• Saudi Arabia says it will build a nuclear bomb if Iran does
    61 replies, posted
Even if that's the case, that just makes it all the better to pull out now? Are you listening to yourself?
I assume the logic is that the only way to stop a nuclear race is to prevent Iran from getting nukes at all, which the deal doesn't do.
In 10 years, there could have been a better, more stable and longer-lasting solution to this issue built on with a decade of time. Instead, we're closer to war next year than a lasting peace in 10.
Which would... Give us a ten year head start on trying to address the issue before it begins??? This isn't exactly complicated and I dunno how you're so easily missing this, lol. (Oh wait, it's Sgman so you're being purposefully obtuse.)
I have a hunch that the real reason Israel wanted the deal cancelled (and probably the same reason Saudi Arabia did) is because the real concern is that without sanctions Iran might have it easier to mass troops and armaments around key strategic positions in the middle east to their proxy forces, strengthening their position on the local political stage in terms of actual, immediate threat capabilities, unlike a nuke which would be far off either way. Still doesn't seem to me that Trump would think or even comprehend the issue with that much nuance, though, and makes me wonder as to what America (or just Trump) hoped to accomplish with this.
You're right, that's a whole different angle that I'm sure went into Israel and Saudi Arabia decision making.
International relations is not a video game. You're making massive assumptions that Iran will want to build nuclear weapons because... well... they're bad? You're assuming that despite the heavy inspections mandated by the Iran deal, Iran would have had the capability to build nuclear weapons because they would have more money. To say that is an oversimplification is an understatement in itself. Fact is, the deal does a significant amount to limit the inclination and the means of Iran to build nuclear weapons. The money from the sanction relief does not make the difference between Iran affording wrapons or not. They already had the money to fund a nuclear program in the early 2000's, which they shelved. Ergo, it should be eminently obvious that keeping the deal was the sensible option.
The JCPOA’s prohibition on Iran’s building nuclear weapons does not sunset; the ten year thing, or seven year thing, or whatever time frame Trump is currently spouting is yet another nonsense, blatant misdirect or misunderstanding of the treaty. Iran is also a signatory of the non proliferation treaty which prohibits it from developing nuclear weapons. This has been fact checked time and time again.
I'm wondering what effects this will have later on, will we be seeing news about Nukes being detonated in different places, or will we be alright?
If you're committed then.. why.... did... wh.. w.. WHAT?!
Worse case scenario, Fallout 4 prologue. Best case scenario, nothing. I’m betting somewhere in the middle.
But 10 years is more and better than NOW. And who knows what the climate might be like 10 years from now, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. But now they're just going to have them now.
The "Iran deal" contained certain provisions that would sunset after ten years, namely those related to special inspection requirements and the lifting of sanctions. Other sections did not expire: most importantly, Iran was required to accede to an additional protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (which they had signed but were in violation of), which also provided for a higher level of inspection than the NPT. Maybe Iran would have tried to restart their nuclear program in ten years, but it would be just as hard as doing it while the deal was in effect, and our response would be just the same - reimpose sanctions, be prepared to bomb the nuclear facilities if necessary. Also, countries can change in a decade. Right now, Iran only wants nuclear weapons because they're in competition for regional hegemony with Saudi Arabia, and because the United States has invaded and occupied two of their neighbors, raising the risk we'd try to do the same to them. But ten years down the line, maybe the Saudis will have declined, or Iran will find peace more prosperous than trying to be the big dog on the block. And I really hope we'll be out of Afghanistan and Iraq by then, but I also thought we'd be gone by 2004 and look how that turned out.
Again, SG literally thinks 0>10. There's no point in arguing sense into him, he just falters to the same nonsense point, or "Iran is bad and they hate americans".
there must always be balance in the force, if North Korea disarms, a nuclear race must begin elsewhere... the middle east
I honestly don't understand this line of reasoning. Iran has told us, constantly, that they want to develop nuclear weapons. They've traded the well-being of their own people for the promise of nuclear weapons (and terrorism, but that's another story). To think that Iran now has no desire to develop any nuclear weapons is to ignore the last decade of Iranian leadership. The fact that they continue to sponsor terror, continue to use their aggressive and threatening language, etc. shows that they haven't changed. I usually shy away from any comparisons to the Nazis, but this might be one of the few legitimate cases for it. The Iranians leadership differs from the Nazi leadership in that they care even less about their own people and that they currently don't have the power to put their goals into practice. If they aren't evil, then there's no such thing as an evil government.
Trump supporters like to whine about how Muslims are horrible and should be deported but they never mention that Trump is pretty much sucking Saudi Arabias dick.
Humans are cockroaches. There'll be enough of us alive to start rudamentary tribes, and then it's back to square one for civilization.
This is like telling me that I should have cancer now instead of 10 years from now
I would see it as A) You can fight the cancer now, or B) you can fight the cancer in 10 years, but the cancer will be harder to fight.
More like fighting the cancer now after running through some nuclear waste first.
If fighting the cancer is an analogy for war then maybe if you fight it now it will evolve into a super cancer that walks and talks like ISIS
I'm not even talking about war, just active opposition. We aren't dealing with the Soviet Union, who while having some absolutely abhorrent things under the belt, still wanted to be a successful country. We're dealing with apocalyptic theocrats who couldn't give a single crap about their own people. Imagine, for just a second, if they had totally given up sponsoring terror and trying to build a nuke 10 years ago. The rest of the world lifts sanctions. They start to build political and economic ties. Etc. Hell, they might be the most powerful country in the region like they were in the 1970s before the revolution. Instead of that, they've decided to actively hurt their own people in favor of trying to damage Israel and build a nuke. Why would you ever think that they're going to all of a sudden, out of nowhere, totally switch their entire worldview (while still actively sponsoring terrorism and holding onto things like holocaust denial)?
I think part of the reason they signed the deal was to remove economic sanctions which causes their people to suffer massively. Iran is a very islamic country but to say they don't care about their own people at all is painting a complex issue as very absolute.
What is "active opposition?" Sanctioning them isn't going to stop their nuclear weapons development and with the Trump administration filled with war hawks like John Bolton, who's wanted regime change in Iran for decades, you're crazy if you think [i]now[/i] is the time to do... what? Increase tensions for absolutely no reason and rip up a deal that the Iranians were following to the letter, guaranteeing that absolutely no one should trust the US's word on future treaties?
They've actively traded their own people's wellbeing for a desire to damage Israel and build a nuke. Sure, my claim may have been slightly exaggerated, but I do think it's safe to claim that the wellbeing of their own people is very low on their list of concerns. They care about it as much as they need to to ensure that they stay in power.
For the record, what are you basing this claim on?
I'm not sure how to answer that. It seems like it would be preeminently obvious. When given the choice between continuing the evil of their regime and helping their own people, they've consistently chosen to continue the evil of the regime.
I don't understand how sane people can have this mindset. The deal allowed people to search Iranian nuclear facilities at any point, and certify that they were not enriching Uranium above 3.6%. How does this not help them? It's totally ridiculous for me to imagine anybody defending this decision. I know you tend to defend Donald Trump, but it's not as if you have to agree with him on everything to be a loyal subject, you know?
I don't really disagree about this characterization of Iran you've presented, but this kind of thing is exactly why we needed something like the Iran deal in the first place. It gave us oversight of Iran's nuclear capabilities and limited their ability to produce a nuclear weapon, which they were actually pursuing prior to the deal being made. This oversight is far more preferable to letting Iran isolate itself (in part because of the sanctions) and become an additional nuclear power that would be in the hands of a relatively extremist government in the most unstable region on Earth. Maybe yeah, now sanctions are going to be put back in place, but now Iran is probably going to start pursuing nuclear weapons again and we'll be right back in the precarious situation we were heading toward a few years ago. That's not to mention that sanctions will further turn Iran away from the west and toward other powers such as Russia and China instead, further weakening the West's global influence. What's the solution then? The sanctions in place clearly were not deterring Iran before. And I can certainly guarantee you now that the US and allies will not get a remotely good deal out of them now that the US has shown to be an unreliable negotiating partner.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.