C) Preemptive annihilation of Iran via multiple nuclear bomb drops

Bucky wrote:C) Preemptive annihilation of Iran via multiple nuclear bomb drops

slow your roll their Sen. Cotton.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Is there a credible alternative to the Iran deal other than war? Shouldn't Rand be supporting the deal if he was ideologically consistent?

We got years of the administration telling us no deal was preferable to a bad deal. Then they accepted a bad deal, and now the only alternative to the bad deal is war.

Consistency.

Fair enough, but do you really think Iran will come back to the table or accept stricter terms that violate its sovereignty in ways that will inflame their ultra conservative sect even more?

No, they won't come back to the table and give more concessions. Leverage is gone due to sanctions relief from European allies, Obama having the Security Council vote on the Iran deal before Congress, and the money that will be freed up as a result of the agreement.

I think they would have accepted stricter terms than this if the administration hadn't made it so clear that reaching any kind of a deal with Iran was a top priority. Iran was the party in the negotiations that was seeking relief/change from the status quo, and they ended up extracting all sorts of stuff even though they were working with the weaker hand. Opposition to the deal at this point is signalling that lawmakers think the agreement is a mistake because Congress will not stop it.

The deal is Obama and our allies betting that Iran's government is more likely to modernize/moderate if it's welcomed back into the world community. The no deal is better than a shitty deal school believed that pressure from maintaining sanctions would eventually lead to the regime accepting more significant concessions and at least hamstringing some of their efforts to foment trouble in the region in the interim by limiting their resources. But that rationale has been removed by how the administration has proceeded. Even if we keep our sanctions on Iran, no one else is other than Canada. Once Iran inevitably violates the agreement, we'll have to start from scratch in trying to build up a new sanctions regime, at which point Iran will be richer and possibly have the bomb. So hopefully the administration is right about how the Iranian government will behave in a decade, but that seems like a bad wager to me.

But even if you think that, there is no world in which voting down the agreement at this point does not produce a bad result. It seems like some observers think the override veto crowd is picking up steam.

I don't agree with the premise that it is a bad deal or that we were 'weak' in negotiating. Regardless, this:

at which point Iran will be richer and possibly have the bomb

And then what?

why wouldn't they just buy a bomb from russia?

pacino wrote:I don't agree with the premise that it is a bad deal or that we were 'weak' in negotiating. Regardless, this:

at which point Iran will be richer and possibly have the bomb

And then what?

We cross our fingers that they don't bomb Tel Aviv. Or set off an accelerated arms race with the Sunni Arab states. Or many other shitty things.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:But even if you think that, there is no world in which voting down the agreement at this point does not produce a bad result. It seems like some observers think the override veto crowd is picking up steam.

1) No one thinks the override veto crowd is picking up steam. At this point there might be enough Dems willing to filibuster the thing in the Senate so Obama doesn't even have to veto it.
2) I don't know what overriding the veto would really stop. The ship has sailed with the EU and UN sanctions being lifted. It would send some sort of statement and affect Iran's ability to grow economically somewhat, but the big stuff is gone.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:I don't agree with the premise that it is a bad deal or that we were 'weak' in negotiating. Regardless, this:

at which point Iran will be richer and possibly have the bomb

And then what?

We cross our fingers that they don't bomb Tel Aviv. Or set off an accelerated arms race with the Sunni Arab states. Or many other #$!&@ things.

If North Korea hasn't done it I doubt they'll do anything. It means certain death. That's the entire point of them wanting to acquire a bomb; the insurance. I don't know why you're shitting your pants so much over this.

For as much shit that's happened in the world, no one has stepped over that line. Well, almost no one.

doesn't Israel allegedly have Nuclear weapons? in what world would it be a good idea for Iran to use a nuclear weapon against the only other country in the region that has Nuclear Weapons?

Pretty much a guarantee that we have submarines parked in the middle east that would be able to launch nuclear weapons as well. not sure what they would be trying to accomplish if they attacked Israel.

NATO has weapons in Turkey and Italy and Israel has nukes but simply doesn't say so.

jamiethekiller wrote:doesn't Israel allegedly have Nuclear weapons? in what world would it be a good idea for Iran to use a nuclear weapon against the only other country in the region that has Nuclear Weapons?

Pretty much a guarantee that we have submarines parked in the middle east that would be able to launch nuclear weapons as well. not sure what they would be trying to accomplish if they attacked Israel.

This is assuming they're rational actors, that the command structure of whoever has access to the weapons is sound, that they won't give access to nukes or nuclear byproducts to Hezbollah or other terrorist organizations they support, that all these things are true of Saudi Arabia or UAE or whichever other Sunni states follow in their path.

Iran is very unlikely to just straight up fling a missile from their territory at Israel, but there are other ways that Iran having a nuclear weapon could end up in it being used. Proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, given the beliefs and potential instability of the governments there, is not a good thing and will be next to impossible to unwind.

TenuredVulture wrote:And maybe Hillary is the Dem equivalent of Nixon?

she definitely channels him in her standard speech-giving voice

pacino wrote:That's the entire point of them wanting to acquire a bomb; the insurance. I don't know why you're shitting your pants so much over this.

in fairness, I don't believe Jerz really believes it is such a bad deal at all. He's just taking one for the team here. He's an adult. It's just that he resolutely favors a political apparatus most of whose exponents, for many complex and some deplorable reasons, have utterly abandoned adulthood

being a little mean lately, smooth.


i think he simply believes Obama/Kerry did a bad deal that has swiss cheese holes in it; I don't think this at all, nor do I think a lot of impartial observers think that. what i do think is being missed is that there are already actors we would think are irrational that have bombs but they don't act irrationally when it comes to nuclear weapons. they just don't.

i dont want Iran to have nukes. I don't want us to have them. This deal helps improve hte future a slight bit.

drsmooth wrote:

pacino wrote:That's the entire point of them wanting to acquire a bomb; the insurance. I don't know why you're shitting your pants so much over this.

in fairness, I don't believe Jerz really believes it is such a bad deal at all. He's just taking one for the team here. He's an adult. It's just that he resolutely favors a political apparatus most of whose exponents, for many complex and some deplorable reasons, have utterly abandoned adulthood

It must be amazing to go through life believing people who disagree with you either do so because they're pretending they disagree when they actually agree with you or they're children.

The administration did not live up to its objectives in what they agreed to with Iran. Bob Menendez's speech today outlining his opposition to the agreement does a nice job highlighting just how little we get out of it and underlining the problems that come from enriching the Iranian regime. You can't suggest Menendez is only pretending to oppose the deal because he's Team GOP or yell Joos at him.

Scott Walker, not yet shitting the bed but definitely dropping eggy farts in there, rolls out his repeal/replace Obamacare "plan". Jindal, not to be outmaneuvered to Walker's right, shrieks about Walker's "cradle to grave" (read: "socialistical!") health plan

you couldn't make these guys up

Menendez opposed the deal because of some combination of the facts he has received millions from Israeli interest groups and hates the Obama administration.

He's awful, all around.

If the deal is so great for Iran, why were the reformists in Iran for the deal and the hardliners against it? If we are to judge by their actions, the hardliners there were upset they were giving up so much.