US/IAEA reach Nuclear Deal With Iran
- Thread starter A.R.$
- Start date
How is my premise wrong?
Look...I get that this is a "decent" deal...but i'm unhappy with a nuclear iran.
This is such an important part that naysayers seem to overlook:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-nuclear-deal-obama/398450/
What’s more, even if Congress passes new sanctions, it’s quite likely that the overall economic pressure on Iran will go down, not up. Most major European and Asian countries have closer economic ties to Iran than does the United States, and thus more domestic pressure to resume them. These countries have abided by international sanctions against Iran, to varying degrees, because the Obama administration convinced their leaders that sanctions were a necessary prelude to a diplomatic deal. If U.S. officials reject a deal, Iran’s historic trading partners will not economically injure themselves indefinitely. Sanctions, declared Britain’s ambassador to the United States in May, have already reached “the high-water mark,” noting that “you would probably see more sanctions erosion” if nuclear talks fail. Germany’s ambassador added that, “If diplomacy fails, then the sanctions regime might unravel.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-nuclear-deal-obama/398450/
What’s more, even if Congress passes new sanctions, it’s quite likely that the overall economic pressure on Iran will go down, not up. Most major European and Asian countries have closer economic ties to Iran than does the United States, and thus more domestic pressure to resume them. These countries have abided by international sanctions against Iran, to varying degrees, because the Obama administration convinced their leaders that sanctions were a necessary prelude to a diplomatic deal. If U.S. officials reject a deal, Iran’s historic trading partners will not economically injure themselves indefinitely. Sanctions, declared Britain’s ambassador to the United States in May, have already reached “the high-water mark,” noting that “you would probably see more sanctions erosion” if nuclear talks fail. Germany’s ambassador added that, “If diplomacy fails, then the sanctions regime might unravel.”
"When critics focus incessantly on the gap between the present deal and a perfect one, what they’re really doing is blaming Obama for the fact that the United States is not omnipotent. This isn’t surprising given that American omnipotence is the guiding assumption behind contemporary Republican foreign policy."
"Obama has certainly made mistakes in the Middle East. But behind his drive for an Iranian nuclear deal is the effort to make American foreign policy “solvent” again by bringing America’s ends into alignment with its means. That means recognizing that the United States cannot bludgeon Iran into total submission, either economically or militarily. The U.S. tried that in Iraq.
It is precisely this recognition that makes the Iran deal so infuriating to Obama’s critics. It codifies the limits of American power. And recognizing the limits of American power also means recognizing the limits of American exceptionalism. It means recognizing that no matter how deeply Americans believe in their country’s unique virtue, the United States is subject to the same restraints that have governed great powers in the past. For the Republican right, that’s a deeply unwelcome realization. For many other Americans, it’s a relief. It’s a sign that, finally, the Bush era in American foreign policy is over."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-nuclear-deal-obama/398450/
So spot on....
"Obama has certainly made mistakes in the Middle East. But behind his drive for an Iranian nuclear deal is the effort to make American foreign policy “solvent” again by bringing America’s ends into alignment with its means. That means recognizing that the United States cannot bludgeon Iran into total submission, either economically or militarily. The U.S. tried that in Iraq.
It is precisely this recognition that makes the Iran deal so infuriating to Obama’s critics. It codifies the limits of American power. And recognizing the limits of American power also means recognizing the limits of American exceptionalism. It means recognizing that no matter how deeply Americans believe in their country’s unique virtue, the United States is subject to the same restraints that have governed great powers in the past. For the Republican right, that’s a deeply unwelcome realization. For many other Americans, it’s a relief. It’s a sign that, finally, the Bush era in American foreign policy is over."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-nuclear-deal-obama/398450/
So spot on...."When critics focus incessantly on the gap between the present deal and a perfect one, what they’re really doing is blaming Obama for the fact that the United States is not omnipotent. This isn’t surprising given that American omnipotence is the guiding assumption behind contemporary Republican foreign policy."
"Obama has certainly made mistakes in the Middle East. But behind his drive for an Iranian nuclear deal is the effort to make American foreign policy “solvent” again by bringing America’s ends into alignment with its means. That means recognizing that the United States cannot bludgeon Iran into total submission, either economically or militarily. The U.S. tried that in Iraq.
It is precisely this recognition that makes the Iran deal so infuriating to Obama’s critics. It codifies the limits of American power. And recognizing the limits of American power also means recognizing the limits of American exceptionalism. It means recognizing that no matter how deeply Americans believe in their country’s unique virtue, the United States is subject to the same restraints that have governed great powers in the past. For the Republican right, that’s a deeply unwelcome realization. For many other Americans, it’s a relief. It’s a sign that, finally, the Bush era in American foreign policy is over."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-nuclear-deal-obama/398450/
AV Dicey
All Star
Dana Milbank calls this the [elusive] Obama Doctrine...ironically this view has been there all along, Rachel Maddow connects this with Obama's opposition to the Iraq war (which put him over Hillary in the primaries and thus led to his presidency) and Beinart is right this is completely antithetical to the republican/white america's id. And it is the ballsiest/blackest thing his done, telling America yall aint as special as you think you are...Coates said black people will get depressed post Obama era, he's probably right"When critics focus incessantly on the gap between the present deal and a perfect one, what they’re really doing is blaming Obama for the fact that the United States is not omnipotent. This isn’t surprising given that American omnipotence is the guiding assumption behind contemporary Republican foreign policy."
"Obama has certainly made mistakes in the Middle East. But behind his drive for an Iranian nuclear deal is the effort to make American foreign policy “solvent” again by bringing America’s ends into alignment with its means. That means recognizing that the United States cannot bludgeon Iran into total submission, either economically or militarily. The U.S. tried that in Iraq.
It is precisely this recognition that makes the Iran deal so infuriating to Obama’s critics. It codifies the limits of American power. And recognizing the limits of American power also means recognizing the limits of American exceptionalism. It means recognizing that no matter how deeply Americans believe in their country’s unique virtue, the United States is subject to the same restraints that have governed great powers in the past. For the Republican right, that’s a deeply unwelcome realization. For many other Americans, it’s a relief. It’s a sign that, finally, the Bush era in American foreign policy is over."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-nuclear-deal-obama/398450/
what I want to know is how my boy Reza feels about this...
Quarterback
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCOaI06zAvg
they shoulda made this deal with saddam instead of taking him out 
ive been watching cspan way too much since this got announced. cpan1 2 and 3. unprecedented in my tv watching behaviors
a lot of dope insight being dropped in all these hearings. fukk outta here with these stupid tweets and articles @Napoleon
i am against this specific deal as well but u should actually watch/listen to the direct sources and people who will vote rather than reading click-bait weak journalism and trumpeting tweets from arm-chair experts who are no-where to be seen in any of these official discussions. those posts are eyesores. just drop your opinions/analysis instead of 55 tweets from jabronis followed by a
ive been watching cspan way too much since this got announced. cpan1 2 and 3. unprecedented in my tv watching behaviors
a lot of dope insight being dropped in all these hearings. fukk outta here with these stupid tweets and articles @Napoleon
i am against this specific deal as well but u should actually watch/listen to the direct sources and people who will vote rather than reading click-bait weak journalism and trumpeting tweets from arm-chair experts who are no-where to be seen in any of these official discussions. those posts are eyesores. just drop your opinions/analysis instead of 55 tweets from jabronis followed by a
Saddam had to go. Sooner or later.they shoulda made this deal with saddam instead of taking him out
ive been watching cspan way too much since this got announced. cpan1 2 and 3. unprecedented in my tv watching behaviors
a lot of dope insight being dropped in all these hearings. fukk outta here with these stupid tweets and articles @Napoleon
i am against this specific deal as well but u should actually watch/listen to the direct sources and people who will vote rather than reading click-bait weak journalism and trumpeting tweets from arm-chair experts who are no-where to be seen in any of these official discussions. those posts are eyesores. just drop your opinions/analysis instead of 55 tweets from jabronis followed by a
Dealing with him wouldve been far more preferable than with Iran. And not taking him out might have made it all a moot point. That was a foreign policy loss.