The Iran deal

November 25th, 2013 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

The Washington Post reports:

and six major powers agreed early Sunday on a historic deal that freezes key parts of ’s nuclear program in exchange for temporary relief on some economic sanctions.

The agreement, sealed at a 3 a.m. signing ceremony in Geneva’s Palace of Nations, requires Iran to halt or scale back parts of its nuclear infrastructure, the first such pause in more than a decade.

This is a very good thing. A failure to get a deal would have probably meant that sooner or later either the US or Israel would strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, and that would cause even greater regional instability.

This isn’t a deal to solve all issues between the US and Iran, or even the nuclear issue. But it is a good step in the right direction.

It is also a victory for the sanctions. They hurt Iran enough, that they were willing to do a deal.

The deal, intended as a first step toward a more comprehensive nuclear pact to be completed in six months, freezes or reverses progress at all of Iran’s major nuclear facilities, according to Western officials familiar with the details. It halts the installation of new centrifuges used to enrich uranium and caps the amount and type of enriched uranium that Iran is allowed to produce.

Iran also agreed to halt work on key components of a heavy-water reactor that could someday provide Iran with a source of plutonium. In addition, Iran accepted a dramatic increase in oversight, including daily monitoring by international nuclear inspectors, the officials said.

The last part may be the most important.

The concessions not only halt Iran’s nuclear advances but also make it virtually impossible for Tehran to build a nuclear weapon without being detected, the officials said. In return, Iran will receive modest relief of trade sanctions and access to some of its frozen currency accounts overseas, concessions said to be valued at less than $7 billion over the six-month term of the deal. The sanctions would be reinstated if Iran violates the agreement’s terms.

Again, this is a good deal and a win-win. The new Iranian President gets sanctions relaxed and makes it harder for the hardliners to undermine him. And Obama gets a foreign policy victory when he really needs some good news.

 

Tags:

95 Responses to “The Iran deal”

  1. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Israel may not swallow this rat: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-says-iran-deal-makes-world-more-dangerous/2013/11/24/e0e347de-54f9-11e3-bdbf-097ab2a3dc2b_story.html?clsrd

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Kimbo (858 comments) says:

    Umm, wasn’t a similar arrangement Bill Clinton made with North Korea in 1994 that would eventually see the dismantling of all of their nuclear facilities also described as “a good deal”?

    Just asking…

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Obama has the ability to sell out US, but this time he has sold out the western world completely. I wonder what his links to Islam really are!

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    I wonder what his links to Islam really are!

    One day the Messiah will come out of the closet.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. kiwi in america (2,495 comments) says:

    I strongly disagree David. Only 2 weeks ago Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei, in an address to an assembly of tens of thousands of Basij militiamen, declared that Israel was doomed to fail and characterized the “Zionist regime” as the “sinister, unclean rabid dog of the region.” He also said Israelis “cannot be called human beings.” Footage of the event showed the crowd shouting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

    The Iranians have made it abundantly clear their views on Israel. Current and past leaders have on numerous occasions expressed their desire to annihilate Israel AND to do all that is necessary to obtain a nuclear weapon. This action by the Obama Administration ranks with Chamberlin’s “peace in our time” Munich Agreement. Iran will continue to circumvent any supervision designed to curtail its nuclear programme. This action essentially reverses the West’s long held view that Iran STOP its uranium enrichment. The Geneva accord now explicitly acknowledges the Iranian plan with some feeble easily skirted attempt to regulate its advance.

    Like Munich before it, if the purpose was peace, the exact opposite will now be the case. Israel will now conclude that Obama’s bottom line – to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon- is as worthless has his promise that Americans could keep their health insurance under Obamacare was. The likelihood of a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has now dramatically increased. When faced to choose between a second Holocaust and the opprobrium of the US or the elites in the west, they will chose the latter. When Israel says “never again” – they mean it!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Again, this is a good deal and a win-win. The new Iranian President gets sanctions relaxed and makes it harder for the hardliners to undermine him. And Obama gets a foreign policy victory when he really needs some good news.

    No, DPF. This is progressive propaganda trying to make defeat look like a triumph.
    Peace in our time“, the infamous words of Neville Chamberlain have been uttered again.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. big bruv (13,680 comments) says:

    “Again, this is a good deal and a win-win”

    Unless of course you’re Israel.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Scott1 (504 comments) says:

    Iran making their views on Israel abundantly clear needs to be taken in the context of their pretty ineffective attempts to poke the sleeping bear that is Israel so far.

    When someone is constantly ranting – at some point you have to stop worrying about what they say and start dealing with only the things they actually do or are likely to do.

    The problem is that the current strategy doesn’t work. In the very long run the Iranians can build nukes regardless of anything the US does with sanctions etc it just takes a lot longer. The unilateral strike on Irans nuclear facilities also doesn’t work – it will again set the Iranians back – but it will redouble the Iranians desire to get nukes… unless it is a nuclear strike.

    Of course if it does turn out that bombing Iran is the best possible outcome – and Israel does decide to do it – that isn’t that bad from a US point of view. For once the US can leave Israel to sort out it’s own problems on it’s own coin. the US can then sit around going “tut tut” and not waste any political or actual capital.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Scott Chris (6,018 comments) says:

    Umm, wasn’t a similar arrangement Bill Clinton made with North Korea in 1994 that would eventually see the dismantling of all of their nuclear facilities also described as “a good deal”?

    So North Korea reneged. Does that mean Iran will?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Scott Chris (6,018 comments) says:

    I strongly disagree David. Only 2 weeks ago Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei, in an address to an assembly of tens of thousands of Basij militiamen, declared that Israel was doomed to fail and characterized the “Zionist regime”

    Heh, typical partisan response. Khamenei is Iran’s head religious wacko not head of government thankfully.

    Let’s just hope the United States government never succumbs to undue religious influence.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kimbo (858 comments) says:

    @ Scott1

    “The unilateral strike on Irans nuclear facilities also doesn’t work – it will again set the Iranians back – but it will redouble the Iranians desire to get nukes… unless it is a nuclear strike.”

    Actually they do work – in 1981 the Israelis decommissioned Iraq’s nuclear capacity with just such a strike.

    @ Scott Chris

    “North Korea reneged. Does that mean Iran will?”

    Any contract is only worth the good-will of the signatories and other interested parties who can support or undermine it.

    It doesn’t just depend on Iran in this case. It seems the Israelis are not happy – and as per above, they have a history of intervening in the region when they consider their national security is at stake despite what the USA or the UN would have them do.

    So if Israel is not buying into the deal, how is it “good”?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. kiwi in america (2,495 comments) says:

    Scott1
    Having a nuclear weapon will suddenly enable Iran to be a whole lot more effective at “poking the bear”.

    The world dismissed Hitler’s long expressed views on the Jews as just the ranting of an angry German soldier disillusioned by the Weimar Republic’s post WW1 privations. Israel does not have the luxury of underestimating annihilation talk. The western powers stood by helplessly and ignored the screws being turned on the Jews – even after the Russians discovered the concentration camps, the US and Britain did nothing. Israel learned that when it comes to the security of Israel, only Israel can truly protect itself. Israel has learned that relying on the diplomatic maneuverings of the world’s larger powers has little protective value. Obama has just proven that to be the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Reid (16,192 comments) says:

    Unless of course you’re Israel.

    Or one of the millions of galloping morons of the West who hallucinate that somehow, Iswael’s 300+ nuclear weapons don’t serve as any deterrent like it does to every single other nuculer country including that bastion of Iswaeli love, Pakistan.

    Somehow, to the galloping morons, Iran’s different. Somehow. Somewhere, over the rainbow, where mentalism rules, MAD doesn’t apply, and Fox is fair and balanced.

    But that’s what propaganda does to your mind when you swallow it whole as many have in the West over Iswael. It blinds you to logic and creates an alternative reality. Like, Iswael’s a poor widdle victim and all she ever does is defend herself. Iswael wouldn’t harm a fly because she’s a victim and if you don’t think like that then you must be anti-semitic. Forget the history and the inconvenient facts. Remember the holocaust. That’s the only relevant fact. That makes everything OK.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. F E Smith (3,324 comments) says:

    Wow, you really think it is a good thing?  I am quite amazed.

    Powerlineblog disagrees with you, telling us that it appears to allow Iran to continue with other parts of its nuclear weapons programme while gaining a relaxation of sanctions. 

    It appears to be a big win for the Iranian regime, a major sponsor of worldwide terrorism, the one that only the other day saw its Supreme Leader tell us that the Zionist regime is “doomed to collapse” and that “Israelis should not be called humans” in front of an audience that was shouting “Death to Israel”.

    If that is a moderate regime, then I would not like to see a hard line one.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. F E Smith (3,324 comments) says:

    Khamenei is Iran’s head religious wacko not head of government thankfully.

    Actually, he is the Head of State and is a greater authority in Iran than the President.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. skyblue (212 comments) says:

    The west bending down to camel jockeys yet again. When will the west learn they hate our guts and slit our throats?
    In 5 years we will watch their first test.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Liam Hehir (123 comments) says:

    Maybe you’re right. I hope so. If not, it could be Peace for our time.

    Just replace substitute “Iran” and “Middle East” where appropriate in the following: “The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace.”

    Maybe that’s overly pessimistic, though.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tvb (4,316 comments) says:

    Negotiation is the only sure way of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Kennedy realised this before anyone else back in 1962 over the Cuba missile crisis. Even one bomb could have catastrophic consequences for Israel let alone Israel’s response. Yet the Israeli PM thinks he can bomb them away though he seems to be more talk than action.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. greybeard (57 comments) says:

    Rubbish, DPF.
    Their leaders are already talking about restoring the enrichment program to what they want.
    The Iranians are getting what they want, an easement of the sanctions. Israel stands virtually alone because of Obama.
    And there is no such thing as ‘win-win': by definition, a winner is someone who benefits at someone else’s expense.
    To have a winner, there must be at least one loser.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. All_on_Red (1,550 comments) says:

    And how does Saudi Arabia feel about this? Oh that’s right, they have been allowing Israel to test long range flights through its air space.
    The enemy of my enemy and all that. The Sauds do not want Iran to have the bomb and it’s clear they will assist the Israelis to strike.
    To me this is the tipping point when the US finally is recognised as no longer a world power but is just an irrelevance. The US economy is in tatters, there’s no sign that it will or even could be turned around and frankly no country in the world now believes that the US has either the will or financial ability to project power in any region in the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Paulus (2,594 comments) says:

    Khamenei has already said it would not make any difference – and he is the only one who matters.

    I live in hope, but cannot accept that Iran’s Theocracy are capable of telling the truth about anything.
    I believe that until the educated young rise up again against the religious oppression and sanctions nothing will happen.
    Iran hopes that all will be rosy in the garden, and everybody will lift the sanctions at the same time continuing, in so called secret, to continue with enrichment enough to make nuclear weapons, and hawk them off to other states such as Chechnya who will take Russia first.

    But Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar bin Sultan, known as the Black Prince, and Director General of Saudi Intelligence controls the Middle East. It has been said that he is arguably one of the most dangerous men on the Planet, due to his involvement everywhere particularly in Syria of recent gas events, and his non agreement with Putin.

    But I am unsure of Israel’s intent as Iran will not change despite what they say and sign.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Ed Snack (1,833 comments) says:

    So Iran agrees to a pause in some developments (centrifuge installation but not development, building, or testing) at known sites, and in exchange gains relief from sanctions that were growing increasingly restrictive. They also get official approval to continue enriching, to retain what enriched Uranium they have, and they also have to submit to inspections from the UN at (again that word) known sites.

    Sounds like a suckers deal to me, and not for Iran. Once the sanctions are off and Iran is exporting oil to places like China, India, and Korea, how easy will it be to re-impose sanctions should Iran fail to live up to it’s “obligations”, especially if those are contested.

    This looks to me like yet another consequence of Obama’s domestic political weakness, he was desperate for a deal and the Iranians knew it. The only way it’s “win/win” is that it’s a win for Iran….and a win for Iran.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. All_on_Red (1,550 comments) says:

    Paulus

    “I believe that until the educated young rise up again against the religious oppression and sanctions nothing will happen.”

    I agree. Unfortunately the educated and internet savvy urban population is still outnumbered by the still pretty basic and very religious and conservative rural population. They support the theocracy and nothing will change until there is a shift in their views.
    It will happen though but probably not for a generation .

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    More on the subject: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2013/1124/Why-Israel-sees-historic-Iran-nuclear-deal-as-dangerous-appeasement

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    Obama has given Iran Billions of dollars. A slap in the face to Americans who lost inner city medical funding.

    Mayor Bloomberg also made it illegal to give NY street people money like it’s any of his business.

    Imagine being made a criminal for helping your fellow human being. Exactly as the Bible ordains.

    This is how the pollies push the envelope to see how far they can go with society.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. All_on_Red (1,550 comments) says:

    This is how the progressive liberals who reek of faux moral superiority push the envelope to see how far they can go with society.

    There, fixed it for you

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    ‘This is how the progressive liberals who reek of faux moral superiority push the envelope to see how far they can go with society.’

    Except it’s not the progressive liberals who have announced sterilisation for beneficiaries and thought police arrests for no crime committed as Paula Bennett has just announced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. kiwi in america (2,495 comments) says:

    Reid
    How can MAD apply when Israel is the size of Canterbury and would be annihilated in a first strike. Regardless of Israel’s faults and mistakes, one mistake they will never make again is to trust the west to prevent anti Semetic genocide. The risks posed by Egypt, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas or other terrorist organization pale into insignificance compared to a nuclear weapon in the hands of an extremist Islamic regime bent on the destruction of Israel.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    ‘The risks posed by Egypt, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas or other terrorist organization pale into insignificance compared to a nuclear weapon in the hands of an extremist Islamic regime bent on the destruction of Israel.’

    Fortunately for Israel, God is still moving for them which is why they still exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Fletch (6,240 comments) says:

    It’s a very, very bad deal. I’m surprised at you DPF.
    Almost 7 billion dollars will be flowing back into Iran, and the West gets nothing from it.
    The Weekly Standard lays out the facts –

    This interim agreement is badly skewed from America’s perspective. Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its “right” to enrichment in any “final” agreement. Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a “comprehensive solution” will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program.” This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a “compromise” on Iran’s claimed “right” to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.

    In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.

    Second, Iran has gained legitimacy. This central banker of international terrorism and flagrant nuclear proliferator is once again part of the international club. Much as the Syria chemical-weapons agreement buttressed Bashar al-Assad, the mullahs have escaped the political deep freezer.

    Third, Iran has broken the psychological momentum and effect of the international economic sanctions. While estimates differ on Iran’s precise gain, it is considerable ($7 billion is the lowest estimate), and presages much more. Tehran correctly assessed that a mere six-months’ easing of sanctions will make it extraordinarily hard for the West to reverse direction, even faced with systematic violations of Iran’s nuclear pledges. Major oil-importing countries (China, India, South Korea, and others) were already chafing under U.S. sanctions, sensing President Obama had no stomach either to impose sanctions on them, or pay the domestic political price of granting further waivers.

    Benjamin Netanyahu’s earlier warning that this was “the deal of the century” for Iran has unfortunately been vindicated. Given such an inadequate deal, what motivated Obama to agree? The inescapable conclusion is that, the mantra notwithstanding, the White House actually did prefer a bad deal to the diplomatic process grinding to a halt. This deal was a “hail Mary” to buy time. Why?

    Buying time for its own sake makes sense in some negotiating contexts, but the sub silentio objective here was to jerry-rig yet another argument to wield against Israel and its fateful decision whether or not to strike Iran. Obama, fearing that strike more than an Iranian nuclear weapon, clearly needed greater international pressure on Jerusalem. And Jerusalem fully understands that Israel was the real target of the Geneva negotiations.

    Worth reading the whole thing.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/abject-surrender-united-states_768140.html

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Fletch (6,240 comments) says:

    Why the Iran deal was worse than Chamberlain in Munich.

    But in truth, the west’s appeasement of Iran is significantly worse than its appeasement of Hitler in 1938, for a variety of reasons. First, as of 1938, Hitler had not yet made clear his plans to exterminate European Jewry. He was still attempting to ship European Jews out of Europe; the Final Solution was not formally adopted until 1941. Iran has made clear its desire to wipe Israel off the map. Its current leader, supposed moderate Hassan Rouhani, has refused to acknowledge the Holocaust as historically accurate, participated in a rally calling for Israel’s destruction, and according to Iranian press reports, stated, “The Zionist regime is a wound that has sat on the body of the Muslim world for years and needs to be removed.” Yet the Obama administration wants to pretend he is a moderate.

    Second, in 1938, Great Britain was dealing from a position of military weakness. After World War I, the anti-war British public insisted on large-scale military cuts – cuts opposed by then out-of-government figure Winston Churchill – that crippled its military readiness. Chamberlain’s deal was not merely an attempt to buy off Hitler; it was an attempt to buy Britain time to re-arm. Today’s Iran deal is precisely the opposite: an American government wants to slash its military, and wants to buy the Iranians time to secretly arm. America currently deals from a position of strength, and chooses weakness. Chamberlain dealt from a position of weakness, and wanted to give his own country time to build its strength.

    Third, in 1938, the Munich agreement was supported by France, the nearest military ally the British had in the region (the Anglo-Polish military alliance was not consummated until after Hitler had violated the Munich agreement by annexing the rest of Czechoslovakia). Both Israel and Saudi Arabia are militantly opposed to the western sellout of its allies in the Middle East in favor of paper promises from a lying regime.

    Finally, Chamberlain’s foolishness was a combination of myopia and fear. President Obama’s foolishness is a combination of malice and egotism.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/11/24/Obama-worse-than-Munich

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    ‘Obama has the ability to sell out US, but this time he has sold out the western world completely. I wonder what his links to Islam really are!’

    He wears a ring inscribed with Allah is god.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    ‘ Hitler had not yet made clear his plans to exterminate European Jewry. He was still attempting to ship European Jews out of Europe;’

    The Zionist bankers would not pay the ransom Hitler asked for

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Fletch (6,240 comments) says:

    If only Obama had some wise people around him. But he’s surrounded himself with idiots like Chuck Hagel, John Kerry and Susan Rice; “yes men” who subscribe to O’s way of thinking and are clueless and anti-Israel.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. eszett (2,392 comments) says:

    He wears a ring inscribed with Allah is god.

    Ah, don’t worry, Gollum will steal it off him and Frodo and his hobbit friends will take care of it from there on.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Twinkletoes (53 comments) says:

    Watched a very interesting utube video last month called “tape reveals deceit of Iran’s new President”. In the interview he was boasting of how he had completely cuckolded (?) El Bareidi in 2003 when the nuclear inspections teams were checking Iran. He had admitted that several sites were not acknowledged and that enrichment was taking place during the time of the teams visit, chuckle, chuckle, went Rouhani. He was Minister of Defence at the time.

    I am not fully convinced, for all Iran’s blustering and threats that Israel would be their first target. As we are seeing now, this war is one that began in 680 when the Sunnis killed the Prophet’s grandson and the Shia sect came into being. I am almost sure that Saudi (definitely Mecca) will be the first in line, or in conjunction with an attack on Israel, to feel the wrath of a spiritual leader whose only concern is for the 12th imam to appear and for the Shias to regain their rightful supremacy in Islam. Such is muslim fundamentalist thought and these guys are serious religious nuts, their minds do not inhabit the normal world.

    Just look at the extermination of Christians in Syria (and every muslim country). First they came for the Saturday, people, then they came for the Sunday people and finally the Friday people ruled the world, just as their prophet mandated in the Qur’an.

    We should be frightened by Obama’s desperately ignorant bungling attempts made in order to have himself seen historically as “The Messia” of world peace. He is way out of his pay grade in foreign affairs. Both the Saudis and the Israelies know this but the lefty liberals hate Israel so much they are prepared to let this happen. All the Gaza victimisation propaganda worked – good play by the muslims in setting this scenario up.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    kiwi in america (2,173) Says:
    November 25th, 2013 at 10:16 am

    Reid
    How can MAD apply when Israel is the size of Canterbury and would be annihilated in a first strike.

    Israel is about 8 thousand square miles. A nuclear weapon on the order of a 16-22 kiloton weapon (i.e. Hiroshima/Nagasaki) would cause severe damage out to about 5 square miles and light damage out to about 40 square miles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abombdamage1945.svg

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    ‘Ah, don’t worry, Gollum will steal it off him and Frodo and his hobbit friends will take care of it from there on.’

    and you haven’t made the connection he changed to a Muslim name like Muhhammad Ali did

    Conspiracy in plain sight

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    So North Korea reneged. Does that mean Iran will?

    It will be a lot harder for them to do so. North Korea is a completely closed society. Iran is relatively open in comparison to countries like NK and Saudi Arabia.

    Besides, the Iranians haven’t had a nuclear weapons program for a long time, if they ever did. Even if they got one, it would be pretty useless as nuclear weapons have no offensive value, and the crude, gun type weapon the Iranians would be capable of manufacturing would be insignificant compared to the arsenals of its near neighbours. The main danger would be that other Middle Eastern countries would seek nuclear weapons.

    The Israelis are being disingenuous: Iran would never launch a first strike against Israel. An Iranian nuclear weapon would restrict Israel’s freedom to strike other countries with impunity, and that is what they are so het up about.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. cha (3,929 comments) says:

    Why the Iran deal was worse than Chamberlain in Munich.

    In The Narrow Margin, a history of the Battle of Britain, the chapter on the Munich crisis detailed how fighter command had 70 Hurricanes and 28 Spitfires in service and the rest of its 600 or so interceptors were biplanes that had little chance of destroying the German bombers that were already in service in some numbers. Volume production wasn’t reached until 1940. No fighters, no Battle of Britain, no Britain.

    (The film The Battle of Britain was based on The Narrow Margin)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Israel is about 8 thousand square miles. A nuclear weapon on the order of a 16-22 kiloton weapon (i.e. Hiroshima/Nagasaki) would cause severe damage out to about 5 square miles and light damage out to about 40 square miles.

    If those square miles were centred on Tel Aviv, it would be enough to cripple Israel economically and culturally for good.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Why the Iran deal was worse than Chamberlain in Munich.

    And Saddam was another Hitler, right?

    You really are a lunatic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    ‘fighter command had 70 Hurricanes and 28 Spitfires in service ‘

    If the Luftwaffe had of attacked once more they would have won the Battle of Britain.

    Goering backed off one fight too soon.

    also, the Germans did not know how radar could be identified. They thought the advanced waring systems on airfields were underground. Therefore they never bombed the erct pylons they didn’t know were radar.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Wayne Mapp (65 comments) says:

    So Israel is opposed to the agreement (predictable enough), but what will they actually do? In my view, nothing, that actually matters.

    They won’t bomb Iran anytime soon. If they did it would mean the end of US aid for quite some time. And international pressure against such a raid will be immense. Israel would have to produce absolutely compelling evidence, such as a believable defector with photos of bombs to deflect criticism.

    Israel will lobby Congress, but that will not affect the outcome. US senators are not going to want to look like Israel determines US policy.

    Israel will carefully monitor Iran, but the IAEA also gets increased surveillance powers in the deal. And the IAEA, as opposed to President Bush and PM Blair, were proved correct in Iraq over the last 10 years.

    It is easy to raise the specter of Munich 1938 over any such agreement, but that does not make the comparison in this instance valid. Iran does not have the power of Nazi Germany. A serious breach by Iran would cast them out for decades.

    It is also worth noting that if the US had walked away from a credible deal, the UN sanction system would break down. China and Russia would have simply ended their adherence to sanctions. After all, the US is not the only player in town.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Israel will lobby Congress, but that will not affect the outcome. US senators are not going to want to look like Israel determines US policy.

    Surely you jest, sir.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Scott (1,763 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson at 11:14 a.m.– ” Iran would never launch a first strike against Israel. An Iranian nuclear weapon would restrict Israel’s freedom to strike other countries with impunity, and that is what they are so het up about”

    Right – what makes you think Iran would never launch a first strike against Israel? Iran has said for years that they want to annihilate Israel. If they got a nuclear weapon then they would have the means to annihilate Israel. Why can’t we believe them at their word? They want to annihilate Israel. They are enriching uranium to develop a nuclear weapon. Once they have a nuclear weapon then they will have the means to annihilate Israel. I think they mean what they say.

    As far as Obama goes I don’t think he has a clue about foreign policy. He strikes a deal but meanwhile Iran keeps developing a nuclear weapon.For the express purpose of annihilating Israel.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Ashley Schaeffer (457 comments) says:

    wikiriwhis business (2,249) Says:
    November 25th, 2013 at 10:29 am

    He wears a ring inscribed with Allah is god.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/weddingring.asp

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Liam Hehir (123 comments) says:

    Does Israel have a second strike capacity? It can launch missles from its submarines, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Fairfacts Media (372 comments) says:

    It is clear that Obama has sold Israel down the river.
    I wonder if the supporters of this deal are still in love with Obama.
    They haven’t yet woken up to the massive failure Obama is.
    Can the inexperienced senator from Illinios point to any success apart from lying and cheating his way back into office?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Right – what makes you think Iran would never launch a first strike against Israel?

    Because Israel would inevitably retaliate and the Iranian regime would be destroyed and millions of Iranians would be killed for no advantage. That’s how nuclear weapons work. They are offensively useless, because the cost of using them offensively is too great. They are superb defensive weapons, because no military or political objective is worth having one or more cities razed to the ground. Like it or not, nuclear deterrents work – that’s why WWIII never happened.

    That’s why North Korea has them – it demonstrates that the price of attacking North Korea (which could easily be overrun by the South on its own) would be the annihilation of a few major Japanese cities (Seoul is already covered, as North Korea has enough conventional artillery pieces in place to destroy the city in under an hour).

    The Iranians aren’t stupid. They’ve spent a lot of time building up their weird Islamic republic, and won’t throw it away just to get at the Israelis.

    The usual crank argument at this point is to declare the Iranians insane. Once that shopworn argument is deployed, it’s clear people have nothing substantial to offer. The same argument was used about the Soviets. Unfortunately, nobody is that mad – not even Kim Jong Il. Nuclear madmen are purely fictional creatures.

    The same goes for “giving them to terrorists”. Anyone who proposes that must be high. Why would a state spend billions of dollars and massive amounts of political capital to construct a nuclear weapon, only to donate it to a bunch of fanatics over whom they have no real control? It makes no sense.

    Were this ever to happen, no expense would be spared finding out where the weapon came from and would inevitably do so, and retaliation would be swift and deadly.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Nigel (517 comments) says:

    Nice to see @Tom Jackson & @Wayne Mapp posting such well argued and accurate posts, thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Anyone who thinks nuclear weapons don’t deter should consider that the Japanese – as fanatical a people as ever existed – sobered up pretty quickly when attacked by them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. cha (3,929 comments) says:

    It’s all a bit laughable Tom when Japan, despite killing an awful lot of westerners, have been holders of highly enriched uranium (HEU) since the 1960’s.

    Unlike several other states, Japan does not voluntarily declare its HEU holdings as part of its annual INFCIRC 549 plutonium report to the IAEA. The HEU materials at Japanese research facilities were supplied by the United States and the United Kingdom. [7] Approximately 500 kg of HEU at Japan’s FCA critical assembly, which started up in 1967, are of UK origin.

    http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/civilian-heu-japan/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Fletch (6,240 comments) says:

    He wears a ring inscribed with Allah is god.

    Whether Obama’s ring has the shadada on it (some say it does, some say it doesn’t) I don’t know. What is strange is that he wore the exact same ring on his wedding finger even when he was an unmarried student.

    http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/10/OBAMA-RING-closeup-7-w-bookshelf-occidental.jpg

    http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/10/OBAMA-RING-closeup-6-w-hasan-chandoo-occidental-closeup.jpg

    I’m not saying it is any kind of conspiracy, but why someone would use a ring they already own and wear as their wedding ring is a bit weird.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. cha (3,929 comments) says:

    Jeffrey Goldburg:

    U.S. President Barack Obama has had two overarching goals in the Iran crisis. The first was to stop the Iranian regime from gaining possession of a nuclear weapon. The second was to prevent Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
    This weekend, the president achieved one of these goals. He boxed-in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so comprehensively that it’s unimaginable Israel will strike Iran in the foreseeable future. Netanyahu had his best chance to attack in 2010 and 2011, and he missed it. He came close but was swayed by Obama’s demand that he keep his planes parked. It would be a foolhardy act — one that could turn Israel into a true pariah state, and bring about the collapse of sanctions and possible war in the Middle East — if Israel were to attack Iran now, in the middle of negotiations.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-24/in-iran-obama-achieves-50-percent-of-his-goals.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    Cha

    Still doesn’t explain why the US parked the largest naval force in history outside Iran.

    Except to support Israel and supress Iranian retribution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    It’s all a bit laughable Tom when Japan, despite killing an awful lot of westerners, have been holders of highly enriched uranium (HEU) since the 1960′s.

    Japan is militarily dominated by the US, and can do nothing without their permission. Not much to worry about. The Japanese would be the last people to nuke someone anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    Fletch (5,132) Says:
    November 25th, 2013 at 12:50 pm

    I’m not saying it is any kind of conspiracy

    Yes you are

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. RRM (9,770 comments) says:

    Whatever their rhetoric may be in rabble-rousing marches at home, the Iranian leaders must be fully aware of Israel’s track record of fucking up those who mess with them.

    Israel would hit the nuclear plant in a heartbeat if they seriously believed weapons building was near.

    Their whinging is an attempt to negotiate from the public gallery…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. cha (3,929 comments) says:

    Face saving.

    International Institute, UCLA, April 1, 2013—It serves the interests of Iran’s ruling elite to be developing nuclear arms, said Mansour Farhang at a lecture organized by the Center for Near Eastern Studies as part of the Bilingual Lecture Series on Iran.
    Farhang claimed the Islamic Republic government’s position on nuclear arms was identical to that of Saddam Hussein prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. There is no evidence that the country is close to actually making a nuclear bomb, he explained, but it cultivates an intentional ambiguity about whether or not this is true.

    According to the speaker, the Iranian regime would be open to reaching an implicit understanding with the United States that it will not develop nuclear weapons. Such an understanding, he said, would enable Iran to calm the fears of the United States and Israel without abandoning its anti-Western rhetoric. He added, however, that Iran was unlikely to agree to intrusive inspections.

    Farhang accordingly advised the United States to make a deal with Iran without calling it a deal. The arrangement, he explained, must allow the leaders of the Islamic Republic to return to Teheran and say, “We won.”

    http://www.international.ucla.edu/asia/news/article.asp?parentid=131260

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. MH (696 comments) says:

    Chamberlain bought time, I’m unsure what Obama has bought, but everyday one of those things stays in its box is a good day. The average male Iranian is quite happy to have his country building them. That’s the ground zero to worry about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Israel will be furious over this !

    They have been screaming for war against Iran for a long time. Mostly Obama has done his job [serving Israel] well by attacking Muslim countries all over the world and promoting radical regimes to destabilise and weaken the remaining Arab countries.

    Now that the Zionist state can not have a direct attack, I predict there is going to be an ” uprising” of imported Jihadists sponsored by the USA. Same as in Syria, Egypt…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. cha (3,929 comments) says:

    The market likes the agreement.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/24/israel-markets-iran-idUSL5N0J90KI20131124

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kimbo (858 comments) says:

    @ Tom Jackson

    “The usual crank argument at this point is to declare the Iranians insane. Once that shopworn argument is deployed, it’s clear people have nothing substantial to offer. The same argument was used about the Soviets. Unfortunately, nobody is that mad – not even Kim Jong Il. Nuclear madmen are purely fictional creatures”.

    I don’t think the Iranians are mad, but comparing them to the Soviets and Kim Jong Il overlooks an important ideological motivational difference – the former were committed materialists who believed that what you have is all you will get. Which was why Khruschev sobered up very quickly during the Cuban missile crisis. Communists may have a “climactic” view of history which they consider inevitable, but nonetheless it is not apocalyptic.

    In contrast the Iranians are a fundamentalist and militant Islamic regime that espouses a belief that God and his angels will intervene in an apocalyptic wrap up, so what we have is not all you will have. Therefore it is not of ultimate importance to preserve it. Plus, you can have the better life to come, 70 virgins et al, if your life is forfeited as a martyr in jihad.

    Now, I’m aware that no one ever complies exactly and with the tenets of their stated beliefs. Nevertheless, the ease with which suicide bombers and Islamic terrorists throw away their lives according to the tenets of a simplistic cartoon-like theology suggests we shouldn’t be too quick to assume folks are always reasonable.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. All_on_Red (1,550 comments) says:

    Tom
    Off topic but Japan and China are heading for a showdown over some disputed territory. China has stepped it up by declaring a ” fly only with our permission” zone. China is really starting to flex its muscles in the area. It could get nasty and the US will do nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I don’t think the Iranians are mad, but comparing them to the Soviets and Kim Jong Il overlooks an important ideological motivational difference – the former were committed materialists who believed that what you have is all you will get.

    You believe too much in the effects of ideology. The ideology of Kim Jong Il was basically to keep the Kim family in charge of North Korea. It’s the same error as Richard Dawkins, who thinks that religions cause bad behaviour. The wide variety of behaviours amongst those who profess the same religion stands as an obvious counterexample.

    Now, I’m aware that no one ever complies exactly and with the tenets of their stated beliefs. Nevertheless, the ease with which suicide bombers and Islamic terrorists throw away their lives according to the tenets of a simplistic cartoon-like theology suggests we shouldn’t be too quick to assume folks are always reasonable.

    The Japanese stand as an obvious counter example to your claim, and modern suicide bombings weren’t invented by Muslims. All theology is simple and cartoon like anyway (well, at least to philosophically sophisticated people), so I can’t see the point in picking on Islam.

    Individuals are more likely to be unreasonable than groups. In order to prosecute a nuclear war, you need to get at the very least thousands of government and military officials to go along with it, all of whom have their own agendas, families, etc. It’s a big ask, and very likely impossible.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Off topic but Japan and China are heading for a showdown over some disputed territory. China has stepped it up by declaring a ” fly only with our permission” zone. China is really starting to flex its muscles in the area. It could get nasty and the US will do nothing.

    No one is going to go nuclear over a couple of reefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Scott (1,763 comments) says:

    Tom I just do not agree with your argument at all. Israel is a very small country. One can easily imagine a nuclear Iran believing it could destroy Israel in a massive nuclear strike and forestall any but the most minimal retaliation.

    Iran is not reasonable. Their leaders believe that they have a holy duty to Allah to destroy Israel. They hate Israel. They are taught by their religion to hate Israel. They want to destroy Israel.

    To sit here in New Zealand in your post enlightenment modernist agnosticism and say that you can definitely say that Iran would never attack Israel with nuclear weapons demonstrates to me a level of hubris that is breathtaking. And on a par with Chamberlain believing that Hitler was a reasonable man.

    Iran says that it wants to destroy Israel. This is not a rational calculation – they see it as a religious duty. They believe that Allah has told them to do this.

    Surely the safer and more reasonable course is to take them at their word?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Tom I just do not agree with your argument at all. Israel is a very small country. One can easily imagine a nuclear Iran believing it could destroy Israel in a massive nuclear strike and forestall any but the most minimal retaliation.

    You’re wrong. Israel has made sure of retaliation via their Dolphin class submarines. The whole point of nuclear armed submarines is to ensure second strike potential.

    To sit here in New Zealand in your post enlightenment modernist agnosticism and say that you can definitely say that Iran would never attack Israel with nuclear weapons demonstrates to me a level of hubris that is breathtaking.

    No. It’s just simple realism.

    Iran says that it wants to destroy Israel. This is not a rational calculation – they see it as a religious duty. They believe that Allah has told them to do this.

    Just like we should have taken Kim Jong Il at his word when he threatened his neighbours. In most cases people threaten things that they aren’t willing to do – that’s why they threaten – if they really wanted to do them, they would. Threats are a tactic, and many of the Iranian threats appear to be primarily for domestic consumption – same with Kim Jong Il.

    As every human being knows, there’s a big difference between making threats and actually being prepared to carry them out.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    “Our enemies are mindless fanatics, who care nothing for their own welfare or the welfare of their children” is one of the oldest tricks ever, as is “our enemies are motivated solely by ideology and are incapable of compromise” (and hence war is the only option).

    Don’t tell me you’re still falling for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Kimbo (858 comments) says:

    @ Tom Jackson

    Even though I am a critic of Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ assessment that religion must always lead to evil (I am a relatively conservative Christain myself, although I harbour no grudge against Islam), I think there IS merit in their analysis that religion CAN lead people to commit the ordinarily unthinkable. Again, without wanting to labour the point, I think you place far to much stock on people’s capacity for logical reason.

    The Japanese surrender in WWII after Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not as straight-forward as you suggest. Remember the die-hards had already planned to strap explosives to thousands of kids and set them running at American soldiers if they attempted to invade. They expected casualties in the millions, and even after Hirohito made his famous radio speech they were still planning a coup, with the excuse that the Americans had probably used up all their ready supply of Atomic weapons. Remember that in a totalitarian society it is far easier to restrict information, and compartmentalise production of WMDs.

    You may not see the “point of picking on Islam”. Hmm. I would have thought events like 9/11 take suicide bombing out of the realm of historic and philosophical semantics, and into the realm of the currently feasible and actual. Destruction in a nuclear holocaust is simply on a continuum.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. All_on_Red (1,550 comments) says:

    Tom
    “No one is going to go nuclear over a couple of reefs.”

    Agree, but China has said it will shoot down aircraft which don’t comply and previously has said they will seize ships which venture into the area.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Even though I am a critic of Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ assessment that religion must always lead to evil (I am a relatively conservative Christain myself, although I harbour no grudge against Islam), I think there IS merit in their analysis that religion CAN lead people to commit the ordinarily unthinkable. Again, without wanting to labour the point, I think you place far to much stock on people’s capacity for logical reason.

    I’m not claiming that everyone is Bertrand Russell. All I am claiming is that people’s capacity for self preservation and the preservation of their loved ones generally prevails. The bigger the number of people, the more likely it is to prevail. People do all sorts of weird things in the name of religion, but it’s hard to find a large society that has knowingly self-immolated because of it. Similarly, the world’s religions have railed against sex and adultery for centuries, but they remain eternally popular activities.

    Religion leads people to do all sorts of absurd things as individuals and as groups. I’m not claiming that it doesn’t. My claim is much more modest: it is that in the modern world it cannot lead an entire society to knowingly self-immolate.

    It’s relatively easy to get a small group or an individual to take up sexual abstinence or to refrain from homosexual behaviour. We should know by now that trying to do the same to an entire society is doomed to fail.

    No individual can start a nuclear war. Not even Obama. In theory he can, but doing so requires the co-operation of tens of thousands of people. The same goes for dictators, because there is in fact no such thing as a dictator. Dictators remain in power because they have persuaded a sufficient number of others to go along with them. That’s just not going to happen given a sufficiently complex society.

    My point is at root the same as the general criticism of left wing utopian schemes: just as it is unreasonable to think that everyone will happily become the “new socialist man” it is unreasonable to believe that everyone will happily become the “self-immolating religious fanatic”.

    The Japanese surrender in WWII after Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not as straight-forward as you suggest. Remember the die-hards had already planned to strap explosives to thousands of kids and set them running at American soldiers if they attempted to invade. They expected casualties in the millions, and even after Hirohito made his famous radio speech they were still planning a coup, with the excuse that the Americans had probably used up all their ready supply of Atomic weapons. Remember that in a totalitarian society it is far easier to restrict information, and compartmentalise production of WMDs.

    But they didn’t because talking about optional heroic last stands is quite different from actually doing it.

    You may not see the “point of picking on Islam”. Hmm. I would have thought events like 9/11 take suicide bombing out of the realm of historic and philosophical semantics, and into the realm of the currently feasible and actual. Destruction in a nuclear holocaust is simply on a continuum.

    No it’s not. You misunderstand what 9/11 was about. It was a provocation intended to lure the US into an expensive, unwinnable war. Osama Bin Laden believed that the mujahadeen had caused the fall of the Soviet Union. He believed that he could do the same again to the US. A false belief, to be sure, but calculated one. Gwynne Dyer has a good account of why 9/11 happened in one of his books.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Agree, but China has said it will shoot down aircraft which don’t comply and previously has said they will seize ships which venture into the area.

    You mean made threats like Canada does?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Scott (1,763 comments) says:

    Yes the Israeli submarines give a second strike capacity. But there are only 3 of them in active service and it’s possible Iran may take the second strike if they could achieve their goal of obliterating Israel. Secondly you are just not taking what they say seriously. They have suicide bombers. If they had a nuclear weapon they could have a team of suicide bombers smuggle a bomb into Tel Aviv for example. Every day in Iran every school child is required to chant “down with America and death to Israel”. Iran is capable of anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. All_on_Red (1,550 comments) says:

    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/11/25/arab-nations-silent-iran-nuclear-deal

    Oh oh. Looks like the drums are beating.
    “Arab states in the Persian Gulf have greeted the interim nuclear deal struck between Iran and the West in Geneva with sullen silence.
    Despite their muted response, however, the Gulf states have watched the growing signs of reconciliation between the US and Iran with undisguised horror. As the Geneva talks rolled into Saturday night and a deal edged closer, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah summoned the emirs of Kuwait and Qatar to Riyadh for talks on how to respond.”
    “”There is real fear that America is shedding all its responsibilities in the region, that our diplomacy has failed. We need to seek new alliances elsewhere,” said the Saudi official.”
    http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2013/11/24/officals-israelis-in-secret-trip-to-inspect-saudi-bases-could-be-used-as-staging-ground-for-strikes-against-iran/
    TEL AVIV — Israeli personnel in recent days were in Saudi Arabia to inspect bases that could be used as a staging ground to launch attacks against Iran, according to informed Egyptian intelligence officials. The officials said Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and other Arab and Persian Gulf countries have been discussing the next steps toward possible strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.”

    Gee, stunning hopey changey diplomacy from Obama. Next time he goes to Saudi he’ll have to do more than bow to the King. If he ever goes there again…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. All_on_Red (1,550 comments) says:

    Tom
    http://www.france24.com/en/20131123-china-creates-air-defence-zone-over-japan-controlled-islands
    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/11/23/national/china-sets-up-air-defense-id-zone-above-senkakus/#.UpLa1rIaySN

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Yes the Israeli submarines give a second strike capacity. But there are only 3 of them in active service and it’s possible Iran may take the second strike if they could achieve their goal of obliterating Israel.

    One of those has enough firepower to take out several Iranian cities with nuclear weapons. No doubt, the Israelis do exactly what the UK does and have at least one at sea all the time. Iran has six cities of over a million people (about 2-3 times the population of Hiroshima in 1945). The detonation of a nuclear weapon over any one of those would be a megacatastrophe and the death knell for any government that allowed it to happen. Most Iranians don’t give a fuck about Israel.

    Secondly you are just not taking what they say seriously. They have suicide bombers. If they had a nuclear weapon they could have a team of suicide bombers smuggle a bomb into Tel Aviv for example.

    Why bother when they could just launch it by rocket? Either way, they will be found out and smashed into oblivion.

    Every day in Iran every school child is required to chant “down with America and death to Israel”. Iran is capable of anything.

    So what? In North Korea it’s worse, but there is no way in hell that North Korea would start a war against the US. The Iranians actually have a good reason to detest the west. It’s not like they’ve been treated fairly in the past.

    Stop taking your politics from action movies. The real world is different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Canada attacked Spanish trawlers over halibut fishing.

    next.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Can anyone explain to me how Israel, a country that is not much bigger in terms of population than NZ and which has a lower GDP per capita than we do can afford to spend ten times what we do on defence?

    The only countries that spend more than Israel on defence as a percentage of GDP are Eritrea, Saudi, the UAE and Oman.

    It doesn’t add up. How long can they continue to fund this absurd adventure?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Fletch (6,240 comments) says:

    Tom, if they don’t, they are dead; much more so than any other country in the world.
    If Israel laid down their arms tomorrow, they would be dead.

    If the other Arab countries laid down their arms, we’d have peace in the Middle East.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Tom, if they don’t, they are dead; much more so than any other country in the world.

    Then it’s hardly worth it, is it? They be better off in New Jersey.

    Imagine the furore here if one out of every 16 dollars was taxed for military spending.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson @ 6.53

    Silly post. Ignorant even.

    Fletch took the trouble to spell it out for you.
    Re-read his sensible post at 6.48

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Monique Angel (266 comments) says:

    Tom. look at the geography of Israel. And NZ should spend as much as Israel on defence and stopping the freeloading pacific island cunts.
    Then you wouldn’t hear any threat of people smugglers /(boat people).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Scott1 (504 comments) says:

    Kimbo,
    if they work then this strategy is a win for everyone (besides iran) because it makes it more likely israel will do the only other strategy which can work. But the Iranians have been expecting a strike from Israel for a long time they may have put their facilities a little way under the ground.

    Kiwi in America,
    you mean they will poke the bear with a big stick rather than a little one? That just means you get to die a bit more painfully…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Twinkletoes (53 comments) says:

    And when Israel has been disposed of – who next. You seem very unaware of the 1400 years of Qur’anic hatred and supremacy which still today makes them believe that the world should be ruled by the strictures of Islam. it is the duty of all muslims to achieve this end even if it is only to slaughter one little Jewish boy in France, or, like yesterday – in America. Obamas support of the muslims has given them renewed impetus as seen in the hate crimes all over the world – any country where where muslims have managed to infiltrate in large numbers. Let alone the ongoing slaughter of the Southern Thai Bhuddists and the Christians of the Southern Philippines.

    I doubt people would be too concerned about military spending if it kept them safe from the muslim hordes.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Scott1 (504 comments) says:

    To use a first strike to wipe out a much stronger countries military capacity would be pretty difficult. You actually would have to get a more or less direct hit on a nuclear facility to have confidence you would destroy it (for example a guy survived in a basement 150m from Hiroshima ground zero)… and you need to do that quite a lot of times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. SPC (5,537 comments) says:

    It seems we still have advocates for continuance of a Cold War in the ME.

    The best deterrent was always a UN sanctions regime to be applied if Teheran developed nuclear weapons. This seems to be one way to realise that deterrent, easing existing sanctions in return for both restraint and greater international oversight. This is an appropriate compromise.

    The strategy continues the Syrian deal, where Europe, the USA and Russia and China now take a unified approach (UNSC 5 veto powers) to the ME. It is a step back from a Sunni side led by Riyadh and a Shia side lead by Teheran divide across the wider region. Where each seeks to find one of the veto powers as their backer. The irony in this is that now the two sides will have less incentive to seek to outdo each other in condemnation of Israel, thus the rhetoric towards Israel will now moderate. The downside for Israel is that international consensus in dealing with the region will only further expose how inept their diplomacy has become – how over reliant they have been on the security crisis card.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Tom, Israel does not pay for it. It is a parasite nation created using other people’s money to fulfill religious fantasies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Twinkletoes (53 comments) says:

    The American jews do looby the Govt. but they also contribuet a lot financially to American financial support of Israel. This nation is a resestablishment of the one constantly invaded and attacked by the Persians and Romans and what Jews remained wre finished off in the musim invasion of Syria. The Arabian Jews had been finished off not long before.

    Compared to muslims the Jewish people have contributed much to our modern world – let them live in peace in their traditional homeland.

    Why do muslims think, because once they ruled a land, it must be theirs forever? Dangerous precedent to bow down to when one considers how they once ruled Hungary, Greece and the Balkans et al plus colonising much of Poland and their escapades into France from their Spanish and North African base conquests. To say nothing of the civil wars they created in Malaysia which was conquered state by state, and Indonesia who went down with hardly a whimper after the lesson of Malaysia.

    No wonder, last week, Angola banned Islam in their nation and started deconstructing their mosques. How many other countries would have the balls to finally say no to this aggressive ideology with ambitions of world supremacy? Too PC and lefty for our own good.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. SPC (5,537 comments) says:

    To the Moslem, the Christians took over the Roman Empire and later launched a Crusade into the ME, then conquered the New World and much of Africa and Asia, then backed Zionism because of their ambition for world supremacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. valeriusterminus (247 comments) says:

    David
    “It is also a victory for the sanctions”
    The P5+1 deal acknowledges that Iran has a right to enrichment. A non-negotiable element for Iran, as this right is set in concrete.
    This acknowledgement renders the foundation of the sanctions liquefacteous.
    Wiithout foundation, actions – least ideas, cannot be victorious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Silly post. Ignorant even.

    Fletch took the trouble to spell it out for you.

    What would you know?

    If people want to waste their time and money on a racist, colonial fantasy, that’s their problem. Just how long ordinary Americans are willing to put up with the demands of a vocal minority will determine just how long this daft experiment lasts.

    The American jews do lobby the Govt. but they also contribuet a lot financially to American financial support of Israel. This nation is a resestablishment of the one constantly invaded and attacked by the Persians and Romans and what Jews remained wre finished off in the musim invasion of Syria. The Arabian Jews had been finished off not long before.

    This is a religious fantasy. The Bible is not a work of history and the idea of a race that continues through history is a fantasy promoted by, among others, the Nazis. Contemporary Jews have no more claim to Palestine than I have to the ancestral lands of the Vikings and Celts.

    Races and nations are modern political fictions designed to promote contemporary causes. Get over it already – the concept of race that people now use – like the concept of a nation state – is a fairly recent invention.

    Compared to muslims the Jewish people have contributed much to our modern world – let them live in peace in their traditional homeland.

    Well, there’s a load of historical ignorance. Check out how many Arabic loan words we have – there are lots, and there’s a reason for that.

    Judaism, like every other religion, is a load of superstitious, pseudo-historical crap. Anyone trying to promote a political program based upon it or any other religion deserves to be treated like the mediaeval savage they are.

    Mind you, the Iranians aren’t much better in this regard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. MH (696 comments) says:

    China is Iran’s largest oil customer,maybe they will be the brokers claims The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.
    Russian influence over Syria may have led to some dismantling of Chemical weapons but Iran will not IMO, let this one go no matter what acceptable new face/front they put out to the west. Appeasement and poking have their limits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    ‘China is Iran’s largest oil customer,maybe they will be the brokers claims The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.’

    Very peculiar when we recognise Communism and Islam the biggest viers for the world in modern times. So, completely polarised from each other.

    Follow the money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.