Tag: Nuclear proliferation

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.

Surviving the New Cold War

As you have probably heard, Yemen has collapsed into chaos. The President we were backing had fled the country and Iran-backed Shia rebels appear to be establishing control. Saudi Arabia is intervening and it looks like Egypt may get involved as well.

All this is a sign of Obama’s failed foreign policy according to … holy crap … Vox?:

Read more… »

An Iran Deal

This is breaking now so updates as events warrant. We appear to have struck a deal with Iran. The agreement apparently includes a halt to their nuclear program: no enrichment past 5%, no new centrifuges, no new enrichment facilities, full inspections and getting rid of any 20% enriched uranium. They will be allowed to continue to enrich uranium to low levels (3.5%) consistent with nuclear reactors, can keep their current centrifuges and the sanction will be eased (maybe; not clear at this point). This is preparing for a permanent deal in the next six months.

Expect Israel and the GOP to have a fit, whether the deal is a good one or not. I want to see more information before I judge.

How to read the Chinese about their Nork protest?

When China joins the US & Japan to protest a Nork nuke test, one has to pay attention.

(Reuters) – North Korea conducted its third nuclear test on Tuesday in defiance of existing U.N. resolutions, drawing condemnation from around the world, including from its only major ally, China, which summoned the North Korean ambassador to protest.

The reclusive North said the test was an act of self-defense against “U.S. hostility” and threatened further, stronger steps if necessary.

It said the test had “greater explosive force” than the 2006 and 2009 tests. Its KCNA news agency said it had used a “miniaturized” and lighter nuclear device, indicating that it had again used plutonium which is more suitable for use as a missile warhead.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, the third of his line to rule the country, has presided over two long-range rocket launches and a nuclear test during his first year in power, pursuing policies that have propelled his impoverished and malnourished country closer to becoming a nuclear weapons power.

China, which has shown signs of increasing exasperation with the recent bellicose tone of its neighbor, summoned the North Korean ambassador in Beijing and protested sternly, the Foreign Ministry said.

The question for me is to find out if China really is pissed at the Norks for this and is actually letting little Kim know that, or if this is more of the same shit we have had for decades where they talk out of both sides of their mouth. I know China fears a Nork collapse because the refugee stream would be crippling for them. Still do not know if the Chinese fear a unified Korea so much that if they could make the South have to pay for a reunified Korea it would still not be worth it, especially in light of how quickly a unified Germany bounced back, or not. My guess is this is more of the same old stuff where they say one thing but in the end back the crtazy Norks, because it harms the US and all the other Asian nations China sees in their way to their devinely given supremacy.

Time will tell. And I wonder how Obama will deal with this revelation during the SOTU. Heh, it will just be ignored and instead it will all be promises of more free shit someone else will pay for, and this time he will really mean it about the jobs market stuff.

Iranian nukes and politics

“Unexpectedly” – man that word sure as hell seems to be abused by the LSM since Obama won the WH – we are told by the IAEA that The Iranians will soon have a nuke thanks to help from ex-Soviet scientists right as everyone is talking about Israel doing the world’s dirty work for it, yet again, I should add. It seems Iran has solved whatever issue was holding them back and will soon have nukes. Of course, back in 2007, when people realized that nothing short of a military option was going to stop the apocalyptic fucking freaks in Teheran that want that bomb, the same IAEA put out a report telling us all Iran had completely stopped trying to build one.

At the time most of us that knew better said that that asshole El Baradei was playing a dangerous political game – this report came out to help the democrats prevent President Bush from doing something about this problem, other than tell us how cool the Iranian thugocracy is and that we could talk them off the ledge like Obama has been – by obviously lying about what Iran was doing explicitly to prevent any action by the US military. And while that asshole is still at it, it is now obvious that the IAEA can no longer deny that Iran, not only has rebuffed the “come hither” advances from Community-Organizer-in-Chief, but has been working hard enough at its bomb project such that Iran now will soon have a bomb. That is, again, unless Israel does the dirty work of stopping that. It now looks to me that the pacifists and collectivists won this battle, and Iran will now go nuclear. Joy.