Explain it like I'm 5: What's the upside of pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal?

WildRose · 2018-05-10T15:36:28.743Z

None pertaining to the nukes or nuke facilities.

Oryx · 2018-05-10T15:38:01.426Z

I don’t want Iran to have nukes, but it seems to me that a nuclear Iran is preferable to war in Iran with the very real potential to spread. I’m a strong supporter of Israel, and I understand their concerns, but what happened to mutually assured destruction? Does anyone believe that if Iran became capable of nuking Israel that they would do it, assuring their own destruction?

WildRose · 2018-05-10T15:38:42.212Z

That’s completely nuts. The only thing constraining Iran at all is a lack of nukes.

Oryx · 2018-05-10T15:39:41.721Z

WildRose:

That’s completely nuts. The only thing constraining Iran at all is a lack of nukes.

What makes you say that? You don’t believe in mutually assured destruction? Or you think Iranians are just suicidal? Do you really think that if they could they would nuke Israel?

WildRose · 2018-05-10T15:39:45.411Z

Iran is led by radical islamic fundamentalists who believe martyrdom guarantees them an honored place in heaven and every pleasure imaginable.

Oryx · 2018-05-10T15:40:46.672Z

WildRose:

Iran is led by radical islamic fundamentalists who believe martyrdom guarantees them an honored place in heaven and every pleasure imaginable.

So you believe that if the Iranian leadership acquired nukes they would immediately use them on Israel, ensuring that Iran would be turned into molten rock?

Oryx · 2018-05-10T15:43:32.678Z

WildRose:

Iran is led by radical islamic fundamentalists who believe martyrdom guarantees them an honored place in heaven and every pleasure imaginable.

I don’t believe Iran would use them. Their leadership is just like all world leaders–they love their comfy lives and spend most of their time ensuring they can keep them. Iran would do what other countries have done and use them as deterrents and negotiation pieces.

WildRose · 2018-05-10T15:49:01.954Z

No they aren’t. They are amongst the most extreme Radical Islamic Clerics anywhere in the world.

Gaius · 2018-05-10T16:06:39.745Z

Our “withdrawal” reinstates sanctions. It does not ensure “that which was already being done will now be done.”

Instead it is grounded in the reality that “what was being done was not sufficient.”

Oh, and LAST TIME we imposed these sanctions the EU etc. came around to doing it our way. Why? Because the cost, to their businesses, of being sanctioned by the US was greater than the benefit, to their businesses of giving the Mullahs what the Mullahs wanted.

Oryx · 2018-05-10T16:08:51.950Z

WildRose:

No they aren’t. They are amongst the most extreme Radical Islamic Clerics anywhere in the world.

Do you believe that if they acquired nukes they would quickly use them on Israel, assuring their own destruction?

dantes · 2018-05-10T16:09:37.835Z

Uh, no. Europe was on board with sanctioning Iran because they were concerned about them obtaining nuclear weapons. The threat posed was not from us, but from Iran.

Gaius · 2018-05-10T16:20:02.897Z

IIRC i’m right and you’re wrong. We got tough on sanctions while they made lip service all the way to the bank . . . until we extended the sanctions to cover THEIR companies as well as ours.

Either way they should be on board. Proxy wars and missile launches are bafd.
They should not be planting themselves requiring a new, from scratch, set of sanctions.

They should not draw a line in the sand to protect missile launching and proxy wars by mullahs and neither should anyone here.

NebraskaFootball · 2018-05-10T16:46:16.839Z

Gaius:

Our “withdrawal” reinstates sanctions. It does not ensure “that which was already being done will now be done.”

Instead it is grounded in the reality that “what was being done was not sufficient.”

Oh, and LAST TIME we imposed these sanctions the EU etc. came around to doing it our way. Why? Because the cost, to their businesses, of being sanctioned by the US was greater than the benefit, to their businesses of giving the Mullahs what the Mullahs wanted.

It was the lifting of all nation’s sanctions through the UN removal that brought them to the table the last time. Not merely our willingness to waive our own unilateral sanctions. What you’re telling us is that hope and pray is our option now. And of course war. Where do you stand there?

NebraskaFootball · 2018-05-10T16:49:13.228Z

Gaius:

IIRC i’m right and you’re wrong. We got tough on sanctions while they made lip service all the way to the bank . . . until we extended the sanctions to cover THEIR companies as well as ours.

Either way they should be on board. Proxy wars and missile launches are bafd.
They should not be planting themselves requiring a new, from scratch, set of sanctions.

They should not draw a line in the sand to protect missile launching and proxy wars by mullahs and neither should anyone here.

Who was this post in response to?

And yes, proxy wars and ballistic missile testing is bad. But when looking at prioritization, which is worse as it relates to American national security? Proxy wars in the ME, or a nuclear armed Iran with warheads capable of destroying the world? Because we just turned our backs on the latter of the two.

AngraMainyu · 2018-05-10T17:03:42.625Z

NebraskaFootball:

AngraMainyu:

They’re want to destabilize them. The nukes have nothing to do with it.

Trump and his supporters?

Destabilize them as a precursor to war?

The people that told Trump this was a good idea. It’s a precursor to regime change.

Call_me_Ishmael · 2018-05-10T17:05:12.674Z

AngraMainyu:

NebraskaFootball:

AngraMainyu:

They’re want to destabilize them. The nukes have nothing to do with it.

Trump and his supporters?

Destabilize them as a precursor to war?

The people that told Trump this was a good idea. It’s a precursor to regime change.

The Jews in Saudi Arabia?

NebraskaFootball · 2018-05-10T17:05:43.743Z

AngraMainyu:

The people that told Trump this was a good idea. It’s a precursor to regime change.

Considering who has currently advising him, I would think you are likely correct.

Borgia · 2018-05-10T17:07:29.524Z

MarkyS:

There is evidence that Iran has been dishonoring their bond and they have certainly dishonored the spirit of the agreement with their continuing to develop international delivery systems. Those are always offensive weapons. They would not need them to protect themselves in an attack.

Are you saying the USA is an offensive minded nation?

AngraMainyu · 2018-05-10T17:10:58.893Z

Call_me_Ishmael:

AngraMainyu:

NebraskaFootball:

AngraMainyu:

They’re want to destabilize them. The nukes have nothing to do with it.

Trump and his supporters?

Destabilize them as a precursor to war?

The people that told Trump this was a good idea. It’s a precursor to regime change.

The Jews in Saudi Arabia?

I’m not sure what you’re saying here.

Borgia · 2018-05-10T17:11:02.826Z

MarkyS:

They also had a deal where they could forestall a visit to sites for a few weeks, too. Just enough time to clean up and out whatever they needed to.

I mean, c’mon!

M

I heard an interesting interview of a British inspector and this point came up. He said it was not a concern due to the ability to detect latent radiation. You can’t just move it to another place and leave no evidence behind. Not in that short a timespan at least.