Support NeoGAF

[BigDug13]

No. I read the whole list. That list indicated it was more of a "slow Iran down" rather than "stop Iran".

So you read the part about full transparency and inspections? It's a bit difficult to allow a nation to start to use nuclear power without them eventually acquiring enough "supplies" to build a bomb. They were already acquiring this stuff. Now we get to slow them down and conduct regular inspections to make sure it's being used for power plants and not weapons.

There was ALWAYS a timetable for them to acquire the materials and nothing short of a full-scale invasion would prevent that. We're making sure it's on our terms.

 

[RustyNails]

No. I read the whole list. That list indicated it was more of a "slow Iran down" rather than "stop Iran".

Iran currently can make a nuke in 2 months. Why did they sign themselves for something that will slow it down to a year?

 

[Joni]

Very sad day, that a country that has a national policy the destruction of another nation, gets a deal that will allow it to develop nuclear weapons. 2.000 centrifuges are more than enough to get all the material they need.

Why don't they have them now in that case?

- Israel reactions if Iran comes close to adquire nuclear capability.

YOu're right, hopefully the next GOP president has balls and nukes Israel. Problem solved.

 

[Zalusithix]

I haven't been following the latest on the Iran nuclear talks, though it is a great step forward, nothing on that short list (if it is a true summary) prevents Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, it just slows them.

Short of war, you're never going to be able to outright prevent them. Look at North Korea. All the sanctions in the world aren't going to stop a nation that's focused on getting them.

 

[Jonm1010]

No. I read the whole list. That list indicated it was more of a "slow Iran down" rather than "stop Iran".

It's stops them from making a nuke while engaged in the agreement. It slows down their ability to make one if they abandoned the deal and raced toward building one from the current 2-3 month time span it would currently take to 1 year.

 

[xbhaskarx]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33519808

The easing of restrictions on financial transactions which are part of the international embargo will give Iran extra economic muscle.
That will mean more funds - and more guns - for the proxy armies it funds around the Middle East, like the Shia militias of Iraq, and Hezbollah, the Lebanese military force which is helping to prop up Iran's ally Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
That is likely to reinforce Iran's view of itself as the champion and defender of Shia communities wherever they are found and to push the Sunni kingdoms of the Gulf - led by the Saudis - into responding in kind.
The conflicts raging around the Middle East in places like Iraq and Syria can be viewed as part of a growing confrontation between followers of the two main traditions in the Islamic world - Sunni and Shia.
Giving Iran access to more money and more weapons may well serve to intensify that confrontation.

Yes, that might be reason for Sunni extremists who want to exterminate the Shia in the region to oppose a deal that will move Iran away from being a pariah state.

But why shouldn't the western / developed / non-Islamic world be on the Iranian - Shia side of this "growing confrontation between followers of the two main traditions in the Islamic world" when the Sunni side includes Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban, etc. with various forms of support from our supposed Sunni allies?

Some conservative clerics saying "death to America" and calling us "the great satan" in speeches meant for domestic consumption isn't really on the same level as beheadings, bombings, and other terrorist attacks... what have Sunnis done in recent years to the western world that is even comparable to Salafist jihadism?

 

[AstroNut325]

Kerry deserves more recognition than he is getting.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

I imagine Dubai specifically is happy, they get a bunch of Iranian business and Iranians are a major minority there, iirc

you do recall correctly sir.

There is a very sizable iranian community in the U.A.E so this is definitely good for trade!!

 

[BigDug13]

Kerry deserves more recognition than he is getting.

Absolutely. Best Secretary of State in years.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Kerry deserves more recognition than he is getting.

I think Kerry would make/would have made a highly effective president. It's too bad he has the charisma of a rock.

 

[dabig2]

Short of war, you're never going to be able to outright prevent them. Look at North Korea. All the sanctions in the world aren't going to stop a nation that's focused on getting them.

And even with war, you'll likely fail as well. No amount of airstrikes will wipe out their infrastructure. It's too buried and protected. So what then? Ground war or our own nukes?

This deal is our best shot at preventing Iran from making nukes? Why?

Because we give them a reason NOT to pursue nukes. Lifting of sanctions, loosening threat of war/destruction, and aiding them in pursuing nuclear technology for peaceful means, like diversifying their energy production.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think Kerry would make/would have made a highly effective president. It's too bad he has the charisma of a rock.

That's no way to talk about rocks

 

[Enron]

Anybody who opposes this deal should be point blank asked if they want to go to war with Iran.

But I know they won't be.

As if those were the only two choices. But everyone who expresses reservations about Iran automatically must want WARRRRRR here. I get accused of it in every single Iran thread.

 

[davepoobond]

As if those were the only two choices. But everyone who expresses reservations about Iran automatically must want WARRRRRR here. I get accused of it in every single Iran thread.

"more" or "longer" sanctions isnt going to work when iran is currently 2-3 months away from a nuke regardless of any sanctions.


so, yes, the only alternative is to blow up their capability to make it.

 

[Zalusithix]

And even with war, you'll likely fail as well. No amount of airstrikes will wipe out their infrastructure. It's too buried and protected. So what then? Ground war or our own nukes?

Well, that'd certainly work. Heck, one of the possible outcomes would leave us not having to worry about any other nation getting nukes in the future!

Spoiler

We'd all be back in the stone age.

 

[eyeball_kid]

A good day for humanity. A nuclear deal that's a step towards making our world safer from nuclear destruction, and the first exploration of Pluto. Bravo to Kerry and the other negotiators, and to President Rouhani for having the courage to push this through internally against the hardliners.

 

[PeskyToaster]

I think Kerry would make/would have made a highly effective president. It's too bad he has the charisma of a rock.

Charisma of a what?

 

[dabig2]

more sanctions isnt going to work when iran is currently 2-3 months away from a nuke regardless of any sanctions.


so, yes, the only alternative is to blow up their capability to make it.

And threatening war to get a better deal also doesn't work. You just embolden the authoritarian power structure in Iran and feed anti-West hysteria there. Why would a country as powerful as them agree to a deal that works disproportionally against them?

So yeah, as you said, we're left with actual war and good luck on success there.

 

[RustyNails]

How likely is it that we're gonna get a Hollywood adaptation out of this? I would love for it to be in the vein of Charlie Wilson's War or In The Loop

 

[cirrhosis]

How likely is it that we're gonna get a Hollywood adaptation out of this? I would love for it to be in the vein of Charlie Wilson's War or In The Loop

If the deal sticks in the long run - like 20 years from now - and neither Iran or (especially) the U.S. fuck it up, then I don't think it would be out of the question.

 

[davepoobond]

How likely is it that we're gonna get a Hollywood adaptation out of this? I would love for it to be in the vein of Charlie Wilson's War or In The Loop

"Channing Tatum is John Kerry"
"Kevin Hart is Barack Obama"

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Yeah, I posted it for you earlier. Go read it. But since you ignored it I just figured I call a spade a spade at this point.

I see you are trying to move goalposts now though. How admirable. This is also something that has been addressed. Sanctions regarding terrorist activity are not going away. Those are driven by United States sanctions and they are outside of this deal.

But im more interested in hearing your technical breakdown of how this deal allows Iran a nuke? Actually defending your earlier assertions. And how this deal is worse then the alternatives? Heck what are your alternatives?

Looks like he bailed out.

 

[Zalusithix]

So yeah, as you said, we're left with actual war and good luck on success there.

We could have "success" with war, but at what cost (humanitarian and monetary)? It's not like war is off the table with the new agreement anyhow. If/when shit hits the fan, war is always an option. Might as well try something different for a change before we use that option.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

As if those were the only two choices. But everyone who expresses reservations about Iran automatically must want WARRRRRR here. I get accused of it in every single Iran thread.

The rest of the world isn't going to agree to never-ending sanctions so the options are a deal or war. What else is there?

 

[Funky Papa]

No. I read the whole list. That list indicated it was more of a "slow Iran down" rather than "stop Iran".

Here's the thing: Iran has vowed not to pursue nuclear weapons. Period. It's up to you to believe them, but there's more to consider.

Any country with conventional nuclear reactors such as the ones pursued by Iran can produce a nuclear bomb, which is why the lists talks about slowing down Iran. That is a worst case scenario, assuming that Iran decided to break its commitment and pursue the development of nuclear weapons after all the limits imposed by this deal, as opossed to the mere months it would take using its current equipment.

It doesn't mean that Iran will get a nuclear bomb within a year (at least); just that in the event it decided to get one, it would take them one year to get there, which is time enough to react by any means, diplomatic or otherwise.

Given that nuclear facilities will be inspected (and that we are talking about massive assets that can't be carted around nor easily hidden), it's very much assured that Iran wouldn't be able to pursue the development of nuclear weapons undercover.

 

[RustyNails]

"Channing Tatum is John Kerry"
"Kevin Hart is Barack Obama"

I'm on board with this, only if Danny DeVito gets to play Javad Zarif.

 

[Jonm1010]

You're reaction to anyone who doesn't agree with the deal is they're not informed. If only they would educate themselves... Have you ever thought that maybe those people are informed and still don't agree with this deal? You don't exactly come across as a scholar of Middle East foreign policy.

There are big problems with the deal. Iran gets to keep most of their nuclear infrastructure. There are no anytime, anywhere inspections - Iran can appeal requests to inspect military sites thereby giving them advance notice and time to prepare for the inspection. Lifting of sanctions will allow Iran to provide more funding to their proxy groups to exert more influence in the Middle East as well as develop other weaponry and prepare obtaining a nuclear weapon in 10 years or less. Iran will be able to to import/export weapons and obtain ballistic missile technology from China and Russia...(who pushed for an end to the UN imposed Iranian ballistic missile embargo to be included as part of the deal...why do you think they were invested). In the face of all this Iran's enemies in the area may respond by escalating development and acquisition of their own weaponry.

I don't know how many times this has to be repeated but not all sanctions are being lifted. Heck not all sanctions related to the nuclear program are even going to be lifted anytime soon. Sanctions regarding terrorism are not part of this deal. they remain and will remain in place for the foreseeable future.

As for their nuclear infrastructure? Not true. Some stuff remains in place, some sites are required to be converted to other use. But any major pathways or types of materials used to get toward a nuke are being reduced or eliminated. But certain things are just going to remain in order to allow them to obtain nuclear energy. It is inevitable. The key is to block, slow and prevent quick access to those pathways that can produce a nuclear weapon. Which by all accounts this agreement does.

We have 24/7 access to all nuclear sites and supply chains. Which means we will have an eye at all times on every level of their nuclear manufacturing and where it is going. Any suspicion of bad behavior can be punished with a majority vote of the countries overseeing this program, of which most are allies to us. That punishment includes a complete reimplementation of the crippling sanctions that are currently in place.

Which again gets to my point of how much research you have actually done on this topic?? Because you seem to be showing a lack of understanding about the meat of this agreement. So to me your disagreement means little if it isn't truly informed.

But I will leave this post on a single question to think about: Compared to what????

What alternative do you have that is a more tenable solution with less negative possibilities to deterring and preventing Iran from obtaining a nuke in the present to immediate future? Every time I hear opposition to this deal I have asked this question. Maybe you will be the first person who won't run away and actually have something of value to answer it with.

 

[Dai101]

I'm on board with this, only if Danny DeVito gets to play Javad Zarif.

Jack Nicholson as Joe Biden.

 

[Funky Papa]

Re: OMG, IRAN IS GOING TO GET MORE MONEY TO FUND TERRORISM.

Here's the thing: more money and foreign investment means that Iran will be geostrategically weaker.

Far from making Iran bending its knee, those sanctions have only managed to turn a partly isolated country into a self sufficient state, from food production to energy, to large segments of its industry.

By lifting some of those sanctions and allowing Iran to engage in international trade, the country will undergo a period of rapid growth, which means that reenacting those sanctions will have an utterly crippling effect compared to prior decades.

We are effectively giving something to a country that so far has very little to lose.

 

[Bubba_Sparks]

How could Iran ever use a bomb to their advantage against the United States or any of its allies? Is the worry that Iran would use it as leverage or do people really think they are that suicidal?

 

[littleworm]

How could Iran ever use a bomb to their advantage against the United States or any of its allies? Is the worries that Iran would use it as leverage or do people really think they are that suicidal?

I can't speak for everyone, but my concern is about weapons proliferation. If Iran did develop a nuclear weapon the Saudi's would quickly develop their own. More nukes increases the chance of some really bad people getting hold of one.

 

[Funky Papa]

How could Iran ever use a bomb to their advantage against the United States or any of its allies? Is the worries that Iran would use it as leverage or do people really think they are that suicidal?

It makes Israel and the US nervous because it would mean that Iran could retaliate in the event of an all out war.

It could also lead to scalation in the region. And God knows America would have a really, really hard time trying to convince Saudi Arabia not to get their own nuclear weapons. And to be honest, I'm far more wary of Saudi Arabia than Iran.

 

[benjipwns]

There are big problems with the deal. Iran gets to keep most of their nuclear infrastructure. There are no anytime, anywhere inspections - Iran can appeal requests to inspect military sites thereby giving them advance notice and time to prepare for the inspection.

So?

 

[benjipwns]

I can't speak for everyone, but my concern is about weapons proliferation. If Iran did develop a nuclear weapon the Saudi's would quickly develop their own. More nukes increases the chance of some really bad people getting hold of one.

Good thing there aren't as many anymore:

And energy is wanted more than weapons:

 

[Funky Papa]

Good thing there aren't as many anymore:

Tragically, this chart reminds me that Ukrainie would be safe and sound now had not given its nuclear arsenal to Russia in exchange for "protection".

That worked out well.

 

[shinobi602]

There are big problems with the deal. Iran gets to keep most of their nuclear infrastructure.

Well, they're a signer of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty, so they have a legal right to developing nuclear energy.

 

[honestrade]

I don't know how many times this has to be repeated but not all sanctions are being lifted. Heck not all sanctions related to the nuclear program are even going to be lifted anytime soon. Sanctions regarding terrorism are not part of this deal. they remain and will remain in place for the foreseeable future.

As for their nuclear infrastructure? Not true. Some stuff remains in place, some sites are required to be converted to other use. But any major pathways or types of materials used to get toward a nuke are being reduced or eliminated. But certain things are just going to remain in order to allow them to obtain nuclear energy. It is inevitable.

We have 24/7 access to all nuclear sites and supply chains. Which means we will have an eye at all times on every level of their nuclear manufacturing and where it is going. Any suspicion of bad behavior can be punished with a majority vote of the countries overseeing this program, of which most are allies to us. That punishment includes a complete reimplementation of the crippling sanctions that are currently in place.

Which again gets to my point of how much research you have actually done on this topic?? Because you seem to be showing a lack of understanding about the meat of this agreement. So to me your disagreement means little if it isn't truly informed.

But I will leave this post on a single question to think about: Compared to what????

What alternative do you have that is a more tenable solution with less negative possibilities to deterring and preventing Iran from obtaining a nuke in the present to immediate future? Every time I hear opposition to this deal I have asked this question. Maybe you will be the first person who won't run away and actually have something of value to answer it with.

First off sorry for being a bit argumentative and questioning your knowledge of the issue as it doesn't help the discussion at all. You seem well informed and I appreciate your response.

As far as I know the 24/7 access will be to all sites that Iran has declared...undeclared, suspicious sites and military installations are not included. Under the deal Iran has the ability to dispute these sites through an appeals process that could take up to 24 days (including 3 days to implement the appeal board's decision)...and if Iran doesn't comply after 3 days there is another dispute resolution clause that allows up to 50 days of evaluation. Suffice it to say there would be ample time for Iran to hide any activity at these sites in advance of inspectors.

Another big issue I have with the deal is the inclusion of the removal of UN weapons embargoes imposed on Iran for weapons import/export and ballistic missiles. Apparently China and Russia pushed for this under the guise of allowing Iran to more effectively combat ISIS. Just last week Secretary of Defense Carter and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before Congress that under no circumstances should these embargoes be removed. Why include these in a deal aimed at curbing the nuclear weapons program?

As far as the alternative that I would have preferred, I would have preferred continued sanctions and, if necessary,more sanctions to attempt to pressure Iran to accept a better deal and allow the US to negotiate from a position of strength. A better deal would not have included lifting of weapons embargoes, would have provided more oversight and comprehensive inspections, and gone further to push back Iran's timetable to achieve a nuclear weapon after 10 years.

Edit: I should note that I appreciate the diplomatic effort and will try to remain optimistic for a positive outcome. I really do hope this was the right decision despite my skepticism and would be happy to be wrong.

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report

Nine countries in the world possess a total of 15,695 nuclear weapons. The United States and Russia account for 93 percent of them. Since their peak in the mid-1980’s, global arsenals have shrunk by over two-thirds. More countries have given up weapons and programs in the past 30 years than have tried to acquire them.

Site that image is from so one can mess around with it: http://thebulletin.org/nuclear-notebook-multimedia

 

[Battersea Power Station]

I think Kerry would make/would have made a highly effective president. It's too bad he has the charisma of a rock.

Well then I wonder if he would've made a highly effective president -- our government seems to be more about messaging and perception rather than skills or knowledge. Then again, he's got the right skin color.

 

[aeolist]

tying iran strongly to the EU economy helps. making everyone more interdependent decreases the risk of unilateral action to destabilize anything.

i do wonder why we have to keep up the US sanctions. i get that they're a political boogeyman and have made a lot of nasty speeches about us but what have they actually, materially done to hurt us since hezbollah in the 80s? i mean, considering how far we've gone out of our way to completely fuck over their governments whenever possible i think we've gotten off lightly.

i find it weird that we keep rattling our saber at the only shi'ite countries in the middle east while the sunni ones are funding most of the terrorism and producing most of the extremists.

 

[Funky Papa]

As far as the alternative that I would have preferred, I would have preferred continued sanctions and, if necessary,more sanctions to attempt to pressure Iran to accept a better deal and allow the US to negotiate from a position of strength. A better deal would not have included lifting of weapons embargoes, would have provided more oversight and comprehensive inspections, and gone further to push back Iran's timetable to achieve a nuclear weapon after 10 years.

You make no sense. Probably because you don't know what you are talking about.

Sanctions upon sanctions is what pressed Iran to rush its nuclear programme and become self-sufficient.

A better deal would have included unicorns falling out from the sky and farting rainbows upon us, but that is not going to happen because Iran is a sovereign nation and it's not going to compromise its desires to achieve nuclear power, let alone to allow America and its allies to fully inspect its army. You are describing a pie in the sky scenario that would have NEVER happened.

Sanctions only work on countries that are highly dependant on foreign trade and investment. Iran, like Cuba and North Korea, is relatively self-sufficient, which means that they can endure the punishment for decades while the old guard further entrenches itself and accelerates the development of nuclear weapons. And then what?

 

[benjipwns]

i do wonder why we have to keep up the US sanctions

To punish the people for living under shitty rulers.

 

[honestrade]

You make no sense.

Sanctions upon sanctions is what pressed Iran to rush its nuclear programme and become self-sufficient.

A better deal would have included unicorns falling out from the sky and farting rainbows upon us, but that is not going to happen because Iran is a sovereign nation and it's not going to compromise its desires to achieve nuclear power, let alone to allow America and its allies to fully inspect its army. You are describing a pie in the sky scenario that would have NEVER happened.

So all this time when Iran was supposedly developing a peaceful nuclear program (which they still maintain) they were really developing a nuclear weapon at an accelerated pace to force the removal of sanctions. Sounds like a trustworthy regime.

 

[Joel Was Right]

I don't understand the GOP's foreign policy. It makes zero sense to me. It has never made sense to me, or that of any respectable person I know. GOP voters do not make any sense to me. I read Fox News comments and ask myself, 'surely this cannot be representative of the party?". And then I listen to members of the party, and presidential hopefuls, reiterate the same morally corrupt, ignorant and fatalistic talking points. And then I ask myself, "Am I the insane one here?"

 

[Funky Papa]

So all this time when Iran was supposedly developing a peaceful nuclear program (which they still maintain) they were really developing a nuclear weapon at an accelerated pace to force the removal of sanctions. Sounds like a trustworthy regime.

Where the hell did I say such a thing.

 

[Zalusithix]

As far as the alternative that I would have preferred, I would have preferred continued sanctions and, if necessary,more sanctions to attempt to pressure Iran to accept a better deal and allow the US to negotiate from a position of strength. A better deal would not have included lifting of weapons embargoes, would have provided more oversight and comprehensive inspections, and gone further to push back Iran's timetable to achieve a nuclear weapon after 10 years.

There is absolutely no guarantee that further sanctions would have done anything. Could they have helped negotiations later on? Possibly. Could they have hindered them instead? Just as, if not more likely. You already have a nation with many hardliners looking for any excuse not to bargain with the US. Twisting the knife further only serves to make them more powerful. It's not like they need trade with the outside world to make a nuke in the first place.

 

[Jonm1010]

First off sorry for being a bit argumentative and questioning your knowledge of the issue as it doesn't help the discussion at all.

As far as I know the 24/7 access will be to all sites that Iran has declared...undeclared, suspicious sites and military installations are not included. Under the deal Iran has the ability to dispute these sites through an appeals process that could take up to 24 days (including 3 days to implement the appeal board's decision)...and if Iran doesn't comply after 3 days there is another dispute resolution clause that allows up to 50 days of evaluation. Suffice it to say there would be ample time for Iran to hide any activity at these sites in advance of inspectors.

Another big issue I have with the deal is the inclusion of the removal of UN weapons embargoes imposed on Iran for weapons import/export and ballistic missiles. Apparently China and Russia pushed for this under the guise of allowing Iran to more effectively combat ISIS. Just last week Secretary of Defense Carter and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that under no circumstances should these embargoes be removed. Why include these in a deal aimed at curbing the nuclear weapons program?

As far as the alternative that I would have preferred, I would have preferred continued sanctions and, if necessary,more sanctions to attempt to pressure Iran to accept a better deal and allow the US to negotiate from a position of strength. A better deal would not have included lifting of weapons embargoes, would have provided more oversight and comprehensive inspections, and gone further to push back Iran's timetable to achieve a nuclear weapon after 10 years.

We have ingrained in the agreement, per the presidents mouth, access to any suspected sites. And we have 24/7 access to their entire nuclear infrastructure. How much more comprehensive can you get? This is after all an autonomous nation. With international rights that we have sworn to respect in the UN. It isn't realistic to expect occupational authority like they are our subjects. From what I have read all seems very reasonable and skewed heavily in our favor.

The problem with your logic is that Iran can't magically produce everything they need at one small underground site like this is some 70's Bond movie and they have an underground layer. By having access to all of their supply chains and current facilities they would literally have to create a vast underground network that operates completely independently from their already established infrastructure. Otherwise we are going to catch wind of it. Needless to say that would be insanely difficult, expensive and time consuming to achieve on Iran's part. They would in fact just be better off breaking off the agreement and repurposing their current infrastructure if they were so hell bent IMO. Not to mention the logic doesnt add up. If they are so determined to go that route then why make those initial offerings years ago? Why not just batten down the hatches and get the final push and get that nuke? Why? Because they know that while they will have a bit of leverage in some ways if they get one, they will be deeply affected economically for the foreseeable future. Long term diminishing their power as a nation domestically and abroad. So they are seeking this deal primarily because of economic interests. Long-term I'm sure they still have an interest in getting a nuke but this deal effectively eliminates that possibility for at least a decade. As opposed to nothing which likely guarantees them obtaining one shortly.

As for the weapons embargo, well, its not ideal but at the same time Iran has the right as does any nation to sell weapons. And as I said earlier the terrorist related sanctions remain in place. So it isn't like it is going to be a cakewalk for them to sell them. And frankly they have done just fine going about their interests in that regard for the most part. This is hardly a deal breaker.

As for your alternative. It sounds good in theory(just continue to sanction them until they bend even more!!) but reality is another story. The alliance we have forged right now is hinged on getting Iran to the negotiating table to curb and control their nuclear program. It is established with rather unwilling bedfellows like Russia and China through the UN. Without their support much of the teeth of the sanctions begin to unravel. Giving Iran more breathing room. Hurting our leverage to obtain any goals we seek, let alone the more challenging ones you seek. To which they would become even less plausible to achieve.

As you said China and Russia fought against the weapons embargo, so why in gods name would they suddenly be on board with tougher sanctions if we all of the sudden told them that we will walk away from a deal if they don't bend on this side issue that was not what the initial alliance was formed about?

 

[Valhelm]

I feel that Iran may have given up a bit too much in this deal.

They should never have signed onto the NPT years ago.

I want to see sanctions and the UN security council go after Israel next; they should not be allowed to operate rogue nuclear facilities.

Iran is doing this because they want friendlier relations with the US. Anti-American rhetoric does them no good anymore, especially with the shared threat of ISIS.

 

[googleplex]

Well, they're a signer of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty, so they have a legal right to developing nuclear energy.

You don't have understand man. They can't have nuclear power! It's in 'Merica' s best interest to keep those moslims sleeping in the dirt.

 

[AstroNut325]

I don't understand the GOP's foreign policy. It makes zero sense to me. It has never made sense to me, or that of any respectable person I know. GOP voters do not make any sense to me. I read Fox News comments and ask myself, 'surely this cannot be representative of the party?". And then I listen to members of the party, and presidential hopefuls, reiterate the same morally corrupt, ignorant and fatalistic talking points. And then I ask myself, "Am I the insane one here?"

This is a perfect personification of the US right wing: