Over my years in the political blogosphere I have learned that I differ in many ways from most of the denizens of this demimonde. Among these are that I listen to everybody’s points of view and that, in fact, although I can’t be browbeaten I can be persuaded. I’ve made no secret of my skepticism of the value of a negotiated agreement on nuclear development but I wouldn’t be true to myself and my principles if I didn’t entertain the possibility that I was wrong.
What would it take to persuade me that an agreement reached under the framework that has been announced by the Obama Administration (which differs somewhat from the framework as outlined either by the EU or Iran) would be a good thing? Basically, I think you’d need to provide compelling evidence of two things. First, you’d need to persuade me that Iran is a threat to us. I mean something very specific by that not just that they don’t like us. I mean an imminent threat to the American people or our property. I don’t mean a threat to Germany, Israel, or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I mean to us.
Second, you’ve need to convince me that despite their history of lies and concealment the Iranian regime can be trusted to be fully forthcoming about the extent of their nuclear development and will allow unrestricted international inspection of all of its nuclear development facilities whether we know about them now or whether they even exist now.
Failing those two things I’ll remain unconvinced.
Update
I just heard a radio interview with a former IAEA nuclear inspector who expressed the opinion that Iran was the least cooperative and most deceitful country the IAEA had ever tried to inspect.
You miss the most important reason. To keep the US from invading. If we are able to monitor uranium continuously from mines to fuel rods, there is no real reason to think they are making bombs. Since the plutonium route is probably easier, and we are altering the reactor and removing material, that route has been eliminated. I will grant you that when the hawks are intent upon a war, they can always make up stuff, but we would at least have a chance to avoid a war of aggression if the objective evidence showed they were not making nukes.
Query- What is the downside to this agreement for the US? Assume, arguendo, that the terms as currently stated are carried out. Inspectors have access to all nuclear sites and to any suspicious sites. How does this harm US national security?
Second query- Are you suggesting me make treaties/deals only with countries we trust? From my POV, we should not trust any country in the ME.
Steve
Why do we need to have full trust in Iran? The question is what can they do in secret. My inexpert take is that people who know something about nuclear weapons seem to believe that the type of resources Iran has agreed to possess are extremely limiting.
To me, the better questions deal with what happens in the future. If in five years, after becoming entangled in enough business with Russia and China they violate the agreements, what will happen?
And to answer the first question, there’s no imminent threat to America. But an Israeli strike on Iran would be a catastrophe. This agreement is partly meant to force Israel into an even worse position.
They already know we’re not going to invade.
That question has been answered so completely (even angrily) I hardly need to repeat the arguments here. I think that the Iranian regime is sufficiently heinous that anything we do that takes the pressure off it is probably not in our interests. Of course, I think that about the KSA, too.
For any agreement to have any meaning we’ve got to have confidence they’ll adhere to their end of it. Parading IAEA inspectors around development facilities we already know about where they aren’t doing weapons development while they’re maintaining secret facilities we don’t know about and developing weapons is no breakthrough. We know the regime has lied and evaded in the past. Why is it different now?
So far you’re not persuading me of anything but that you are True Believers.
We know the regime has lied and evaded in the past.
What exactly have they lied about? There’s been a lot of back-and-forth, with the US under Bush and Obama making accusations. But where’s the evidence that Iran has lied? Their nuclear weapons program has not been operating for over a decade and they haven’t enriched uranium at a level necessary to use it in a weapon. We True Believers seem to be of the insane belief that Iran is not being run by Dr Doom. Crazy, I know. It makes more sense to follow the logic of such noted pragmatists such as Bill Kristol, and assume pure evil and manipulation are at work.
The Fordo nuclear development site was developed in secret and they lied about its existence until they couldn’t maintain the lie any longer. They’ve also lied in the past about the nature of their development program. There’s not a great deal of question that at the very least they were developing nuclear weapons. The IEAE found too much that couldn’t credibly be explained any other way.
I’ve written so much about Iran’s nuclear development over the years that my views on the subject are on open book. Previous to 2003 the Iranians were developing nuclear weapons and if they aren’t doing so now, they’re sure doing a good job of trying to convince somebody that they are. Maybe us. Maybe their own people. Maybe both.
On the other hand I don’t think they’re an imminent threat to us and that a nuclear weapon in Iran’s possession is probably more dangerous to them than it is to us. I do think they pose a threat to the Israelis, the Saudis, and maybe even the Europeans (who have no one but themselves to blame).
The likelihood of the US invading Iran was and is zero. That’s a nonstarter.
If Iran starts a general war in the Persian Gulf region, that would be bad for the world’s energy costs & world economy. We should be positioned to take less of a hit than others, but it’s not like our economy is strong. It is an indirect but significant threat to our interests in that regard.
And I fail to see how an agreement that takes the pressure off our enemy and puts more on our allies is supposed to be a win, but I just don’t care anymore.
Dave when you say “no threat” here, aren’t you really meaning “no existential threat”? IIRC you recently outlined some ways in which our interests are threatened.
There’s an existential threat to Iran if they use nuclear weapons. The country will cease to exist.
To date Iran hasn’t posed much of a threat to the United States. They’ve supported some Shi’ite militias in Iraq. They’ve played host to some Al Qaeda guests. There are some rumors they’ve supported some terrorists who’ve been up to stuff here to not much effect. That’s pretty much it. Such threat as they pose is pretty far removed. Terrorists receiving a nuclear weapon which they somehow position to hurt U. S. troops. Stuff like that.
For Israel on the other hand Iran is a real threat and that’s without getting into the Greater Israel stuff. I think that Israel needs to deal with Israel’s problems.
Israel is dealing with Israel’s problems, by every means available. Including trying to get a bigger nation to do what it can’t.
Unless the plan is to exterminate all of the people in all of the surrounding countries, that ain’t gonna do it, Ellipsis. Israel needs to come to an accommodation, a modus vivendi, with its neighbors and getting the U. S. to invade Iraq, bomb Iran, etc. doesn’t do that.
I recognize that it’s very difficult. I didn’t create Israel’s problems but I can recognize them when I see them.
To my eye the Israelis are getting increasingly truculent. If the U. S. is acting as a proxy for Israel, it’s not working. Did invading Iraq really make Israel more secure? I don’t think so.
To me, the better questions deal with what happens in the future. If in five years, after becoming entangled in enough business with Russia and China they violate the agreements, what will happen?
This is where the logic of support for this deal breaks down.
On the one hand we’re told that it was necessary to make a deal because the sanctions were breaking down. We pretty much knew we couldn’t keep to the status quo because Russia and China, and even our EU allies, want to open up commercial ties.
So how are we to believe that there will be any recourse if (when) Iran fails to keep to the terms of the deal? Even under the best of circumstances, if the international community was currently fully behind the sanctions, it would have been hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube- the lead time is at least a year I think….so if the willingness isn’t even there, then basically even if we have thorough inspection access there will be nothing short of war that we can do about it if they cheat.
I don’t know if this really supports an argument against the deal either (since I’m assuming it is true that the sanctions are falling apart either way) but I certainly think that the cheerleaders are greatly exaggerating the benefits of this deal.
Oh, I don’t know, Schuler. Everything is breaking down in the ME right now along Shia-Sunni lines. And it seems the Sunnis would rather deal with Israel than Iran. So, winning! Not that I think the Israelis planned this: No one is THAT good!
That last bit reminds me of a joke:
How do we know the CIA wasn’t involved in the Kennedy assassination?
Well he’s dead, isn’t he?
“And I fail to see how an agreement that takes the pressure off our enemy and puts more on our allies is supposed to be a win..”
That’s one of the primary arguments made by those remaining unconvinced about the efficacy of this deal. Also, the continuing echo, that it’s either this deal or “war,” seems to be the injection of false hyperbole as well. An example of alternatives being considered was illustrated in today’s NYT’s article highlighting Israel’s Minister of Intelligence and Strategic Affairs, Yuval Steinitz, version of a better alternative to the Lausanne framework supposedly agreed upon last week. His suggestions mirror those of others I’ve read about, offering a variety of replacement ideas in any agreement made with Iran.
In earlier comments made by Obama himself, he voiced concerns about uranium stockpiles not being shipped out of Iran, as well as the existence of a secret underground facility, Fordo. Are there any other unaccounted for facilities the U.S. doesn’t know about? He also questioned the need for a heavy water reactor. Now all is good with him in letting these concerns simply disappear.
Also the inspections to be done were vaguely outlined, and according to Iran not to be “snap” ones as Obama seemed to gush to the American people. Other problems with this deal are why Iran’s R & D programs appear to be unrestricted. And, what about their ballistic missile program — something not even addressed in this framework?
“They already know we’re not going to invade.”
Of course. We would never invade a country just because we thought they might have WMDs. Never gonna happen.
More seriously, what will really happen is that we will bomb them. The neocons assume that Iran will just roll over and take this. I suspect that they won’t. They will retaliate in some manner. This will lead to calls of boots on the ground. It always does. Then what happens? You seem sure we won’t invade. I think history suggests we might.
“I just heard a radio interview with a former IAEA nuclear inspector who expressed the opinion that Iran was the least cooperative and most deceitful country the IAEA had ever tried to inspect.”
And they don’t even get to try to inspect the one nuclear power in the ME. Meh. If we trusted them, we wouldn’t need inspectors. We don’t, so we will have inspectors. With the right to inspect suspicious sites if they want. I don’t think we should trust any country in that area, but they don’t need to be trusted, just rational and willing to agree and comply with the set terms.
jan- Three of those are already in the existing agreement. The Fordo site would be under observation.
Steve
Ok, busy weekend, so here it goes:
Dave, to begin with:
“Basically, I think you’d need to provide compelling evidence of two things.”
I don’t really see how your first point is relevant. Iran is not “imminent threat to the American people or our property†but so what? What does that have to do with whether an agreement is “a good thing?”
IMO, Iran isn’t a threat to us directly, but it might be a threat to our interests depending on your perspective. It could be a threat to close allies (NATO) as Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities improve. An Iran with nuclear weapons certainly would be a threat to our interests for a host of reasons I won’t go into here. So, IMO, work to prevent Iran from becoming a member of the nuclear club is in our interest for Iran specifically and it’s in our regional and greater non-proliferation interest more generally.
On your second point, I will summarize with two clichés: The proof is in the pudding, and, past performance is no guarantee of future results.
A big question in this debate turns on Iranian intentions. Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon is a “fact†for many – a truth that needs no critical thought, analysis or examination. It’s bad analysis as it ignores the changes in Iran’s circumstances over time. Qaddafi’s Libya, to give one example, had a nascent covert nuclear program and he verifiably gave it up – not that it did him much good in the end. Libya was a terrible country yet we reached a nuclear accord despite the history. Circumstances and the strategic environment change which can drive drastic policy changes.
With respect to Iran’s history of “lies and concealment†they may not have changed, but there are reasons to conclude they have and, at the end of the day, there is one way to find out. These negotiations are, as much as anything, a test for Iran.
On the agreement itself, this framework is just that – a framework and not a final agreement. In this case the details truly matter because verification and compliance are so crucial to judging whether the final agreement (if there is one) will be a good one or not. Keeping that in mind, I think this framework is good start and is better than I expected.
Here’s the text of the EU-Iran joint statement which is the only official joint document on the framework. The US, Iranian and other “fact sheets†can probably be ignored for now as they seem primarily intended for domestic audiences and we don’t know which, if any, details are mutually agreed.
One example of why the details matter. The joint statement clearly states that enrichment will only take place at Natanz. That will be great as long as there are sufficient measures in place to verify that to the satisfaction of the US and other parties to the negotiation.
As Dave says with the PPACA, “it’s too early to tell†if this framework will be a winner or a loser. However, I don’t see any reason not to continue. At this point there isn’t a big hole in the framework (from the US perspective) that would cripple a final agreement or turn it into Swiss cheese. There are a few things that are surprising clear that limit the Iranian nuclear program:
– The reconfiguration of the Arak reactor and the clear statement of no reprocessing means that Iran is giving up the pathway it established to a plutonium weapon capability.
– There are already measures for implementing the additional protocol and the modified 3.1 code, which is significant.
In short it’s a solid framework that wou
Oops, double post – this is the correct, edited one:
Ok, busy weekend, so here it goes:
Dave, to begin with:
“Basically, I think you’d need to provide compelling evidence of two things.”
I don’t really see how your first point is relevant. Iran is not an “imminent threat to the American people or our property†but so what? What does that have to do with whether an agreement is “a good thing?”
IMO, Iran isn’t a threat to us directly, but it might be a threat to our interests depending on your perspective. It could be a threat to close allies (NATO) as Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities improve. An Iran with nuclear weapons certainly would be a threat to our interests for a host of reasons I won’t go into here. So, IMO, work to prevent Iran from becoming a member of the nuclear club is in our interest for Iran specifically and it’s in our regional and greater non-proliferation interest more generally.
On your second point, I will summarize with two clichés: The proof is in the pudding, and, past performance is no guarantee of future results.
A big question in this debate turns on Iranian intentions. Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon is too often portrayed as a “fact†– a truth that needs no critical thought, analysis or examination. It’s bad analysis as it ignores the changes in Iran’s circumstances over time. Qaddafi’s Libya, to give one example, had a nascent covert nuclear program and he verifiably gave it up (not that it did him much good in the end). Libya was a terrible country yet we reached a nuclear accord despite the history. Similarly Iran may have a history of nuclear “lies and concealment†but Iran’s circumstances changed considerably. Negotiations are a great way to find out if they are still utilizing “lies and concealment.†These negotiations are, as much as anything, a test for Iran.
On the agreement itself, this framework is just that – a framework and not a final agreement. In this case the details truly matter because verification and compliance are so crucial to judging whether the final agreement (if there is one) will be a good one or not. Keeping that in mind, I think this framework is good start and is better than I expected.
Here’s the text of the EU-Iran joint statement which is the only official joint document on the framework. The US, Iranian and other “fact sheets†contain a lot of spin but also share some important points which are not irrelevant to the utility of this framework.
One example of why the details matter. All the fact sheets and the joint statement clearly state that enrichment will only take place at Natanz. That will be great for us as long as there are sufficient measures in place to verify that to the satisfaction of the US and other parties to the negotiation.
As Dave says with the PPACA, “it’s too early to tell†if this framework will be a winner or a loser as it’s not a final agreement. However, I don’t see any reason not to continue based on this framework. At this point there isn’t a big hole in the framework (from the US perspective) that would cripple a final agreement or turn it into Swiss cheese and there are more concessions from the Iranian side than I expected. There still is no need to strangle the baby in the crib.
Of course. We would never invade a country just because we thought they might have WMDs. Never gonna happen.
Iran is a much larger country, more cohesive and better run than Iraq. But the population alone is the most telling thing.
Iraq’s population (approx.) in 2003: 26,230,000
Iran’s population (approx.) in 2015: 79,264,000
For the record:
Afghanistan’s population (approx.) in 2001: 26,700,000*
I know looking up such basic facts is pretty damned hard, what with having to open up new tabs and whatnot, but I imagine the Pentagon war planners are up to the task. When they do they’ll note that invading Iran would be roughly equivalent (from a population standpoint) to invading Iraq (2003), Afghanistan (2001), Syria (2015), and Libya (2015), all at the same time. Whether or not any administration would want to invade Iran doesn’t matter, the option just doesn’t exist.
* Afghanistan’s population jumped by about a million and a half from 2001 to 2003. It’s up to 33M by current estimates.
Because there are countervailing issues. In my view the best relations we can accomplish with some regimes are strained and Iran is one of those. You have repeatedly brought up the agreements that were negotiated with the Soviet Union. After Lenin’s time the Soviet Union was no longer apocalyptic in its philosophy. It was just a front for Russian imperialism.
But we did understand how far they could be trusted. How far can Iran be trusted? However much human intelligence we had on the Soviet Union on Iran we have less.
Qaddafi gave up everything including access. Under those circumstances agreements can be verified. By all accounts the Iranians have absolutely rejected that. It’s not analogous.
Ultimately, the first point is relevant to me. I’ve given an honest accounting of what would convince me. You may not need the same things to be convinced. I note that nothing anybody has written above is an attempt to convince me but requiring that I surrender my judgment to theirs.
Inspectors will be like regulators, and they will be subject to inspector-capture. If I recall correctly, the Iraqi inspectors were advocating for Saddam before the invasion.
When there are rules and people determined to break the rules, there will be some people who will successfully break the rules. There is no easy way to establish a crime free area that includes criminals.
The open access for inspectors is only applicable to areas that they deem possible illegal sites. If the Iranians decide to cheat, they will create sites that do not appear to be illegal.
The Iranians will either cheat or not cheat, but ultimately, there will be no way to know. It will be a decision based upon trust of Iran and/or confidence in competence of inspectors, and both of these are subjective. The determination is based upon the unknown – the future.
Sanctions rarely work. The people that have harsh sanctions imposed upon them are rarely dissuaded by hardship, and they will usually end any uprising with violent means.
Cuban sanctions have not changed the regime’s behavior. Sanctions against N. Korea have not changed their behavior. This was true under President Clinton and President Bush. The Russian sanctions are not going to work. They can work against liberal democracies, but liberal democracies are rarely subject to harsh sanctions.
Properly understood, sanctions are siege warfare. The intent is to encircle the enemy and to prevent anything from entering or leaving his territory. You starve them into submission. Siege warfare is expensive. You need to have enough troops to surround the entire territory, and you need to be able to outlast the besieged.
Economic sanctions only work if everybody participates. If the sanctioned country has a supply route, they will not work, and they will find somebody willing to act as a “fence” for their goods. Often, the pressure to lift sanctions will come from outside countries who want to do business.
Iran has been under “crippling sanctions” that brought them to the negotiating table. If these sanctions were too harsh, they would have concluded negotiations long ago. Iran is not a liberal democracy. They can keep negotiating for years under “crippling sanctions”. They do not answer to the voters or the people.
For people who do not trust Iran, there is no way to guarantee they are not developing nuclear weapons. There will always be another rock, hill, or day-care center to hide a secret development facility under.
For Iran, actually possessing nuclear weapons is not necessary. Like Saddam, they only need everybody to think they have or may have nuclear weapons. Because of this, it is likely they will play hide-and-seek with the inspectors for years. They can stay enough below the threshold of renewed sanctions but cause enough doubt to remain a problem.
We know how this movie ends.
I would just give them a few and get it over. Otherwise, the US should gear up for war. The draft will need to be reinstated, and manufacturing plants will need to be re-tooled for weapons and munitions. There is no inbetween.
If the person(s) that you think are insane are actually insane, there is no way to interact with them rationally. You cannot reason with a madman, and a madman is somebody whose reasons are not rational. Their responses may rational or irrational, but there is no way to know. Therefore, there is no way to negotiate with them, and any agreements may or may not be upheld. While you deem their actions irrational, they may actually believe they are upholding the agreement.
This is problem with the Hitler in 1938 scenario, and Stalin learned that his pact with Hitler was worthless when the Soviet Union was invaded. The only way to ensure Hitler could not do what he did was to remove him from power, and this could be done covertly or overtly. However, either would not necessarily have produced better results.
If you believe that the existing regime is determined to produce nuclear weapons, then you must believe that they need to be removed, and if you believe that they are ruthless enough to start a nuclear war with Israel, then you must believe that they are ruthless enough to kill as many of their own citizens as needed to end any uprisings. Therefore, you cannot logically believe that a group of unarmed Facebook and Twitter users would ever be able to overthrow the government.
Otherwise, the Iranian Mullahs would be less ruthless than Syria’s Assad or Libya’s Gaddafi. The Green Revolution would have been like the Tea Party, and like the 2010 elections, they would have thrown out the Mullahs in a bloodless coup. I doubt it, but I guess anything is possible.
Regarding your conditions: there is no way to satisfy the second one because you do not trust this regime, and therefore, you will always believe that this regime is working on producing nuclear weapons. If you believe that this is unacceptable, then the only rational solution is to replace the existing regime, and if you believe they are truly irrational, the only realistic method is by force – overt or covert.
I do not care about a nuclear Iran. Ruthless dictators do not give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists or any other group. People or groups who take and keep power by force have no friends or allies. The terrorists would first take over the dictators spot, and then, they would resume their terrorist activities.
Iran needs nuclear weapons to ensure they are not invaded, and this will allow them to become the regional hegemony. Iran is presently establishing that spot without nuclear weapons, and acquiring them would work against them because Saudi Arabia would have Pakistan FedEx a few immediately. ISIS is the only real threat to Iran, but they are also a threat to Saudi Arabia.
The entire region is going up in flames, and there is nothing anything anybody can do to stop it. Starting the conflict early is not going to earn the US any praise. Instead, the US will be reviled for meddling and causing trouble. If WW2 had been started in 1938, we would not proclaim it the “good war”, and they would not be the “greatest generation”.
When a pack of dogs are fighting in your backyard, it is best to let them wear themselves out. A few may die, but if you jump into the middle to break it up, they will turn on you. Once they are finished ripping you to shreds, they will pick up where they left off.
If this offends you, so be it.
Israel lives in a rough neighborhood. It is not my fault. They can either move or figure out a way to deal with it. The US can provide support, but the US is not the Israeli Foreign Legion. If they would like, the US can send them suitcases and U-Hauls – problem solved.
——————————–
Unless there has been some change in the last few years, Israeli jets cannot make the round trip for bombing runs. Apparently, somebody has finally enlightened “the experts” because I have not been hearing this nonsense.
If your Iranian expert spent years claiming Israel would bomb Iran, they are probably as knowledgeable about Iran as they were about Israeli jets, and learning about military hardware is not that difficult. They can look it up in Jane’s, or they could ask somebody who actually knows something.
Of course there is. We’ve been “inbetween” for most of the last seventy years or, said another way, for as long as most people remember.
Then, you are willing to accept the situation as it has been. I do not have a problem with it, but it is not what most people find acceptable.
Good to see you back, TB.
I also don’t have a problem with the current situation w/ Iran, as it is about 20 stories down the list of ‘news’ I care about, and much farther down the list of things in the real world I care about.
For anybody who believes that Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons and will cheat, what is the non-violent process that will result in a non-nuclear Iran (assuming you do not like this one).
Here is my suggestion: As soon as the US thinks Iran has one nuclear weapon, the US will arm Saudi Arabia with nuclear missiles, and they will be targeted at locations in Iran. The Saudis will have the launch codes, and whenever they feel threatened, they can send a few into Iran.
The Saudi’s military is worthless, but they can push a button. I suspect the Iranians would have a sudden realization about the evils of nuclear weapons.
@Icepick
I have a lot going on, and for me, everything is down about 20 stories down on my list. I just do not care, and in the end, none of it matters.
“Ultimately, the first point is relevant to me. I’ve given an honest accounting of what would convince me. You may not need the same things to be convinced. I note that nothing anybody has written above is an attempt to convince me but requiring that I surrender my judgment to theirs.”
I was trying to understand your first point and after your latest explanation it still makes no sense. Hard for me to try to convince you when I don’t understand the reason behind that criteria and its relevance. I’m not trying to get you to surrender your judgment, far from it. I’m perfectly happy to agree to disagree.