Skip to main content

Iran's not-yet-completed heavy-water reactor at Arak. Further development at the reactor, capable of producing plutonium that could be used in a nuclear bomb, is frozen as part of the six-month Geneva agreement.
Iran's not-yet-completed heavy-water reactor at Arak. Further development at the reactor, capable of producing plutonium that could be used in a nuclear bomb, is frozen as part of the six-month Geneva agreement.
With the six-month agreement freezing Iran's nuclear development and relaxing some economic sanctions in hand, the hard part begins: Negotiating a comprehensive agreement with verifiable provisions to ensure that Iran does not use its civilian nuclear development to build a nuclear weapon or position itself close to being able to do so.

While the media focus on the deal has been on the five days of high-profile negotiations in Geneva that ended with a pre-dawn signing of the four-page document this weekend, secret talks have been going on with Iran since at least three months before Hassan Rouhani was elected as Iran's new president in June.

While the Geneva talks ended in smiles and handshakes all around from all parties—albeit with caveats from Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama—back home in Iran and the United States, there are many who think there should have been no negotiations in the first place, and they are determined to mess up the ones already under way for the longer-term deal.

That opposition is also, obviously, very strong in Israel across party lines.

After more than a decade of bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran talk from Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders, as well as U.S. neoconservatives like John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who just three weeks ago made his latest call for Israel to bomb Iran, one would think that the Geneva agreement would provide at least a six-month reprieve from such talk. But that's unlikely.

We've already heard from Prime Minister Netanyahu, who called the deal "an historic mistake." Most of the Israeli leadership, in and out of office, views an Iran with nuclear weapons or the capability to make some in a few months time, as an existential threat. There are many high-level Israelis who would like to give the world another dose of  the 32-year-old Begin Doctrine, which calls for preventive attacks on any enemy of Israel that appears close to developing a nuclear weapon. The 2007 destruction of the Syrian reactor under construction in the desert at al-Kibir was an example of the Begin Doctrine at work.

But despite the fiery rhetoric, it is hard to imagine that Israel, despite its leaders' complaints about the international agreement that they view as a snare and delusion, would follow Bolton's advice during the next six months even if taking out Iran's nuclear infrastructure were as simple logistically to destroy as Israel found it to blast the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 and the Syrian reactor six years ago. And although Israel weathered the diplomatic storm over the Osirak attack, this time might well be different. That doesn't mean Israel won't do everything it can to undermine progress on a comprehensive agreement, including working hard to persuade its allies in Congress to push for more sanctions instead of relaxing them, something sure to give the hard-liners in Tehran a we-told-you-so edge.

Please read below the fold for more analysis.

Iran's hard-liners are relatively silent now. But they too can be expected to try every means at their disposal to ensure that no long-term deal is approved. They will surely seek to convince Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds the ultimate real authority in Iran, that it is better to endure the sanctions that have deeply wounded their country's economy than to make a long-term deal that constrains its nuclear program in any way, such as the intrusive daily inspections the six-month agreement mandates.

These hard-liners might have the support of the populace behind them on that. Iran's opposition movement—whose leaders detest the hard-liners on many issues and would like to see big changes in the theocratic governance of the Islamic state, a move to real democracy not subject to the mullahs' vetoes and Khamenei's edicts—is not unified on the issue of nukes. A recent poll shows 68 percent of Iranians favor continuing the development of civilian nuclear power (with 34 percent in favor of developing nuclear weapons).

In the United States, the hard-line bomb-bomb-bomb-we-shouldn't-be-negotiating-at-all crowd has been in high dudgeon since even before the Geneva deal was signed. But they aren't the only foes. Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey (who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) have also expressed strong opposition and said they will continue to press for stronger sanctions despite the deal.

While their opposition may not be as fierce as that of the hard-line neoconservatives, it may well give strength to the neocons' push.

The neoconservative opposition to a deal short of outright Iranian surrender can ultimately be traced to the second incarnation of the Committee on the Present Danger in 1976. That group, comprised then mostly of Cold War Democrats, rejected détente with the USSR as allowing the Soviets to gain a military advantage. The Central Intelligence Committee at the time was underestimating Soviet strength, CPD said.

Ultimately, thanks to pressure from the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, then serving his first term as secretary of Defense, the neoconservative-dominated "Team B" was officially set up. It said the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate of the USSR was badly wrong. Team B vastly overstated Soviet military power, argued that the U.S. was beset by nuclear inferiority, and made a rash of other claims about Soviet strength and intentions, almost every one of which turned out to be wrong. But Team B nonetheless sparked a U.S. military spending spree that started under President Jimmy Carter and was greatly expanded under Ronald Reagan.

One of the participants in CPD and Team B—Paul Wolfowitz—generated the neoconservative underpinnings for what would eventually become the Bush Doctrine. That doctrine supports preventive war. That is, the U.S. is within its rights to attack a nation that it thinks might, at some time in the future, though not imminently, attack it. While pre-emptive war, a first strike directed at stopping an imminent attack, is widely viewed by international legal scholars as part of every nation's right of self defense, preventive war is a war of aggression.

Such would be an attack against Iran based on the view that it might, someday, build nuclear weapons that it might, someday, use against Israel or Saudi Arabia or the United States. Thus do the Begin and Bush doctrines intersect in the minds of those whose bomb-bomb-bomb mentality holds sway.

President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have both made clear that the "military option" is not off the table with Iran. If no satisfactory long-term agreement can be achieved, Iran's nuclear facilities are still at risk of a U.S. or U.S.-Israeli attack. Which would be a grotesque move filled with civilian casualties and ferocious blowback.

But, for now, thanks to the willingness of the Obama administration, unlike its predecessor, to actually talk to Iran, the possibility of such an attack has been reduced. It will be up to progressives to urge their elected leaders—including Schumer, Menendez and other naysayers—not to undermine that diplomacy. The first step? Fighting against the addition of more sanctions.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:20 PM PST.

Also republished by Adalah — A Just Middle East and Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  well, how the hell can the MIC make a buck, (36+ / 0-)

    with all this damn peace breaking out?

    Of course there are powerful factions at work to sabotage these negotiations.

    don't always believe what you think

    by claude on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:31:47 PM PST

  •  cynical, sinister, stupid, obsolete, (16+ / 0-)

    ignorant, arrogant, selfish, paranoid, foolish fiends comport to keep the world from holding hands in loving, courageous harmony.
    It's time for the bravery of good will and forgiveness; falsity or betrayal can quickly change the course back, if necessary.
    But, not to try is idiocy, and sagacious, savage despicable.

    it tebble, it hobble; honey lu been shot. - harvey kurtzman

    by renzo capetti on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:39:57 PM PST

  •  We have little to nothing (26+ / 0-)

    to lose and everything to gain - IMO - by going with this temporary 6-month agreement.

    I am sick and tired of hearing and reading about people who say this won't work. What did we have before? Nothing - nada - zip. At least now we get the daily inspections with the possibility of a long term solution.

    My right leaning and sometimes fanatic right wing family and friends are screaming about Obama selling us out. I tried to do a discussion and lost my step son :( - but it was just a matter of time since neither his dad nor I agree with him on the gun issue.

    As far as I am concerned, last week was a good week for democracy (nuclear option) and for diplomacy.

    When my children were young and they would ask me what I would like for birthdays, Christmas, etc., my answer would be peace and harmony.

    I still want peace and harmony in this world for them and my grandchildren.

    s/ naïve Proud Mom and Grandma :)

    •  You should tell your family the deal with Iran (5+ / 0-)

      is strategic and economic, and that that the US are using Iran's nuclear program as a front to extract the necessary concessions from the Iranian government. Washington's primary concern is not Iran’s nuclear programs (don't tell them that), but to gain US access to Iran's huge reserves of oil and gas, and enlist Tehran in US efforts to ensure its dominant role in the Middle East and Central Asia.

      I'll be amazed if they don't buy into that. And if they do, it will be ironic, because that's the Socialist Equality Party's take on this deal (don't tell them that, either).

      •  Sorry, right wingers don't listen to reason. (0+ / 0-)


        5%, maybe 10% at absolute most do. But the rest are unreachable.

        •  Yes as these neocons would have told JFK to bomb (0+ / 0-)

          Cuba and go to war with the USSR and start WWIII.

          They would say Kennedy sold us out to the Russians and Cuba.

          Kennedy had to deal with some of these same kind of idiots but he and Bobby told them No, No, and No.

          The people were relieved, pleased, and praised President Kennedy for his diplomacy.

          Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at

          by wishingwell on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:16:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's not enough they have to frack the entire (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        crose, Lepanto

        US landscape, they also have to blow up the Middle East?

        If only they would go after global climate change with the same zeal and fury as they do fossil fuels.

        To thine ownself be true

        by Agathena on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:22:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good summary! (21+ / 0-)

    My theory is that the underlying concern about this agreement with Iran is that it paves the way for Iran to become a stronger player in the Middle East. If the agreement holds, Iran moves closer to having sanctions lifted and becoming a stronger economic and political force in the region.

    From my perspective, I'm all in favor of the US moving towards a more diplomatic and rational relationship with Iran.

    •  they're already a very strong force in the region. (16+ / 0-)

      Our foolish war on Iraq strengthened Iran, just as some decent foreign policy experts predicted. (I heard a discussion on public radio before the Iraq invasion where a couple of foreign policy people predicted exactly what would happen if we invaded Iraq. And they were right).
      I'm pleased we have any agreement at all and hope this will lead to a longer term plan.

      While Democrats work to get more people to vote, Republicans work to ensure those votes won't count.

      by Tamar on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:29:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I go along with your theory... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, erratic

      ...and add my own along these lines...

      Using all forms of power generation, including nuclear, Iran will be a major exporter of electricity. Iran already exports electricity to seven neighboring countries. The Peace pipeline currently under construction will provide gas to Pakistan and India. Thus Iran's wealth through exporting these two energies will be acquired without any trading of these products with USA. USA being a nation too distantly located to receive these products.

      If USA wants Iranian oil, then they can go to Iran and line up like everyone else to take home a super-tanker load of oil. However the US may have to buy their oil at the Iranian International Oil Bourse on Kish Island in the Persian Gulf. A bourse that doesn't trade in the US dollar. This may inspire US to give Iran a miss and to buy their oil on another bourse that accepts US dollars.

      The real threat to USA, is that Iran becomes a major economic power in Western Asia and does so independent and in isolation of the US. In future, any US (only) sanction on Iran, will not impact the Iranian economy. Effectively Iran renders the US powerless of any control over Iran's economic growth and prosperity.

  •  Obama has public support (18+ / 0-)

    A couple of Washington Post/ABC poll asked this question: “Thinking now about the situation with Iran, would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift some of their economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?”

    By a 64-30 percent margin, a clear majority of those surveyed agreed with the premise of the question, which is the essence of the deal just worked out.

    Again there were differences in party registration, but most Republicans (57 percent) and Independents (63 percent) agreed, as did Democrats (72 percent). And from CNN:

    A CNN/ORC International poll in late September found that “three-quarters of Americans say they favor direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran in an attempt to prevent that country from developing nuclear weapons.”
    Any serious analysis of this situation has to highlight the difference between public opinion and inside the beltway opinion on this issue.
    •  That's two polls... (10+ / 0-)

      ...that give some hope.

      But in the same WaPo poll, Americans were asked: "How confident are you that such an agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons: very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?"

      Very confident: 4%; somewhat: 32%; not so confident: 27%; not confident at all: 34%

      Combine that with a couple of other polls (admittedly not that recent) and the waters get even more muddied:

      By a margin of 49% to 49%, Americans said March in a CNN/ORC poll, that they would want the U.S. to support an Israeli attack on Iran designed to stop Iran from getting nukes.

      And in a Pew Poll 13 months ago, the response to "Thinking about the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, which is more important in your opinion -- to take a firm stand against Iranian actions, OR, to avoid a military conflict with Iran?" 56% said take a firm stand and 35% said avoid military conflict.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:25:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I just stopped by to see what was ... (7+ / 0-)

    distracting the American People from the the 'failures' of Obamacare.

    A mirror is facial recognition hardware. Your narcissism is the software.

    by glb3 on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:08:26 PM PST

  •  I've never understood but maybe someone will (0+ / 0-)

    explain why if Iran does not have evil nuclear intentions why they won't give into the demands the world wants?  Wouldn't all the sanctions just melt away? Why do we have to negotiate with them?  What is it that they want?

    I'm all in favor of a six month agreement.  If they are going nuclear during that six months I"m sure Israel will take over negotiations.

    When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

    by thestructureguy on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:22:00 PM PST

    •  Why is it our business? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler, Anorish, Lepanto

      The US has a far worse record of aggressive war mongering than Iran does?  Who the fuck is worried about a nuclear Iran?

      Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

      by bobdevo on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:00:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know if you noticed, but Saddam Hussein (9+ / 0-)

      gave into the world's demands. Look what that got him.

      This isn't about nuclear weapons. It is about us wanting to be the boss of them.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:11:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama isn't Bush (4+ / 0-)

        Bush and Cheney were determined to find any excuse to invade Iraq from day 1 and 9/11 gave them the cover.  Saddam Hussein called their bluff and invited in the inspectors, who of course found nothing, but that didn't stop the lying Bush and Cheney.  It probably caused the French and German governments to back away though.

        Obama and Biden didn't come into office determined to find any excuse to invade Iran.

        "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

        by Navy Vet Terp on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:22:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is about oil (0+ / 0-)

        Everything we do in the middle east is about oil.

        •  Much of it is about oil and gas (0+ / 0-)

          and the potential wealth these products represent.

          We would like to have Iranian oil and gas sold in USD. Support of the petrodollar is likely in for a fall as the end of this decade nears and some of the Saudi fields will have peaked and production rates will have decreased significantly.

          Therefore a good working relationship with Iran would be valuable to us.

          We don't need Iran's oil but we want US based corporations to be able to produce it and profit from it and for Iran to recirculate some of their profits through Wall Street and London banks.

          Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

          by truong son traveler on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:10:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm no expert but... (14+ / 0-)

      From my understanding, the NPT (of which Iran is a signatory, but Israel is not) allows for the peaceful pursuit of nuclear energy while at the same time outlaws the use of that technology for weaponization.

      "The World"is demanding that Iran give up it's rights under the NPT (by shuttering any and all nuclear programs and technology--peaceful purposes or not).  Iran has balked at that, and as they're not trusted to be able to pursue peaceful nuclear technology the sanctions have been imposed to bring them to the point of discarding the nuclear technology completely.

      On the one hand I understand why Iran would say no--no one would demand a similar capitulation from Canada for instance; yet, there's a reason that Canada is trusted not to cross the weaponization line, and Iran is not....



      •  that was a good and objective summary. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        whytewolf, Aunt Martha, Jay C

        While Democrats work to get more people to vote, Republicans work to ensure those votes won't count.

        by Tamar on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:31:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The short-term agreement calls for a freeze... (10+ / 0-)

        ...but we don't yet know what the long-term agreement will entail. It most assuredly WILL NOT include a complete shuttering of all Iran's nuclear programs. No way would Tehran approve that and it would be very hard to get the Russians and Chinese to agree to such a deal.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:31:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Does Israel have the right to block (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco, Jay C, Lepanto, Anorish

        Iran from any development of nuclear energy, when Israel still refuses to acknowledge she herself possesses nuclear weapons and refuses to sign a non-proliferation treaty?

        Israel already has a strong nuclear deterrent--so why can't Israel learn to coexist with Iran on the basis of deterrence, as the US did with the USSR for 40 years?

        Ahmedinejad made a number of insults and blustering threats against Israel, but did they ever include the threat to attack Israel with nuclear weapons?

        And why aren't the media asking any of these questions?

        •  Those questions (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Justanothernyer, BelgianBastard

          1) why can't Israel learn to coexist with Iran on the basis of deterrence...?
          A: Israel quite likely could. The question is whether Iran could—especially given the many statements of its leaders, looking forward in many ways to the entire disappearance of Israel.

          2) Ahmedinejad made a number of ...threats against Israel, but did they ever include the threat to attack Israel with nuclear weapons?
          A: No. OTOH, the Iranians do not at the moment possess such weapons. Also, since the center of the sanctions regime is over whether they could be trusted with such possession, they would have to be perfect idiots to issue such a threat at this point. So, the question is useless—possibly why the media don't bother asking it.

          More interesting is the question whether Israel, presumably in possession of such weapons since the late 60s, has ever ever even whispered such as threat, even in the midst of battle. And the answer to that is also, no.

          •  Much is made of the fact that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Indiana Bob, Jay C

            Ahmedinejad spoke of Israel eventually being "obliterated." But if you examine the context, he was not speaking of Israel being attacked with Iranian nuclear weapons: it was about Israel being destroyed by intifada once the Palestinian majority reached such demographic superiority a Zionist regime could no longer survive.

            Ahmedinejad was a despicable swine with delusions of grandeur, but he did not threaten Israel with a nuclear attack-- which would kill as many Palestinians as Israelis.

            Extreme anti-Zionist and anti-imperialist rhetoric has been essential for the legitimation of the Iranian theocracy as a "revolutionary and popular" regime. But all that anti_sarel and anti-Us bluster should be understood for what it is: rhetoric for Iranian domestic consumption, to justify the theocracy's regimentation of Iranian society. As in the case of the USSR, taking that rhetoric too literally has led us to exaggerate the magnitude and immediacy of the threat from Iran.

            Israel could rely on its nuclear deterrent to settle into uneasy coexistence with Iran-- as it has already with the rest of the Arab world. I suspect the real reason Netanyahu is so desperate to prevent the nuclearization of Iran is that once Iran went nuclear it would have its own deterrent prolonging the survival of its regime, and that in turn would make it harder to suppress Hezbollah.

            Hezbollah is a greater danger to Israel than Iran's nuclear program, and all the rhetoric in the West about Iranian nuclearization being "unacceptable" is really expression of impatience to be rid of Hezbollah.  

            •  Rhetoric (0+ / 0-)

              Going by your own words, the Iranian regime is based on extremely anti-Israeli policy, expressed at the top because the populace wishes to hear such "bluster." But the top doesn't really believe this stuff' it's just cynical "legitimation." Of course, now we have to figure out just how cynical are they. For instance, do they not believe in the Islamism that is the basis of their theocracy? And if that's not just a shuck, why, precisely, should we decide that one is sincere and the other mere "rhetoric?"

              Good to know that you are capable of separating out the words that don't mean anything from the ones that do. Myself, I find that much harder to do. As does Israel, with a good deal more at stake than you do in your armchair.

          •  Your final paragraph betrays a stunning (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ignorance of recent history, including such matters as the so-called 'Samson Option,' whereby Israel lets it be known that she will take down the entire Middle East in nuclear Armageddon if she is threatened with being over-run.

            The lie or ignorant statement in your final paragraph thus invalidates the highly questionable assertions in your enumerated paragraphs 1 and 2.

            For more on the Samson Option:




            •  Betraying the stunning (0+ / 0-)

              Your own sublime cluelessness comes from posting a couple of links to articles talking about various 3rd parties talking about what they understand to be Israeli policy. Which is emphatically NOT Israel issuing any sort of threat. This sort of lie or ignorance pretty much invalidates all your paragraphs.

        •  Just remember that Netanyahu (5+ / 0-)

          has been claiming for about 20 years that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons.

          Neoconservatism of any stripe (and I include many of Iran's leaders in that) needs a constant enemy in order to keep up its warmongering, which is how it keeps up power.

      •  I thought the issue weapons grade nuclear (0+ / 0-)


        When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

        by thestructureguy on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:59:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Weapons grade is about 90% (0+ / 0-)

          Iran has enriched some uranium to 20% for use in a research reactor. Enrichment up to this level is permitted by the NPT.

          Also, there is much more to making a nuclear bomb that just enriching uranium to 90%.

          Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

          by truong son traveler on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:15:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Because Iran Pays a Cost Penalty (2+ / 0-)

      Two principal reasons exist for Iran's insistence on enrichment.  First, it's a right provided under the NPT.  If it's a right any NPT signatory receives, why should Iran be singled out for surrendering that right?  If Iran is forced to give up enrichment, then so should all of the other signatories to the NPT.  Try negotiating that and see how far you go.  

      Second, Iran would likely pay a cost penalty for the nuclear fuel it will need for its power generation reactors.  Domestic production would be expected to be cheaper and more secure than being forced to buy fuel on the global market.  So, who picks up the tab for the difference between sourcing on the global market and domestic production?  Dumping that obligation in Iran is just plain old fashioned theft.  The Iranians know it and feel it in their bones even though most Americans don't have a clue.  

      Somehow, the world community would need to offer a plan which at the very least makes Iran whole on global sourcing and assures them a guaranteed supply of fuel for nuclear power generation.  Offering a deal which subsidizes the cost might make more sense, as it would be the quid pro quo for Iran's abandoning an NPT right.  A back of the envelope analysis would seem to show that the cost for the uranium power generation fuel would cost about $50M per fuel set and that a three set to assure suppy would cost about $150M, per reactor.  This is what it would cost to buy all of the nuclear fuel Iran might need in the foreseeable future, thirty years or more.   We'd piss that away in the first missile strike on Iran if it comes to war and the global energy markets will be totally upended if that happens.  Clearly something else is driving the option preferences.

      "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

      by PrahaPartizan on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:01:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  OT, but related: Why a land subject to earthquakes (7+ / 0-)

    frequent and severe would want to go to nuclear power -- entirely apart from nuclear weapons -- that just doesn't seem like a very smart move to me.

    Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

    by Jim P on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:22:34 PM PST

    •  exactly (10+ / 0-)

      in a sane world, part of the deal would be an american/european/chinese promise to help with renewable energy joint ventures in iran, to help with their energy shortages/free up oil for export/get rid of the nuclear development.

    •  Ha ha, right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I can't imagine any country on Earth that has a lot of earthquakes wanting nuclear power! That is absolute insanity. The USA should never tolerate it. Just as soon as all nuclear reactors in the USA are removed from earthquake zones, I'd say we had a case.

      "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

      by Lost Left Coaster on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:49:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why? Ecomonics 101: Lower Cost... (0+ / 0-)

      I guess earthquakes have been factored into the cost...

      Nuclear energy is among the cleanest and cheapest sources of energy. Severe climate change and environmental pollution caused by fossil fuel has intensified the need to expand the use of nuclear energy. Almost 7 million barrels of oil are needed for the continual generation of 1000 megawatt of electricity in a year which by today's crude oil price costs over 500 million dollars, while the cost of generating the same capacity with nuclear energy is around 60 million dollars. Generally, the investment needed to construct and utilize a nuclear power plant is far less than half of the cost of a power plant operating with fossil fuels during its lifespan.
      ...from the statement by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before the 2010 NPT Review Conference, United Nations, New York, 3 May 2010.
      •  Well, they've been out of touch in Iran, obviously (0+ / 0-)

        Wonder what they think since March 11, 2011.

        Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

        by Jim P on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:52:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hmmm well... (0+ / 0-)

          Bushehr Nuclear Power plant is about 500 yards from the Persian Gulf. An earthquake in the Persian Gulf and resulting tsunami  of the proportions of Fukushima looks like it would wash some of the dust off the plant.

          They did have a 6.3 magnitude earthquake near Bushehr this year, and Iran informed the IAEA that there was "no damage to the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant and no radioactive release from the installation".

  •  For what its worth, markets up on the news (9+ / 0-)

    Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

    by divineorder on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:23:35 PM PST

    •  this reveals a big reason for the opposition (13+ / 0-)

      by the american and saudi right wing: people who produce oil get to charge an extra fear and crisis premium whenever there's a threat of war in the middle east. peace with iran means cheaper oil, which while good for everybody else (well, not global warming, but short term economics) cuts into oil producers' profit margins.

      •  to clarify (0+ / 0-)

        this is also a reason that the iranian right tends to rattle sabres, but for whatever reason they haven't sabotaged this particular agreement (yet). my hope is that this reflects a consensus across factional lines in iran that the old strategy wasn;t serving their interests as well as a limited peace agreement would. after all, being able to get rid of a nonexistent program in exchange for lifting sanctions should be a no-brainer.

        but we'll see.

      •  Possible plus for the environment (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RainyDay, wu ming

        If oil gets cheaper, harder to drill oil, such as deepwater offshore, tar sands or arctic reserves, become less profitable. The oil shocks of the 2000s that made a barrel go from $20-30ish to $90-120 made harder to drill oil viable. Seems it would be wothwhile to keep these areas pristine (best we can) while continuing operations at current oil fields.

        Lower barrel prices would free up more money for the economy as well. And maybe some of the environmental impats will be mitigared thanks to more bike lanes, higher fuel economy, electric cars, and overall less use of oil in the economy, at least in the US.

        Best solution though would be to drive down consumption ASAP re climate change. Carbon tax FTW!

  •  Strange bedfellows? (3+ / 0-)

    ...perhaps not so much...

    Don't underestimate the ability of some forces in the region (our "allies" among them) to manufacture an incident... I'm sure Rouhani has good security. He should double it.

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.

    by chuckvw on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:28:53 PM PST

  •  Well, I've written to Schumer but know (7+ / 0-)

    that I am not a major donor and therefore have no clout. Hope that many more will write him and put pressure on him and maybe numbers will make him reconsider. Diplomacy has to come first. Obama and Kerry have to be supported.

    •  Easy to fix. Contribute a bunch of... (6+ / 0-)

      ...dough to his campaign and to any group masquerading as an issues group that is actually an unaccountable campaign front.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:57:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wrote him too... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Portlaw, poco, Aunt Martha, Jay C

      not that it will do any good but I need to have my voice heard. Can't wait to read his form letter back excusing his stance. They are so predictably aggravating.  And he is a Democrat and my Senator.

      Why yes there is a war on women and minorities.

      by karma5230 on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:05:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agree about Schumer (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        truong son traveler

        That speech he made on Sunday (11/24) was a disgrace, yet unfortunately, we know, that outside of a few bloggers, no one in the media is likely to challenge his bellicose BS.

        FWIW: Here's what I wrote:


        Dear Senator Schumer:

            As one of your constituents (and, for what it is worth, a Jew, and what would be normally considered a “supporter” of Israel), I read an account of your address to the OHEL Childrens’ Home and Family Services yesterday, and can only say that I am appalled that a United States Senator, elected by, and to represent, the people of the State of New York, would articulate such a biased and belligerent attitude towards the diplomatic solutions the Administration has recently concluded regarding the Iranian nuclear program. Petty domestic political considerations aside, the PEACEFUL resolution of contentious international disputes is an issue of overriding importance for not only the nations involved, but for the planet in general. I would hope that you will, should a legislative endorsement of President Obama’s and Secretary Kerry’s initiatives come before the Senate, consider your vote on wider grounds than the parochial obsessions of an obsessive fringe of your (nominal) constituency.

            Sincerely yours,  

        I'm sure that some meaningless boilerplate "acknowledgement" is all I'm likely to get (another blog-commenter suggested that writing this on the back of a hefty check would probably be the only way to get Chuck The Schmuck to pay attention: sadly, he's probably right).
  •  Is there anyone who doesn't expect terrorist (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler

    attacks meant to derail this?...and by 'terrorist' I mean anybody, including even the people announcing possible agreements to be part of such. Perhaps I am too cynical..I hope so.

    We might as well start a pool on it, date and body count.

    Hopefully such can be exposed and prevented ( god willing), and if there was ever a script for '24' that actually had a basis, this would be it.

    Which off the shelf plan will it be?

    What would be terrific if in spite of provocative attacks the peace plans proceeded anyway, but history is not showing that as likely, yet it's the only thing that really will prevent such hijacking in any kind of future.

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:38:12 PM PST

  •  You've got a couple of things wrong (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Navy Vet Terp, hmi

    One -- as vociferous as Bibi has been, the Sunni Arab governments have been even more so. They pose the toughest opposition.

    Two -- the question of imminence has to be flexible, adaptable to peculiar circumstances. If you deny the right of, say Israel, to act pre-emptively to strike against a facility that is involved in the production of nuclear weapons that are intended at least as a threat to the existence of the nation -- if you say that imminence requires that the anticipated attack is to happen in days -- then you reduce pre-emptive self-defense to either a nullity in those circumstances, or you raise it to allow Israel to use a nuclear first-strike as the only remaining effective protection.

    In other words, there is a threat that has imminence in that a limited proportional strike to counter the threat comes with a time limit. Once it's no longer feasible to prevent that threat by such means, you leave the country with two choices: either hope the threat doesn't ever go beyond that (and diplomacy may not suffice) or take comprehensive action on a more terrible scale. If you say Israel can't use a pre-emptive conventional strike to to stop Iran from building bombs meant to threaten Israel, then you are saying Israel must wait until they are convinced the weapons are about to be used -- which will surely require Israel to use a massive first-strike nuclear attack that would leave nothing alive in Iran. That, to my mind, is both morally and legally unsupportable.

    Imminence has a conventional meaning in the context of conventional weapons. With nuclear weapons it can take on a different meaning, because once they're constructed the only useful pre-emptive strikes are on a scale that must be avoided at all costs. No country could sit back and wait to be hit first -- not Israel, and not Iran. Once Iran has nukes, either side might decide to use the first-strike in self-defense. That's untenable. I know everyone wants to say "what about Israel's nukes?" No country is actually threatened with destruction now by Israel's nukes. They exist to deter existential threats. If Iran develops nukes they might invite the most terrible attacks.

    The agreement does move the clock back in terms of imminence, if only because it provides an avenue to circumvent the threat and thus the need for a pre-emptive strike. I'm sure I won't convince you that you won't accept the fungibility/flexibility of imminence,  because it isn't an even-handed bright line. It involves judgment calls -- but so does the idea of pre-emptive self-defense generally.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

    by FischFry on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:39:01 PM PST

  •  PNAC, an idea, (along with John Bolton) (8+ / 0-)

    that is waaaay past its prime.

    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

    by Sybil Liberty on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:48:25 PM PST

  •  you might want to make the title clearer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love, poco

    To me, the primary meaning of 'jack up' is to raise a car to replace a tire or do other work. In other words, what I get from reading the title is that the hard-liners, contrary to common belief, want to improve the agreement in good faith. I assume you mean it in the sense of 'cock up'.

    warning: snark probably above

    by NE2 on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:51:01 PM PST

  •  #1. Just what the fuck exactly (10+ / 0-)

    is the problem with Iran having a nuke?  Every crazy ass country has 'em - US, Russia, Pakistan(!), China, North Korea(!!) ... etc.

    #2.  Israel has nukes and REFUSES to sign the non-proliferation treaty.

    #3. with or without nukes, Iran is not a threat to the United States.

    #4.  Who has killed more innocent people in the last 65 years - US or Iran?

    Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

    by bobdevo on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:58:57 PM PST

    •  That's what's missing from the state sponsored (6+ / 0-)

      media discussion.  Which should make people wonder about the whole thing.  Unless they believe the hype about Iran.
      How can a country that has caused the death, mostly illegally, of a million or so people in the last decade, and has thousands of nukes, tell other countries they can't have s single one.
      It's the WMD thing again.

      "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

      by BigAlinWashSt on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:04:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think that the (!) is self explanatory. (3+ / 0-)

      The more crazy ass countries that have them, the more chance something crazy will happen.

      Given the regional power struggles, it's probably best that it not go nuclear.

      If you have a policy that covers doctor's bills made necessary by a werewolf bite, and has the words "Health Insurance" on the cover, you can keep that policy!

      by Inland on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:19:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is it worth a war? n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Terra Mystica

        Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

        by bobdevo on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:30:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a Question VERY different from (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          "What's wrong with a nuclear  Iran."  Have we accepted that there's something dangerous about that?

          If you have a policy that covers doctor's bills made necessary by a werewolf bite, and has the words "Health Insurance" on the cover, you can keep that policy!

          by Inland on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:22:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  only one country was ever crazy enough (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            truong son traveler

            to use nukes on civilians - and it wasn't iran

            in 1961, allen dulles and the cia planned a preemptive nuclear strike on the soviet union that would have killed 130,000,000 and tried to talk jfk into greenlighting the plan

            and the same kind of assholes are still running the show

            in case you've forgotten, we just caused the deaths of about 1,000,000 iraqis .... we need to kill MORE people to make us safer?

            Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

            by bobdevo on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 08:41:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I answered your question as if you (0+ / 0-)

              the answer mattered to you.  It didn't.

              BTW, it's not just the irredeemably evil US participating in these talks.

              If you have a policy that covers doctor's bills made necessary by a werewolf bite, and has the words "Health Insurance" on the cover, you can keep that policy!

              by Inland on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 05:29:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  The WTF comment that the Saudis would get a nuke (4+ / 0-)

      from Pakistan tells me the Warmongers still don't get the Sunni vs Shia thing....

      I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

      by JML9999 on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:21:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are both Sunni (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        so I am not sure I understand your comment.

        •  Who is really in charge vs population..... (0+ / 0-)

          The same can be said of the Saudis

          When General Zia ul-Haq, the former military ruler of Pakistan, introduced new laws to make Zakat deductions mandatory for every Muslim during the 1980s, Tehrik-e-Jafaria held a large public demonstration in Islamabad to compel the government to exempt the Shia Muslim community from this law. This protest resulted in the ‘Islamabad Agreement’ in which the government agreed to introduce a separate syllabus for Shia students in public schools, as well as exempt the Shia community from the Zakat law, since Shia consider Zakat as a personal tax (to be paid to the needy) not collectable by the state. According to one senior Pakistani journalist who witnessed these events, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini played an important role in this agreement being reached, and he sought assurances from General Zia al-Haq that Shia demands would be met. A message from Ayatollah Khomeini was also read out to the Shia protesters in Islamabad in which he called for them to keep up their spirits.[11][12]

          I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

          by JML9999 on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:48:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry - I reread it and understand what you were (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JML9999, Bob Love

        saying now.

    •  In order (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jay C

      1.   They are pretty hostile to the United States.  Also, they have an interest in higher oil prices which is opposed to our interest.  They sponsor terrorist organizations.  And they seem to want to dominate the Persian Gulf. Preventing that domination is a core strategic interest of the United States.
      Finally, there prior President appeared to be a dangerous nutcase, who made threats that could reasonably be interpreted as threatening to use nuclear weapons.  

      However, to be brutally honest, I find the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons to be far, far scarier by an amount I cannot begin to express.  If I could trade eliminate Pakistani nukes and allow Iran to keep their nukes I'd do it in a heartbeat.  That option is not on the list, however.

      2.  Israel has had them for about 40 years, hasn't used them or threatened to use them even when attacked and is our ally.  This is, frankly, a total red herring.  While you object to Israeli nukes you may as well also object to British and French nukes.

      3.  It depends what you mean.  Iran's interests are currently opposed to America's interests in a number of ways.  Iran is unlikely to physically attack America but could attack American allies and/or attempt to close the Persian Gulf or restrict the supply of oil.  Iran also supports other entities that are opposed to America and/or is allies.

      4.  That isn't really the right question.  A better one would be: who has invaded more other countries. Clearly the answer to both is America; but I'm not sure how either answer is relevant.

      •  In order (6+ / 0-)

        1. Iran by sanction is not allowed to sell a lot of their oil.  The embargo actually increases oil prices.  If Iran was allowed to sell its oil and if tensions in the region were decreased, the price of oil would drop.  

        Our prior president was a dangerous nutcase who actually started a war.  And finally, Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons so we don't have to allow them to keep anything.

        The word terror has become a propaganda tool.  They sponsor terrorists organizations, Israel and the US assassinate Iranian scientists, the US bombs with drones across the Middle East - I'm not going to act as if their aggression is so much worse than ours.  

        2. Isn't the problem nukes in the region? Why can European and western countries have nukes and arab and eastern countries cannot?  Is a nuclear Iran anymore likely to use their weapons than a nuclear Israel?

        3. How are Iran interests opposed to the interests of the US?  In what ways? Whose interest? Does everyone in the US have the same interest?

        4. The question is relevant b/c it goes to why Iran wants nuclear weapons.  Part of the reason rogue regimes seek nuclear weapons is to protect themselves from us.  

        That is why Iran is open to agreeing to end sanctions in the first place.  The nuclear weapons are just a means to an end - to get the "respect" on the world stage they think they deserve.  Moderates in Iran have offered a different way to get respect on the world stage, negotiation, and as luck would have if, found a regime in the White House willing to at least hear them out.

      •  Just how are they "hostile to the united (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        truong son traveler, Lepanto

        states"?  have they ever overthrown our government and installed a dictator? or was that the other war around?

        Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

        by bobdevo on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 08:48:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  So we can't oppose proliferation? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I don't support any military action until a country cocks the nuclear gun and points it...but we're allowed to oppose Iran joining the nuke weapon world, and we're definitely not alone on that.

      While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:41:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Isreal will probably eventually go along with (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the Iran nuclear pact but, [Always the but], it is going to COST us PLENTY...It's their thing and
    no one does it better

    "Round up the usual suspects"

    by NanaoKnows on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:02:49 PM PST

  •  Re: This: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NanaoKnows, poco, Jay C
    That doesn't mean Israel won't do everything it can to undermine progress on a comprehensive agreement
    They've certainly got the right allies in that project: undermining progress thing.  House GOP anyone??

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:06:06 PM PST

  •  It's not their fault! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    After all, how can we expect them to retain power through fear and hate if you remove one of the biggest causes of fear and hate?

    You guys are SO unfair!

  •  If the talks have been going on that long . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Terra Mystica

    it may explain a lot about why the Iranian authorities certified Rouhani for the presidential ballot.

    Perhaps a critical mass of the Iranian leadership wanted a candidate clearly in favor of talks.  Once they disqualified Rafsanjani, who has a lot of personal baggage relating to his plethora of businesses and therefore gives Khamenei some cover for disqualifying him, Rouhani had a) a clear path to the presidency without the pro-reform vote being split and/or b) validity with the public that couldn't be brushed off with another DQ.

    Just a theory.  But I'll be interested to see whether it turns out to be a good one.

  •  I saw an ad today on youtube (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NanaoKnows, Bob Love

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:13:52 PM PST

  •  none of articles mentioned Israel's 200 nukes (6+ / 0-)

    I was surprised that not a single article I read on this new 6-month agreement with Iran mentioned that Israel has between 200 and 400 nuclear weapons.

    Just google "Israel nuclear weapons" and read the detailed Wikipedia article, for the details.

    Two comments:

    1.  This 6-month agreement appears to be very low risk for the USA and our allies, including Israel.  It is also a huge test for the Iranians - any Iranian deception during the 6 months or any procrastination will result in a furious return to even tougher sanctions by the US Congress, possibly with a veto-proof majority of both Houses of Congress.

    2.  If Israel or its allies in Congress overtly torpedo this 6-month agreement, I believe that would do grievous and permanent damage to the traditional level of popular support Israel has in the USA - among the general populace, not the members of Congress.  The American public is tired of 10+ years of war in the Middle East and want to try diplomacy for a change.  If Israel and its friends in Congress push the Administration and Congress towards war with Iran rather than supporting reasonable efforts at diplomacy, I fear the level of anti-Israel sentiment and anti-semitism could go from "zero to 60" in short order.

    •  Why do you think Israel's nuclear weapons are (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hmi, Rich in PA, NanaoKnows, Jay C

      remotely relevant to this deal?

      I agree with you on your point 1. On point two, it is not really possible for Israel or Congress to torpedo this deal.  Fortunately.

      •  Highly disagree on point 2 (0+ / 0-)

        A concerted PR campaign (fearful BS as it might be) painting the Geneva agreements as another "Munich/Kristallnacht/Holocaust/Yalta/what-have-you" might have the effect of turning off just enough Congresscritters to scupper the deal. Especially if said scuppering is sold as having the additional benefit of making President Obama's diplomacy (or even the very IDEA of "diplomacy" look bad.

        Of course the American people are tired of Middle East war and warmongering:  but since when has what "the people" want ever made much of a difference?

  •  Big Difference from Iraq & Syria: Bombs Won't Work (5+ / 0-)

    The old Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programs were far less developed than Iran's, but more importantly, their nuclear programs were vulnerable to bombing and Iran's is not.  We, or maybe even Israel could destroy the entire country through intensive carpet bombing and Iran's nuclear program might be the only thing that survives. Its most important key components are buried under an impregnable mountain. At best, bombing disrupts the program and of course unleashes a war that would destroy the world's economy and god knows what else. What Netanyahu is really arguing is for the world to punish Iran through bombing and then negotiate with them from a supposedly stronger position. That, or doing absolutely nothing, are the only other viable options than the deal on the table.

    Patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings. Steal a little and they throw you in jail. Steal a lot and they make you king.... Dylan

    by bywaterbob on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:23:58 PM PST

    •  In 2004, The Atlantic ran an attack-Iran... (6+ / 0-)

      ..."war game" that, among other problems, noted what you're talking about regarding logistics. You can read it here.

      It should be noted, however, that large parts of Iran's nuclear facilities are not buried. The Arak reactor is, obviously, not protected at all from a bomb or missile attack. Likewise the Isfahan uranium conversion facility. And the 13,000 or so centrifuges at Natanz are 70 feet below ground behind heavy concrete, but that's hardly impregnable.

      Only the approximately 2,500 centrifuges at Fordo are buried deeply enough that a conventional attack could not take them out.

      (I am NOT arguing for an attack, which I unalterably oppose, just pointing out the reality on the ground.)

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:51:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The other problem with a military "solution" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Terra Mystica, bywaterbob

        is that it is temporary.  After you eliminate Arak, Isfahan and Natanz, you have to repeat this periodically.

        And, your military strike will likely leave Iran in possession of significant quantities of 3.5 enriched uranium and, prior to this deal, 20% enriched uranium of which it has 300 kilograms.

        •  All true. Plus there is the blowback... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Terra Mystica, bywaterbob

          ...that could be expected. This fallout is not unexplored. Ever since an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has been written about publicly, the potential for disastrous payback of various sorts has been noted, even by those who support such attacks. The supporters just think the fallout would be worth it.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:15:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Partial Destruction is no victory at all (0+ / 0-)

        They can keep whatever key components  that are necessary to revive the program away from damage. They can put whatever they want under that mountain top. It is not a static situation.

        Patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings. Steal a little and they throw you in jail. Steal a lot and they make you king.... Dylan

        by bywaterbob on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 06:50:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  i guess (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, truong son traveler

    chicken hawks are the same wherever they might reside.

  •  I don't know about Iran/Israel, but the people in (3+ / 0-)

    the US trying to derail this deal don't be deserved to be called hard-liners.  They are fear merchants, war mongers and war-profiteers who would choose to hostility over peace no matter the option.  These are people who look at a moderate Iran as more of a threat, not less.  Because a moderate Iran prevents them from doing what they want to - exercise "diplomacy" behind the butt of a gun and with their fingers on the trigger.    

  •  Right wing hard liners, it seems, have (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    a consistent propensity for completely screwing up everything for everyone.

    Reagan's little ditty that they've used to such efficient effect in screwing up the entire progressive movement for 30 years should be slightly modified to display a real-time fact:

    "I'm from the (right side of the aisle in your) government and I'm here to help (make your world as poverty-stricken, dangerous and ignorant as I can to please my masters)."

  •  Chuck Hagel was definitely right saying Congress (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NanaoKnows, truong son traveler

    is influenced too heavily by the pro Israel lobby to influence how Congressman and Senators from both parties vote. Their money is telling the politicians that the historic deal is a bad one.

  •  John Bolton is in need of minor cosmetic surgery (0+ / 0-)

    to permanently attach his moustache to his bottom lip.

    Inside of me are two dogs. One is mean and evil. The other is gentle and good. The two dogs fight all the time. Which dog wins? The one I feed the most.

    by bakeneko on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:34:22 PM PST

  •  could? (0+ / 0-)

    This isn't Northern Ireland and some punks who want to stay free from the Queen.  Peace in the Middle East?  Maybe in another 100 years.

  •  I am utterly disgusted (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Portlaw, NanaoKnows, Terra Mystica

    with everyone in Congress who do not want to give this deal a chance to work.

    More sanctions now would ruin everything. Can't they at least wait six months and see how things work out? This is an extraordinarily promising development. No one can predict the future, but this deal is the best thing we have going at the moment for a peaceful resolution to Iran's nuclear program that will satisfy the global community while allowing the Iranian people to stop suffering under sanctions.

    "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

    by Lost Left Coaster on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:57:04 PM PST

  •  Iran deal (0+ / 0-)

    OK, I'm naive, but why are liberals always seemingly Anti- Israel, and the evangelicals (who might be ant-semitic) are always backing Israel?

  •  If Israel doesn't want a nuclear deal with Iran... (3+ / 0-)

    ...then they're free not to sign one!  

    My comments are coming from a place of love.

    by Rich in PA on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 05:21:56 PM PST

  •  This is not about nukes at all. Never has been (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Indiana Bob, truong son traveler

    about Iran developing them. This nuke bs is about an excuse to attack Iran to get what those who profit, what they want by any means necessary. Iran using nukes means Iran no longer exist. Just as well nuke themselves. Peace takes them farther away from their goal, because it gets rid of their excuse, at least until they come up with another.

  •  I'm not surprised that the GOP is crapping (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dclawyer06, a2nite

    all over this deal. They have to reflexively oppose everything Obama does. But the Democrats? Wow. I was really surprised. The bomb first MIC caucus needs to STFU. They've cause enough damage to this country.

    As for Israel, I've long been a supporter of Israel. But this government has only made the peace process worse and has done everything possible to alienate Israel from the rest of the world. So the Israeli politicians attacking this deal can kiss my fat, gay ass. They can't expect us to make Israeli foreign policy a concern when they aren't lifting a fucking finger to move the peace process forward themselves.

    Tyrion Lannister: "It's not easy being drunk all the time. Everyone would do it if it were easy."

    by psychodrew on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:43:27 PM PST

  •  The stack on the Iranian nuclear plant is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    a "good engineering practice" stack height designed to ensure that gases and/or particles released at the stack height do not become entrained in the aerodynamic downwash around the adjacent dome structure......generally between 1.5 and 2.5 times the building structure height.

    Nuclear plants can release radionuclides from gas holdup systems from such stacks that are generated in such reactors.


  •  Called Schumer's office today (4+ / 0-)

    I told the woman who answered that I had voted for Schumer since he's been in the Senate.  But I said I was appalled that he was publicly working to undermine this groundbreaking preliminary agreement, hammered out by a major coalition of international allies, his former longtime Senate colleague John Kerry and supported by our Democratic president.  I said I voted for a Democrat, not a war-first-war-only hawk like McCain or Graham.  I said I certainly didn't vote for Bibi Netanyahu as my president, and he shouldn't be Schumer's CIC either.  And that I, as a Democrat and an American Jew, would be watching Senator Schumer and listening closely in the coming days and weeks.  If he works to undermine this deal, I would never vote for him again.

    "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

    by SottoVoce on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 07:34:55 PM PST

  •  your analysis leaves alot out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler

    which I understand since this is a very complex issue.

    Your title warns of hardliners in "Iran, US and Israel" (is that in the order of 'worst hardliners'), then you say "Iran's hard-liners are relatively silent now. But they too can be expected to try every means at their disposal to ensure that no long-term deal is approved."

    The "hardliners" in Iran don't care about a long term deal being approved or not, but Iran would be crazy to not develop a few nukes.  Why?  Because Israel and the US constantly threaten them with military actions.  

    Don't get me wrong, having Iran have the ability to launch a nuclear attack is a very bad thing, but they would also be crazy to use nuke offensively.  They just wouldn't do that.  But they, correctly in my mind, need to have a deterrent effect against the US and Israel.  "Eye for an eye" is shared by all three countries main religious texts.

    Who has Iran invaded, occupied, attacked in the last few hundred years?  NOT FUCKING ANYONE!

    Meanwhile the US and Israel continue to violate just about every International law as it applies to nukes.  Nonproliferation is for those "unwashed" nations, right?  We violated international law by providing Israel, Pakistan and India with nuclear technology.  When the international community raises valid concerns about Israel's nukes and proposes any kind of accountablility we stop that from happening.  We have launched cyber-attacks against their infrastructure, something that our own Pentagon labels and act of war.

    If the US and Israel would stop rattling their nuclear sabers, then a chance at a deal with Iran to stop nuclear woepens development would be a piece of cake to negotiate.

    To the NSA douchebag who is reading this: "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    by Indiana Bob on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 08:47:25 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site