The Outline of a Deal

It’s not official, yet. Right now it’s just the framework. But the basics of the nuclear deal with Iran look … not that bad, actually. Iran will cut down it’s centrifuges by two-thirds and not enrich uranium past 3.67 percent. They’ll cut their stockpile of enriched uranium by 97% and not build any new facilities for 15 years. IAEA will have access to all of their facilities. This is the most important part:

U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place.

Sanctions related to support of terrorism will remain in place.

Israel is unhappy, but Israel will be unhappy with just about any deal. The GOP and many Congressional Democrats are objecting, but they’ll object to almost any deal. Obviously a better deal would eliminate their nuclear facilities completely. But Ed Krayewski makes a good point:

That’s the reality a lot of critics of the Iran deal don’t want to admit. President Obama even briefly touched on it yesterday—a country won’t do something just because America wants it to. For starters, the country’s political leadership would have to be historically illiterate to even consider it. Following American diktats provide no guarantee of not becoming a target of American ire in the future (i.e. Qaddafi giving up WMDs and then getting regime-changed by the West anyway). Could the U.S. continue sanctions against Iran? Certainly. The Israeli government would appear to consider that a better option. But sanctions aren’t effective at compelling compliance. Cuba’s been the subject of sanctions for more than half a century—neither did the sanctions break the communist regime nor were they even able to accomplish the more limited goal of extracting reimbursements for property seized by the Cuban government. And, most importantly, sanctions rarely hurt the ruling class of a country. The Ayatollahs, the Castros, the Kims, they’re all authoritarians of very different stripes, but none have known hunger or deprivation because of the sanctions their actions may have triggered.

While I agree that our ability to force Iran’s hand is limited, I’d disagree that the sanctions haven’t been a big factor here. Iran is much closer to a democracy than Cuba is and the bad Iranian economy has clearly put the leadership in jeopardy of popular uprising. I don’t think Iran would be at the table at all had it not been for the sanctions. This is good: it indicates a sliver of pragmatism laced within the fundamentalist dipshittery that infests Iran’s leaders.

As always, the devil is in the details. We’ll see how the final deal looks and how the inspections go down. But so far … this doesn’t look half bad … if the inspections and the conditional nature of withdrawing sanctions are as strong as the State Department is claiming.

Comments are closed.

  1. richtaylor365

    But the basics of the nuclear deal with Iran look … not that bad, actually. 

    Too bad it is all based on lies;

    Following the signing of an interim agreement with Iran aimed at scaling back its nuclear work, Iran accused the United States of lying about details of the agreement.

    On Thursday evening, Zarif told reporters the latest agreement allows Iran to keep operating its nuclear program.

    “None of those measures” that will move to scale back Iran’s program “include closing any of our facilities,” Zarif said. “We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development.”

    Come on Hal, did you really think Obama was NOT going to get snookered? This is nothing but NK 2 ( we get jack shit, and they continue to string us along while we give them money, food, and foreign aid), it is so predictable.

     

     

    Thumb up 2

  2. Hal_10000 *

    Why do you assume Iran is telling the truth? This is not a regime known for it’s truth-telling.  As I said, we’ll have to see the actual agreement.

    Thumb up 1

  3. richtaylor365

    Why do I think Iran is telling the truth about Obama lying? Gee, could it be because he has lied to us about so many other things in the past?

    It does pose an interesting conundrum, who’s veracity is more suspect, Iran’s or Obama’s?

    But you totally missed the point, how can you have an agreement when one side says the other side is lying about the terms? Does not each side have to agree in order to have an agreement?

    Thumb up 1

  4. Technomad

    “Israel is unhappy.”  My lack of concern for Israel is so large it makes interstellar space look small.  Far too many of our fellow-countrymen seem to me to owe their primary allegiance to Tel Aviv, and since they do, unfortunately, vote, far too many of our legislators are in danger of broken noses and necks should Netanyahu sit down suddenly.

    If a non-nuclear Iran is in US interest, I’m in favor of it; otherwise, I couldn’t care less if Iran gets nukes.  We seem to live with North Korea being nuclear, and the Norks make the mullahs look very sane and reasonable.  And if Israel doesn’t like it, Israel can put that in its pipe and smoke it.

     

    Thumb up 1

  5. Xetrov

    Why do you assume Obama’s Administration is telling the truth? This is not a regime known for it’s truth-telling. 

    Fixed.

    Thumb up 2

  6. CM

    the Norks make the mullahs look very sane and reasonable.

    Iconoclast will be here soon to ask how sponsoring terrorism could be considered reasonable. Good luck.

    Thumb up 0

  7. InsipiD

    I think that the question that needs to be posed is whether the deal is an improvement over the status quo.  By that yardstick alone, I’d have to say this is worse for everyone but Iran.

    Thumb up 0

  8. Hal_10000 *

    I think that the question that needs to be posed is whether the deal is an improvement over the status quo.  By that yardstick alone, I’d have to say this is worse for everyone but Iran.

    How is that? Iran is going to have less nuclear capability after this deal.

    Thumb up 0

  9. InsipiD

    How is that? Iran is going to have less nuclear capability after this deal.

    As long as they’re permitted nuclear facilities at all, it will be nearly impossible to verify compliance.  Without monitoring 24/7, they’re almost sure to sneak around and do exactly what they’ve agreed not to.  Between that and simply adding an alternate site that isn’t known and carrying out the dubious activity there, there’s absolutely no way to monitor them well enough to guarantee compliance.  That equals bad deal.  I’m not sorry to say that I don’t buy into this idea that we can monitor our way to safety from Iran.

    Thumb up 0

  10. trade_pro

    So basically, Iran says they won’t go for a weapon.  We lift sanctions .  If they go for a weapon, we will put those sanctions back on.  What do they have to lose?

    Instead, how about if you cheat the punishment is much more severe than the previous sanctions.

    If my kids do something wrong, the first time they are grounded for a day.  The second time they are grounded for a week.

     

    Thumb up 0

  11. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast will be here soon to ask how sponsoring terrorism could be considered reasonable. Good luck.

    Funny how you prance in here and accuse US of being binary…

    Thumb up 1