iranian people?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-world-powers-reach-nuclear-deal [login to see]
http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-world-powers-reach-nuclear-deal [login to see]
Leadership
Foreign Affairs
Nuclear
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 14
3
3
0
Two things come out of this: One I hope a better relations ship with the people of Iran, as I doubt the leadership will change their opinion of any time soon.
The other is a far worse scenario. Back during the Bush Administration UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said that Iran was years possibly a decade away from building a nuclear bomb. I thought Hans Blix is a fool, some of you may ask why. In my civilian life at that time I was had worked as a Weapons for Mass Destruction for EMS. I wnet around the country teaching first responders about treating patients exposed to certain agents. I have read worked with a lot of stuff, and have had the unique experience of being taught by some of the best people on this stuff. So lets look at some simple facts. In 1939 A. Einstein convinces then President Roosevelt to move forward with construction of the Atomic Bomb. These men did not have computers, they used slide rulers. Time to complte from scratch? Less than 5 years. The Nth Country Experiment, In 1964 Lawrence Livermore Laboratory took two new PHD physicists, and working alone without access to anying information develop a paper on building a bomb. It took them roughly three years. Granted there was no construction process involved, but again no computers involved, they developed, unknowingly a bomb that would have rivaled the one dropped on Hiroshima. A borderline failing student at Rutgers built a model bomb for and had it promptly taken away by the FBI. That was in the 1970's.
So my question is, with back door technology from China, North Korea, and Pakistan, does anyone actually believe our "friends" will abide by any of this?
The other is a far worse scenario. Back during the Bush Administration UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said that Iran was years possibly a decade away from building a nuclear bomb. I thought Hans Blix is a fool, some of you may ask why. In my civilian life at that time I was had worked as a Weapons for Mass Destruction for EMS. I wnet around the country teaching first responders about treating patients exposed to certain agents. I have read worked with a lot of stuff, and have had the unique experience of being taught by some of the best people on this stuff. So lets look at some simple facts. In 1939 A. Einstein convinces then President Roosevelt to move forward with construction of the Atomic Bomb. These men did not have computers, they used slide rulers. Time to complte from scratch? Less than 5 years. The Nth Country Experiment, In 1964 Lawrence Livermore Laboratory took two new PHD physicists, and working alone without access to anying information develop a paper on building a bomb. It took them roughly three years. Granted there was no construction process involved, but again no computers involved, they developed, unknowingly a bomb that would have rivaled the one dropped on Hiroshima. A borderline failing student at Rutgers built a model bomb for and had it promptly taken away by the FBI. That was in the 1970's.
So my question is, with back door technology from China, North Korea, and Pakistan, does anyone actually believe our "friends" will abide by any of this?
(3)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
To be fair, with back door channels, this becomes the ONLY way forward. Those already exist. At least with the deal, Iran may have some motivation to not use them or at least be much sneakier (and thus slower) about it.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
LTC John Shaw - Colonel; Can I reserve my opinion at least until the actual text of the deal has been released and the US government approved it?
If the US government DOES NOT approve a deal which APPEARS (acting on insufficient information) to have given the US everything it could legitimately hope to achieve, then the result on the Iranian people is going to be a whole lot different that it will be if the US government DOES approve the deal.
At this stage, I'm not prepared to bet a dime on the deal being approved by the Republicans - after all, it wasn't negotiated by a Republican and it would be inconceivable for the Republicans to allow a Democrat to actually achieve anything in the year+ leading up to a Presidential Election.
PS, a "cost free" link that gives some of the details is
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-nuclear-deal/
If the US government DOES NOT approve a deal which APPEARS (acting on insufficient information) to have given the US everything it could legitimately hope to achieve, then the result on the Iranian people is going to be a whole lot different that it will be if the US government DOES approve the deal.
At this stage, I'm not prepared to bet a dime on the deal being approved by the Republicans - after all, it wasn't negotiated by a Republican and it would be inconceivable for the Republicans to allow a Democrat to actually achieve anything in the year+ leading up to a Presidential Election.
PS, a "cost free" link that gives some of the details is
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-nuclear-deal/
Landmark deal reached on Iran nuclear program - CNNPolitics.com
After arduous talks that spanned 20 months, negotiators have reached a landmark deal aimed at reining in Iran's nuclear program.
(2)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
COL Ted Mc The deal does not require Senate approval according to the Administration. It will be submitted to the UN security council regardless of Congressional approval.
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
COL Ted Mc So much for Senate advise and consent...
This is treaty ratification turned on it's head, it goes through unless 2/3 vote to override a veto, against the agreement. See the link.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/14/iran-nuclear-deal-how-congressional-review-will-work/
This is treaty ratification turned on it's head, it goes through unless 2/3 vote to override a veto, against the agreement. See the link.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/14/iran-nuclear-deal-how-congressional-review-will-work/
Iran Nuclear Deal: How Congressional Review Will Work
In May, Barack Obama signed legislation giving Congress the right to review any deal the six world powers strike with Iran over its nuclear program. Now that such an agreement has been reached, here's how the review process will work.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC John Shaw - Colonel; it the sanctions are US based, then the US government has something to say about them (but, then again, so does every other country which is voluntarily complying with them).
However, if the sanctions are UN based the the UN is the "governing body" which has something to say about whether they remain in place or not. TRUE, the US government could enact its own (US based) sanctions (binding solely on Americans) against Iran and could THREATEN "retaliation" against any other country that had the gall to believe that their domestic law and international relations were more important to them and had greater legal effect in their own country than doing what they were told to do by the US government and US law.
Personally I don't think that that would be advisable since there are a sufficiency of countries which would tell the US government to screw off (as well as the financial clout to make it stick) which would further degrade the ability of the US government to influence world affairs.
PS - Since this "deal" is NOT (legally) a "treaty" then there is no need for Senate approval any more than there would have been for Senate approval for the acceptance of Germany's surrender at the end of WWII.
PPS - As long as the "deal" doesn't describe Iran's nuclear activities as "illegal" then Iran "wins" REGARDLESS of the terms of the "deal".
PPPS - Don't bet the rent that the Iranians haven't already prepared the media campaign for the first sign of anything that even looks like it could be confused with something that is similar to an action which resembles the government of the United States of America "backsliding" (or even threatening to backslide) on the deal.
However, if the sanctions are UN based the the UN is the "governing body" which has something to say about whether they remain in place or not. TRUE, the US government could enact its own (US based) sanctions (binding solely on Americans) against Iran and could THREATEN "retaliation" against any other country that had the gall to believe that their domestic law and international relations were more important to them and had greater legal effect in their own country than doing what they were told to do by the US government and US law.
Personally I don't think that that would be advisable since there are a sufficiency of countries which would tell the US government to screw off (as well as the financial clout to make it stick) which would further degrade the ability of the US government to influence world affairs.
PS - Since this "deal" is NOT (legally) a "treaty" then there is no need for Senate approval any more than there would have been for Senate approval for the acceptance of Germany's surrender at the end of WWII.
PPS - As long as the "deal" doesn't describe Iran's nuclear activities as "illegal" then Iran "wins" REGARDLESS of the terms of the "deal".
PPPS - Don't bet the rent that the Iranians haven't already prepared the media campaign for the first sign of anything that even looks like it could be confused with something that is similar to an action which resembles the government of the United States of America "backsliding" (or even threatening to backslide) on the deal.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC John Shaw - Colonel; I note that the "Iran review legislation" passed by a vote of 98 to 1.
Since the vast majority (98.99%) of the Senators "approved" of the rules it's just a bit too late to start up but chants of "But it's not faaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrRRR!"
Since the vast majority (98.99%) of the Senators "approved" of the rules it's just a bit too late to start up but chants of "But it's not faaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrRRR!"
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
I don't think it will help the people in the long run. Once the infrastructure is in place and the people become accustomed to a better quality of life, it will be used as a means of control.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm going to listen to //video.foxnews.com/v/ [login to see] 001/#sp=watch-live
I will let you know how I feel afterwards. From what I have heard, it is a fast track to a nuclear weapon.
I will let you know how I feel afterwards. From what I have heard, it is a fast track to a nuclear weapon.
(2)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
SGT (Join to see) Don't forget to reflect and comment on how you think the Iranian people feel/view this...
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I don't understand why it is that I have to worry about how the Iranian people feel. If Iran gets a nuke, they will wipe Israel out. I think we should be more worried about how this will effect America and Israel. The Iranian people are not built upon a republic like the United States and Israel are. LTC John Shaw I am going to have to do some reading up before I have a Solid opinion.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I'm actually reading the 159 pg agreement at the moment. LTC John Shaw I don't like talking out my butt. LOL. I want to know what is really in there and not take the news agencies word. ;-)
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Will it change the life of Iranian people? I would be surprised if it did. For the regime, they will continue to spread terrorism and I would bet continue to do a covert nuclear program. I hope I am wrong but I don't have confidence in our leaders to make a deal that is anything more than a legacy item for Obama. Personally, I think it makes the world less safe for the Iranians, the Israelis, and the world.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
CPO (Join to see)
It means more work for us. Another decades long babysitting job.
The Intel billets should grow.
The Intel billets should grow.
(1)
(0)
SCPO David Lockwood
Other than the above mentioned I would hope that will make their lives a little more comfortable. But we will see.
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
SFC Yes it never changes. Reactive not Proactive. Analogy: Traffic light goes up after a death in the intersection occurs. In this case it could very well be unimaginable death and destruction.
(1)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
Just got back from middle east. We have no clue about those deserts. They are drying Dates up under our noses.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I don't think it will be ratified and I also do not believe that Iran will follow the agreement.
(2)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
SGM Steve Wettstein OK, what does it mean to the Iranian people if the US President reaches a multi-lateral deal and the US Senate rejects it? Why won't Iran follow the agreement?
(1)
(0)
SGM Steve Wettstein
LTC John Shaw - If the Senate rejects it, it means that the US won't lift any of the sanctions. But, I believe other countries will in a heart beat. Russia and China for sure. IMO they will not follow through on the inspections of nuclear facilities and military sites.
(1)
(0)
SGM Steve Wettstein
SFC James Sczymanski IMO they will be the first two NATO countries to do business with Iran.
(1)
(0)
SGM Steve Wettstein
LTC John Shaw - Another point Sir are the shenanigans Iran has been/are pulling in the gulf. Everything they have and are doing reminds me of Saddam and how he had Iraq operate towards the UN during their WMD search.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Interesting, I bet with the sanctions lifted and US dollars pouring in all the mullahs will come out of the woodwork for their piece of the pie. As for the common folk? They will get discounts on cell phones. But what will change for the US soldier should be the question?
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
CPO (Join to see) I ask the question on how do we think the Iranian feel to force a little reflection on the folks in RP. I am admitting to my own ignorance of Iran as well. Do you think anything will change for the US military or soldiers in your question?
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
I think the Iranian people will be fine as long as they are treated well which should have been part of this agreement. If you recall some years ago, the Iranian people tried to topple the regimen. Majority of Iranian people have no beef with Americans, in fact they yearn for the democratic way of life. As for our military I am afraid we are already headed for diversity of biblical proportions that may or may not be a good thing. What I see in less than 5 years, all branches of our military will consist of foreign nationals.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google