Breakthrough? Iran Agrees to Suspend Nuke Program

[Bilge_Rat]

good article in Politico on the fantasy that the U.S. could get a better deal by waiting:

First, it is highly unlikely that even our allies in Europe would join us in further sanctions against Iran in the wake of a nuclear agreement they believe is sensible and positive. That is even truer for other countries—like India, Japan, South Korea and China—that were pulled into the existing sanctions regime quite unwillingly. The support of these countries for the oil sanctions in particular has been critical to the sanctions’ effectiveness. They will not willingly sign up for more.

Second, if a deal falls through, it is likely that the existing multilateral sanctions regime will begin to crumble. As noted, countries like India and South Korea, who don’t feel threatened by an Iran nuclear weapon, will be only too happy to find a pretext to break out of the sanctions—perhaps tentatively at first but in a rush as others do. It will be hard to argue the rationale for sanctions, which, from the perspective of nearly every nation, will have achieved their purpose—bringing Iran to the table to negotiate serious limitations on its nuclear program.

Indeed, the proponents of tougher sanctions to get a “better” deal have misunderstood the nature of the Iranian sanctions. The fact is that the United States does not own or control the multilateral sanctions regime. The effectiveness of the sanctions is based on how the international community views the perceived threat and therefore the legitimacy of coercive actions to stop it.

Third, those who seek a better deal through tougher sanctions argue that we don’t necessarily need international support. The United States could unilaterally enact sanctions that have extraterritorial reach, as we already have done with a number of Congressional measures since 2010. The proposition is that we will to some degree deny foreign companies access to the larger, more important American market, if they choose to do business with Iran.

However, the context has entirely changed since the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act was passed in 2010. New extraterritorial sanctions would be directed against an Iran that has reached an agreement on its nuclear program with major world powers. The rest of the world generally detests our assertion of authority involving foreign companies in foreign countries. Here, for example, we would seek to close the U.S. market to Germany’s BMW if they sold cars to Iran or Japan’s Sony if it sold in Iran. If Congress imposed sanctions in spite of a nuclear agreement reached with Iran by major powers, the international community—except for a few countries—would believe those sanctions to be illegitimate. In this context, it is hard to imagine the U.S. government moving ahead with major sanctions proceedings against many of our friends and allies.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/newr...te=1&p=2304159

The reality is that time is running out for any sort of deal.

President Obama did a great job putting together an international regime of sanctions to bring Iran to the table, but the sanctions have been falling apart for some time.

China never really bought on to sanctions and was violating them behind the scenes. The EU is frustrated that Chinese companies have been taking over the Iranian Oil industry.

It was either do a deal now or lose the chance of any similar deal in the future.

What is the alternative then? Is the U.S. going to go to war with Iran to stop them from getting nuclear weapons?

[Bilge_Rat]

interesting...

The U.S. concern about Saudi Arabia’s reaction to the deal is reflected in the fact that even before speaking about it in the Rose Garden on Thursday or calling Netanyahu, Obama spoke with Saudi King Salman to discuss the outline being announced. He has also invited the leaders of Saudi Arabia and its allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain — to a summit at Camp David this spring.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...4.html?hp=l3_4

I anyone surprised the first call Obama made was to the Saudis to see if they were onboard?

[Oberon]

A war against Iran? You might as well just give Daesh their caliphate.

[Wolferz]

They'll shoot their eye out.

Not too much for the US to worry about now that the CHAMP program is being put back on track.
Cyber missile (EMP) warheads can be easily mounted in cruise missiles to take out their electronics if the need arises.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

interesting...



http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...4.html?hp=l3_4

I anyone surprised the first call Obama made was to the Saudis to see if they were onboard?

Its a wise to call ahead before you send U.S. tankers to conduct in-flight refueling of their aircraft over Yemen.

[Aktungbby]

[Oberon]

[Eichhörnchen]

Hey, shouldn't this be merged with Gargamel's model rocketry thread?

[Von Tonner]

What I am really looking forward to is, as everyone is expecting, the shrew of all shrews will be throwing her hat into the ring tomorrow for presidency.

And what will her take be on all of this.

[Eichhörnchen]

I was wondering whether anyone asked her yet what she thinks of Obama wooing Cuba, too?

[eddie]

Well, Iran will have better protection for their nuclear sites with the S-300 missile systems from Russia now that Putin has lifted the ban on selling them to the Iranians.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...ran/ar-AAaVXzC

[Bilge_Rat]

so the Iran bill has sailed through committee and looks to have a veto proof majority. It looks like a major blow to the Iran deal, but as usual in Washington, the devil is in the details.

The compromise legislation gives Congress 30 days to review a final deal with Iran if it is submitted by July 10, half of the original 60-day review period and eliminates a requirement that the United States certify that Iran is not sponsoring terrorism against Americans.


Though it gives Congress an avenue to reject the lifting of legislative sanctions that will be a key part of any deal with Iran, it explicitly states that Congress does not have to approve the diplomatic deal struck by Iran, the United States and other world powers. It also requires reports on Iran’s human rights record.


But it does not require Tehran to recognize the state of Israel nor does it treat an Iran agreement like a treaty, disappointing Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who had floated those ideas but withheld offering them as amendments. And some Democrats said they will fight to ensure that those provisions don’t end up in the bill when it comes to the Senate floor.

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz3XTkEGhx4

The key point is the one I bolded, the bill states the agreement is not a "treaty", therefore under the Constitution it does not have to be ratified by the Senate. So any agreement reched by the Obama administration will be binding, the Senate cannot override it, all they can do is decide when U.S. sanctions can be lifted, but that becomes somewhat academic once U.N. sanctions are lifted and the rest of the world is trading with Iran.


Presumably that is why Obama has stated he will not veto the bill. Both sides are happy, the GOP can publicly claim they won and Obama can assure Iran and the other signatories that the Senate cannot reject the deal.

[Platapus]

If both sides compromise and are pissed, it is probably a good balance.