According to the agreement, Iran has committed to halt all enrichment above 5 percent and neutralize its stockpile of near 20 percent uranium.

 

Again status quo

Again status quo

Under the agreement, Iran will go from having about 407 lbs. of 20 percent uranium to zero.

So you trust them at their word ??

Obama also supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Libyan uprising, the rebels in Syria.

So far he is batting a 0% on getting those right.

 

What makes anyone think this is any different?

Iran nuclear deal: Breaking down the good, bad and ugly

 

To me the Bad far outweights the good with this deal. Way to risky of a move.

 

The Bad:

 

•Enrichment is capped but not frozen or rolled back, leaving Iran close to a breakout for a bomb.

 

•The deal allows Iran to claim the West has accepted its "right" to enrich uranium.

 

•Uranium enrichment capabilities are not dismantled, as had been demanded by U.N. resolutions.

 

•The agreement eases sanctions that cannot be reversed easily because of the difficulty in getting competing nations to agree.

 

•Iran's plutonium reactor will not be operational for at least a one year, so suspending operation for six months is meaningless.

 

The Ugly:

 

•The deal legitimizes Iran's status as a nuclear threshold state, which could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East

Again, we can just hope and pray this really does make a difference. That much can we all agree upon?

So you trust them at their word ??

No. Which is why the deal calls for strict verification measures. Right out of Ronald Reagan's playbook.

Iran nuclear deal: Breaking down the good, bad and ugly

 

To me the Bad far outweights the good with this deal. Way to risky of a move.

 

The Bad:

 

•Enrichment is capped but not frozen or rolled back, leaving Iran close to a breakout for a bomb.

 

•The deal allows Iran to claim the West has accepted its "right" to enrich uranium.

 

•Uranium enrichment capabilities are not dismantled, as had been demanded by U.N. resolutions.

 

•The agreement eases sanctions that cannot be reversed easily because of the difficulty in getting competing nations to agree.

 

•Iran's plutonium reactor will not be operational for at least a one year, so suspending operation for six months is meaningless.

 

The Ugly:

 

•The deal legitimizes Iran's status as a nuclear threshold state, which could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East

You omitted "the good."

You omitted "the good."

 

I provided the link for the entire article. I just think the bad far outweighs the good.

We can only pray it is a step in the right direction... you really never know. It is sad you even have to negotiate with these folks on whether or not they will continue or at least limit their uranium generation. Sanctions are obviously working so you do have to question if we gave in too much. But most of this is above any of our heads nor do we fully know what is occurring behind closed doors.

 

What are the purpose of sanctions if not to leverage Iran into changing its behavior? It seems the sanctions have worked in getting Iran to negotiate its nuclear program. There has also been a tone-shift toward moderation from Iran since their economy has all but collapsed under the sanctions.

 

If the goal is to keep Iran from building a nuclear weapon it would seem there are two options: war or a negotiated agreement. This agreement is the first step in what would be much larger, and much more difficult, one in a few months. But, if Iran agrees to not enrich uranium beyond civilian levels (and if it can be verified) in exchange for loosening sanctions, isn’t this preferable to war? After all, that would still be an option if Iran were to renege on the agreement.

 

A long-term agreement might be a long shot, but I don’t understand the hostility to the idea of it. Iran saves face with keeping a civilian nuclear program, it allows inspections to verify its operations aren’t weapons grade, and its moderation is rewarded. This would be a desirable outcome for all parties, if it holds. There are plenty of assumptions and externalities that complicate it, but what is this panacea critics are clamoring for?

Can any country really dictate what Iran does.

 

We cant make North Korea stop being North Korea. What makes people think we can make Iran not be Iran. They are going to do whatever they want. We didnt stop Pakistan and India from getting Nukes and we wont stop Iran from it either.

 

Thing is, why does a country even want them.

What are the purpose of sanctions if not to leverage Iran into changing its behavior? It seems the sanctions have worked in getting Iran to negotiate its nuclear program. There has also been a tone-shift toward moderation from Iran since their economy has all but collapsed under the sanctions.

 

If the goal is to keep Iran from building a nuclear weapon it would seem there are two options: war or a negotiated agreement. This agreement is the first step in what would be much larger, and much more difficult, one in a few months. But, if Iran agrees to not enrich uranium beyond civilian levels (and if it can be verified) in exchange for loosening sanctions, isn’t this preferable to war? After all, that would still be an option if Iran were to renege on the agreement.

 

A long-term agreement might be a long shot, but I don’t understand the hostility to the idea of it. Iran saves face with keeping a civilian nuclear program, it allows inspections to verify its operations aren’t weapons grade, and its moderation is rewarded. This would be a desirable outcome for all parties, if it holds. There are plenty of assumptions and externalities that complicate it, but what is this panacea critics are clamoring for?

I'm with you, Habib.

 

If anything came of this of which I feel is evident, it's that sanctions and exclusionary tactics forced Iran to give in somewhat. Money most certainly talks. Relinquishing of $7,000,000,000 in debts is a lot less cheap than being in another bloody mess. The most important thing from here is holding Iran accountable. Any balking should result back in more stringent sanctions.

What are the purpose of sanctions if not to leverage Iran into changing its behavior? It seems the sanctions have worked in getting Iran to negotiate its nuclear program. There has also been a tone-shift toward moderation from Iran since their economy has all but collapsed under the sanctions.

Agreed. Why does a nation that is being sanctioned agree desire negotiations? Because they can't withstand the sanctions any longer. Demand a change in the negative behavior first; and only then loosen the noose.

What are the purpose of sanctions if not to leverage Iran into changing its behavior? It seems the sanctions have worked in getting Iran to negotiate its nuclear program. There has also been a tone-shift toward moderation from Iran since their economy has all but collapsed under the sanctions.

 

If the goal is to keep Iran from building a nuclear weapon it would seem there are two options: war or a negotiated agreement. This agreement is the first step in what would be much larger, and much more difficult, one in a few months. But, if Iran agrees to not enrich uranium beyond civilian levels (and if it can be verified) in exchange for loosening sanctions, isn’t this preferable to war? After all, that would still be an option if Iran were to renege on the agreement.

 

A long-term agreement might be a long shot, but I don’t understand the hostility to the idea of it. Iran saves face with keeping a civilian nuclear program, it allows inspections to verify its operations aren’t weapons grade, and its moderation is rewarded. This would be a desirable outcome for all parties, if it holds. There are plenty of assumptions and externalities that complicate it, but what is this panacea critics are clamoring for?

 

I don't buy Iran is moving more moderate that has been over blown, their religious leader still runs the country. I'm sorry if I can't get excited about a deal that requires us to trust a country who wants to wipe one of our closest allies off the map, we have to take them at their word and at the same time lift 7 billion dollars in sanctions.

 

Let's not even discuss that the adminstration went about these negoations behind our allies back. I feel there would of been a better way to negoiate than ending up looking like the weakest party in the deal.

 

So Obama's two biggest "deals" he has made while in office are with Russia and Iran. The results of both ended with some of our most loyal allies being angry with us.

 

I hope things work out but I'm not holding my breath.

Agreed. Why does a nation that is being sanctioned agree desire negotiations? Because they can't withstand the sanctions any longer. Demand a change in the negative behavior first; and only then loosen the noose.

 

Exactly . Why would we lift sanctions until Iran actually did something of substance. As the article pointed out that I posted from USA today, it is much harder to put the sanctions back on than it is to lift them.