I don't think the signing of the deal is at all certain.
Obama does not have full authority to suspend the sanctions.
Rouhani knows that $hitty deal will almost certainly guarantee he is a one term President.
Let's assume Obama can use his executive order Authority?
Khamenie does not know what happens after Obama? Does a President Hillary or President Republican
stay with a deal that they might spoke against in the campaign.
at any rate even if a deal happens. Khamenie might try to scuttle it before Rouahni's term is over.
Obama does not have full authority to suspend the sanctions.
Rouhani knows that $hitty deal will almost certainly guarantee he is a one term President.
Let's assume Obama can use his executive order Authority?
Khamenie does not know what happens after Obama? Does a President Hillary or President Republican
stay with a deal that they might spoke against in the campaign.
at any rate even if a deal happens. Khamenie might try to scuttle it before Rouahni's term is over.
Flint the thing is those "crazy republicans" had enough time to do something against these animals and they didnt do shit either. When it comes to middle east policy, there is not republican or democrat, then there is only servants of certain lobbies and those lobbies expect every single US admin no matter from which party, to be consistent in their foreign policy and specially regarding their approach in the middle east. So if you really expect a difference between republicans and democrats regarding iran, then you are wasting your time. We have seen both sides come and go in the last 35 years and they all more or less ended up making sure these animals stay where they are and get even more powerful.
Very true. That was a tongue in cheek comment. The rise of Iran's nuclear program happened mostly under GW. As much as they say it is impossible to hit nuclear sites, I say BS. Those shiny chimneys and plants they show on TV every day are all in the open and look awfully vulnerable to me. Part of me even thinks it doesn't matter if IR has the bomb or not. They can't use it and can't sneak one into Gaza either without being noticed.
First:
the western intelligence agencies are not necessarily convinced that Iran is actually trying to build a bomb.
mostly their consensus appears to be That Iran is trying to create Break out capacity so that they can build a bomb within a year's notice if they so decided.
Let's assume for a moment that the west can not live with an Iran that has Nukes (That's a big assumption)
Let's also assume that the west can not live with an Iran that has Breakout capacity (a bigger assumption.)
Thus far (last 14 years or so) the west has manged to monitor and manage Iran's nuclear program
using diplomacy.
You have to understand the mindset of western planners.
The western governments have to comply with various mandates such as implications on world economy, public opinion, strategic considerations, ....
The middle eastern point of view is life has no value and economic welfare of citizens is of little concern.
That's why from a sane American point of view using Military Power so long as there appears to be diplomatic room to run will be counter-productive.
Any Military Strike has certain risks however small those risks may appear to be.
But the more important implication of military strikes are that it will create an imbalance in a region that as it is has difficulty reaching an equilibrium.
the western intelligence agencies are not necessarily convinced that Iran is actually trying to build a bomb.
mostly their consensus appears to be That Iran is trying to create Break out capacity so that they can build a bomb within a year's notice if they so decided.
Let's assume for a moment that the west can not live with an Iran that has Nukes (That's a big assumption)
Let's also assume that the west can not live with an Iran that has Breakout capacity (a bigger assumption.)
Thus far (last 14 years or so) the west has manged to monitor and manage Iran's nuclear program
using diplomacy.
You have to understand the mindset of western planners.
The western governments have to comply with various mandates such as implications on world economy, public opinion, strategic considerations, ....
The middle eastern point of view is life has no value and economic welfare of citizens is of little concern.
That's why from a sane American point of view using Military Power so long as there appears to be diplomatic room to run will be counter-productive.
Any Military Strike has certain risks however small those risks may appear to be.
But the more important implication of military strikes are that it will create an imbalance in a region that as it is has difficulty reaching an equilibrium.
I am not advocating military action. I have long passed that view point. It is clear that the US isn't willing or doesn't want to stop Iran's nuclear program so what is the point of carrying this charade for another 10 years? The only losers are the people who have to endure sanctions. Fish or cut bait. The euphoria of Iran getting a nuclear weapon will last a bout a week. Hezbollah will fire a few celebratory shots in the air and then go back fighting Nusra in their back yard. Nuclear weapon is not going to help them.
What gave you the impression that the U.S feels any responsibility toward the welfare of citizens of other countries?
The U.S has every intention of stopping it. It has thus far slowed it down. in politics there is saying if you can't stop something delay it. The U.S has done a very effective job at that without having seen the global commerce impacted even for day.
By definition a Nuclear weapon is meant to be a deterrent not an offensive weapon.
In an unlikely case that Iran acquires one it will lack a delivery device that has range or any accuracy.
The U.S has every intention of stopping it. It has thus far slowed it down. in politics there is saying if you can't stop something delay it. The U.S has done a very effective job at that without having seen the global commerce impacted even for day.
By definition a Nuclear weapon is meant to be a deterrent not an offensive weapon.
In an unlikely case that Iran acquires one it will lack a delivery device that has range or any accuracy.
very interesting Ofogh program.
It refreshed my memory about something i read a long time about اباظیه
http://ir.voanews.com/media/video/horizon/2516244.html?z=1566&zp=1
It refreshed my memory about something i read a long time about اباظیه
http://ir.voanews.com/media/video/horizon/2516244.html?z=1566&zp=1