What I think is likely to happen is that the IAEA will do its best. In all likelihood it will be tackling the biggest job it has ever tackled and I have little doubt that it will produce some sort of report in the tight timeframe is is allowed. The committee I referred to yesterday will vote to lift sanctions and whatever will be will be.
So far the Iranian agreement has been met with either negative skepticism, by people like myself, or “It’s A wonderful Life” attitude from those who see it as the salvation of world peace. An opinion piece in the Washington Post, however, seems to put the Iranian Deal into succinct, if not blunt, perspective.
In it’s opening salvo it describes the deal as follows:
The piece then goes on to give reasons for it’s conclusions, which I believe to be clear and convincing, offering perspectives that go beyond the usual inflammatory indictments from those saying whoever disagrees with this agreement are simply “Obama Haters,” like is so often the case when people pose objections to his policies or leadership performance.
Nonetheless, even though the author feels rejection by Congress to be the best course of action, I think the deal is already baked and done, for two reasons. First, it will be nearly impossible to achieve the 2/3 vote needed to override the veto already promised by the President, as more than a handful of democrats will have to participate in a “No” vote to achieve this feat. Such a rebuff, IMO, is simply not in their politicized DNA. Second, it is being reported that the deal will be taken hastily to the UN for passage, before any Congressional review can even be done, which will start the process of lifting sanctions. And, once Pandora’s Box is opened the unintended consequences will be set into irreversible motion.
There is a third group, but it is small. We do not care one way or the other, but when somebody gets upset about Pakistan, we will start to believe the sincerity. I doubt more than 10% of the people upset about the Iranian deal know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Let us review past predictions: N. Korea gets nuclear weapons, and this begins a nuclear arms race in Asia. Apparently, S.Korea and Japan are super duper secret nuclear powers that can only be seen with the special delusional hawk glasses.
Let us review past non-predictions: Israel gets nuclear weapons, and this starts a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Apparently everybody can see this except those delusional hawks who will not take off their special delusional hawk glasses.
To solve the Middle East nuclear problem, disarm Israel. Problem solved.
I really get tired of all the wailing, hair pulling, gnashing of teeth, and eventual forgetting the predicted outcome.
Meh. The alternative was no deal. Russia and China bolt when it becomes clear this is really not about a nuclear deal, which is actually pretty good, if not perfect. Then, if the delusional hawks, to borrow a term, are correct, Iran has nukes within three months. Of course these are the same folks who have been saying they are 5 years away from nukes since the mid 90s. Finally, the WAPO guy jan cites was a Bush Defense guy. Doing the opposite of what any of those folks say is probably a good general principle.
Steve
It’s interesting, Steve, how you seem to negatively weigh, and then haughtily dismiss, a person’s opinion if their service has been tied to a republican administration — especially one having the name Bush.
It’s also worth noting some “defense guys” of President Obama, specifically two Defense Secretaries (Gates and Panetta), a recent Director of the DIA, Michael Flynn, and a recent Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, who left the administration in 2014 (to name only a few), all had policy disagreements with this president. It’s been kind of across the political board, Steve, not just a difference of opinion between officials linked to different party affiliations.
jan- I disagree with a number of Obama’s decisions and policies. I certainly hope some of his advisers did. They may even have been correct. However, the fact remains that the Bush foreign policy, especially as it pertains to the Middle East, was awful. Any advice they give is suspect because they have a proven history of bad decisions, not just because they worked for Bush. As I said, it is a good general principle. That means they are actually going to be right some of the time, but in general they have proven themselves suspect.
Steve
I ran across a post at David Stockman’s site. It is a re-post from original.antiwar.com, and it is by Pat Buchanan (Cold Warrior Pat Buchanan). If you cannot convince Pat Buchanan that Iran should be on the short list for military target practice, your fears are delusional.
The GOP’s Colossal Stupidity On The Iran Deal
Yeah, Buchanan supports the agreement (which should give its supporters pause).