iran nuclear deal

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yeah, but it hardly matters whether it'll cost Iran anything.
As a concept, once you open up more choices for Iran, it becomes more flexible in its decision making and its efforts in whatever foreign policy it maintains, will be more effective.

I think the rejection of renewed sanctions on Iran, particularly by American allies, is symbolic of at least some rot in the alliances and relations the US maintains, and those Israel and regional allies maintain with the west.

Allies need to be united in their decision making versus their own enemies, and enemies of allies.
The US is investing ridiculous amounts of money and manpower into protecting countries worldwide, against countries or groups that aren't even directly threatening the US.
Russia is a rival to the US but on a scale of threat, it's a much bigger threat to basically any eastern and central European country than to the US.

You cannot have allies vote against you. The sad reality is that eventually Iran will grow to something that starts threatening the entire west, and many European governments will remain unaware until Iran already makes a move against their interests.
Well I am of the opinion that the deal with Iran was working until Trump unilaterally withdrew from it and then slapped punitive sanctions on. Those sanctions are like an act of war because they attack a nations economic wellbeing and survival. So how did you expect the mullahs to react? The Iranian problem is a US initiated one anyway at the behest of the UK, and now all of their chickens have come home to roost. Unfortunately other nations have become caught up in it and because the US can never accept losing, they continue to demonise Iran.

What did Israel do when it was surrounded by enemies baying for its blood and screaming for its destruction? It forted up, pulled up the drawbridge and waited. When the enemies attacked Israel sortied forth putting them to the sword and destroying their forces on the field. Iran is in the same position and it has forted up and pulled the drawbridge up. They see themselves as being surrounded by enemies and react accordingly. Yes, they have a philosophy and belief that is not acceptable to some, but is it any different to Saudi fundamentalism, ultra orthodox Judaism, or the Christian fundamentalism that exists in the US, all of which are highly intolerant of outsiders - the other?

So my view is that a chance to reduce the tensions in the Middle East has passed and may not be repeated again because of the loss of trust and respect that the US has lost amongst its allies and friends.
 

tonnyc

Active Member
Yeah, but it hardly matters whether it'll cost Iran anything.
As a concept, once you open up more choices for Iran, it becomes more flexible in its decision making and its efforts in whatever foreign policy it maintains, will be more effective.

I think the rejection of renewed sanctions on Iran, particularly by American allies, is symbolic of at least some rot in the alliances and relations the US maintains, and those Israel and regional allies maintain with the west.

Allies need to be united in their decision making versus their own enemies, and enemies of allies.
The US is investing ridiculous amounts of money and manpower into protecting countries worldwide, against countries or groups that aren't even directly threatening the US.
Russia is a rival to the US but on a scale of threat, it's a much bigger threat to basically any eastern and central European country than to the US.

You cannot have allies vote against you. The sad reality is that eventually Iran will grow to something that starts threatening the entire west, and many European governments will remain unaware until Iran already makes a move against their interests.
Your post has this unexamined assumption that everything the US does is always right and therefore all US allies must go along with whatever the US does because otherwise it weakens the alliance.

The problem is that in this particular case the US is wrong. US allies told the US they're wrong, but the US insisted on doing it. Had the other allies followed the US anyway, the alliance would've been weakened even further, because now their own people will distrust them (for doing something stupid) while other countries distrust them (for breaking a treaty without cause). Not going with the US in this matter deals less damage, because they'll be able to maintain trust both domestically and internationally and thus be in better position to mitigate the damage done by US' mistake.

The leader is sometimes wrong. In those cases not following the leader will actually benefit the group (including the leader) more than if the group followed the leader blindly.
 

Beholder

Member
The leader is sometimes wrong. In those cases not following the leader will actually benefit the group (including the leader) more than if the group followed the leader blindly.
Well, i totally agree that countries don't need to follow US lead, if they think US wrong.
But you need to uphold all to same standards, US also don't need to follow it's allies if US think that allies are wrong.

Well I am of the opinion that the deal with Iran was working until Trump unilaterally withdrew from it and then slapped punitive sanctions on.
First thing first, deal was tailored to counter Iran's nuclear enrichment and as such was objected by all moderate gulf states and Israel.
It does not limit ballistic missiles program, nor does it limit Iran's support of terrorism.
So Trump did offer to remain in deal if ballistic missile issue addressed and Iran's behaviour is limited by sunset clause.

Here is Trump's plan for the Iran deal

The main objective, Tillerson emphasized, is to take a broader approach to Iran's behaviour, scrutinizing the ballistic missile program and addressing the sunset clauses in the JCPOA in addition to addressing Iran's nuclear threat.


So deal worked for some, but didn't worked for others.
As a result of a deal West released 150,000,000,000$ for Iran, part of which Iran used to wedge war against those states that disagreed with deal from the start.

So while i do think deal was working(in spirit it was failure, bcs Iran lied from the start, but it's besides the point).
I don't think deal itself was good.

What did Israel do when it was surrounded by enemies baying for its blood and screaming for its destruction? It forted up, pulled up the drawbridge and waited. When the enemies attacked Israel sortied forth putting them to the sword and destroying their forces on the field. Iran is in the same position and it has forted up and pulled the drawbridge up. They see themselves as being surrounded by enemies and react accordingly. Yes, they have a philosophy and belief that is not acceptable to some, but is it any different to Saudi fundamentalism, ultra orthodox Judaism, or the Christian fundamentalism that exists in the US, all of which are highly intolerant of outsiders - the other?
I think you somehow try to justify Iran's support of terrorism and desire for exporting Iranian revolution by saying "they see themselves as being surrounded by enemies"?:rolleyes:
Sorry, all this fuelled by ideology of islamic revolution and desire to export it to other places.

Iran. Exporting of revolution

Ideology and Iran’s Revolution: How 1979 Changed the World

So my view is that a chance to reduce the tensions in the Middle East has passed and may not be repeated again because of the loss of trust and respect that the US has lost amongst its allies and friends.
Then why result was/is completely different? It did not bring peace to ME. At all. Now without deal ME is more peaceful.

Moreover US can stop Iran's nukes, Israel maybe can. I think that deal was a hoax from the start.
Obama wanted credit, Iran wanted money, other parties wanted Iran's oil, or another place to sell things. And if things go down the drain, well...it's not their problem, US or Israel will do something.

I've seen how such "deals" and similar policies worked "well" with NK. The only good thing is that NK is not expansionist like Iran(probably because there is no where to "export" Juche ideology, so they "defend" themselves).
 

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
On the JCPOA I was of the opinion it needs to be scrapped or fixed. What does "fixing it" mean? Simply encompassing the entire nuclear program, and expanding the mandate of the IAEA.
Specifically it means limiting Iran's ballistic missile and cruise missile program in range, INF style, and giving IAEA inspectors the ability to access every potentially nuclear site at a much shorter notice.

Why is that?
1)By slowing down nuclear warhead development, Iran can accelerate development of delivery methods, so that by the end of the deal it would have much longer range and much more capable and reliable weapons. It would basically offset the losses entirely, and it would then be able to halt delivery method development and focus entirely on acquiring the warheads.

2)Recent events show that Iran has violated the JCPOA by still actively pursuing nuclear weapons the whole time.
A Mossad operation revealed a while back an exceptionally large database on a past program which Iran should have revealed, but that is far from being the only violation.
"Mysterious" blasts in Iran revealed some destroyed equipment that was banned, like brand new and more advanced centrifuges, and several new nuclear sites were flagged, which the IAEA was unaware of but recently confirmed.

As an Israeli, I also have another interest here:
Reduce Iran's conventional warfare capabilities.
It's no secret, really.
Whilst the nuclear program has been extremely worrying, their campaign of regional destabilization has been harming harming millions in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Israel, and more, for decades, and is a more immediate threat.
Israel and GCC countries only felt the pressure ramping up with Iran being able to acquire weapons and increase funds for its proxies. So for Israel and GCC, the deal only made the reality on the ground much worse.

And such is diplomacy - you can ask your allies whatever you want, and there can be disagreement. Israel and allies asked to scrap or fix the deal, and the US declined until a certain threshold, after which a voluntary change of policy was made.

There are 3 core ideas here I disagree with, and here's why:
1)Iran's hostility to the west is the west's fault - I think it is not. Regime change or not, the regime is a representation of the people, and the people have the responsibility to shape their government however they like.
If the structure of the government was unstable to begin with, do you blame the government and people, or those who exploited the weakness?
If I leave my front door open, I blame myself if something's stolen.

Countries try influencing other governments in one way or another. Who am I to blame them for acting in their own and their people's interests?
I know, as an Israeli, there are many governments trying to interfere in our affairs, including allies. And I'm fine with that.

I'm also not going to deny I think Iran needs another regime change. Their culture is without doubt the most advanced and progressive in the gulf, so I am sure the regime doesn't represent a majority. Not even close. Today, however, a proper civilian-led revolt is nearly impossible.

2)The level of disagreement between allies - Allies make concessions for one another, especially when it's not an alliance but a friendship. The western nations have a unique dynamic of friendly relations built on cultural similarities. That's something really rare in the east, if it exists.
The US is already making a lot of concessions for maybe 90% of its allies/friends. Same allies/friends need to be ready to make similar concessions.

The US took the role of global policing. Both because it has to do so as a superpower, and because it has a moral obligation - everyone has to pull their weight to create a more advanced global society, IMO.
The US does so quite excessively, while some of its allies could do more.
I am convinced its allies should have voted for restored sanctions.

3)Iran is on the defense - nope. Sure it's in a cold war with Saudi Arabia, but so far we're seeing Saudi Arabia using soft power to influence others, something I consider legitimate. Iran, on the other hand, deploys proxy groups into every corner of the middle east to wreak havoc in these countries, no matter if it leads to civil wars.
There is nothing defensive in Iran's policies. There is militant expansionism to spread the "revolution" far and wide.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think you somehow try to justify Iran's support of terrorism and desire for exporting Iranian revolution by saying "they see themselves as being surrounded by enemies"?:rolleyes:
Sorry, all this fuelled by ideology of islamic revolution and desire to export it to other places.
@Beholder Be very careful about slinging unsubstantiated accusations in this forum or you may find yourself in very deep trouble. I do not take very kindly to being accused of something that I didn't do and being accused of justifying terrorism is one thing that really gets my back up. I come from a long line of fierce warriors who were the first indigenous peoples to defeat the British army in the field and used trenches and parapets to defend against musket and cannon fire. That was in the 1840s. The British pounded Maori Pa for two days with cannon and when they attacked walked into a wall of musket fire. We don't take insults kindly.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
@Big_Zucchini Iran was invaded by the Allies during WW2 in order to ensure an overland route to the USSR for war material and other supplies for Stalin. In 1953 there was a left wing leader democratically elected by the people of Iran and he nationalised the oil industry because the vast majority of the wealth was going to BP and not staying in the country helping the people. So the UK, unable for some reason to do anything about it asked the US for help and the CIA organised a regime installing the Shah Pahalavi. Unfortunately said Shah had a somewhat of an autocratic cruel streak and his secret police weren't exactly very kind with the general population. If he'd been a benevolent ruler, the situation would have been different and the mullahs wouldn't had a chance, but he wasn't and as history shows he was overthrown and the mullahs took over, much to everyone's regret. The people wanted something better than what they had but got worse because they unknowingly swapped one dictator for another set of dictators. Now they can't change their rulers without a major revolution and the mullahs & IRGC have a stranglehold on country. They use the religion to justify what they do and as you will know religion is a strong motivator for people who are steeped in it, - Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Pagans, Animists etc., and the different sects within each religion.

So my argument is that history and what has happened has a very big impact upon the destiny of a country and its make up, and when a country or group of countries oust a popular democratically leader, that is going to cause deep resentment. Hell, I'm Irish Catholic and Maori and I still bear resentment towards the English for what they have done to my peoples over the centuries. It's something that we don't forget, so why should the Iranians be any different. In fact in the old days with Maori we had and still have utu (a form of restitution for wrongs committed) that went for generations upon generations, and not only this world but into the next as well. We still believe in it too. After the missionaries arrived 200+ years ago they eventually got everyone to agree that all utu was to be have to been met and no utu left outstanding. However there are certain areas where I go to where I have to be careful because of what my ancestors did as was their right at the time.
 

Beholder

Member
I did not accused you. I asked a question, that's why there is question mark in the end.

You compared Iran to Israel, how it is comparable?

You also project on iranians sentiments they may, or may not have. Revolution happened because of this sentiments? Sure, but the end result is not return of iranian democracy.
Then Iran-Iraq war make things even worse, as they cemented what you call "see themselves as being surrounded by enemies".
But all this relevant to iranian ppl, not to leadership.

Why would leadership care about state of Iran, or grievances ppl may have if destiny of state is to be support of Islamic revolution?
Leadership of Iran does not follow this narrative at all.
Otherwise why they would pick fight with Israel? Why create Hezbollah? Why create sleeping cells around the world?

@Beholder

The issue is a vexed one as indicated by the discussion. As a result the discussion will be robust .... but it need not be rude. I don't think any party disagrees that there are issue with Iran's leadership, rather some are trying to explain why they think the world is having to deal with this.

Strongly recommend you assume good intent and respect other peoples views without denigrating them. This is a warning that needs to be heeded.

Alexsa
 
Last edited by a moderator:

swerve

Super Moderator
@Beholder... I come from a long line of fierce warriors who were the first indigenous peoples to defeat the British army in the field and used trenches and parapets to defend against musket and cannon fire. That was in the 1840s. The British pounded Maori Pa for two days with cannon and when they attacked walked into a wall of musket fire. ...
I remember reading about the "modern pa" & its use in battle, with such things as concealed bunkers with firing ports at the back, overlapping fields of fire, & the like. Clever buggers, your 19th century ancestors. Adapted their traditional warfare to guns very quickly & effectively.
 

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
@Big_Zucchini Iran was invaded by the Allies during WW2 in order to ensure an overland route to the USSR for war material and other supplies for Stalin. In 1953 there was a left wing leader democratically elected by the people of Iran and he nationalised the oil industry because the vast majority of the wealth was going to BP and not staying in the country helping the people. So the UK, unable for some reason to do anything about it asked the US for help and the CIA organised a regime installing the Shah Pahalavi. Unfortunately said Shah had a somewhat of an autocratic cruel streak and his secret police weren't exactly very kind with the general population. If he'd been a benevolent ruler, the situation would have been different and the mullahs wouldn't had a chance, but he wasn't and as history shows he was overthrown and the mullahs took over, much to everyone's regret. The people wanted something better than what they had but got worse because they unknowingly swapped one dictator for another set of dictators. Now they can't change their rulers without a major revolution and the mullahs & IRGC have a stranglehold on country. They use the religion to justify what they do and as you will know religion is a strong motivator for people who are steeped in it, - Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Pagans, Animists etc., and the different sects within each religion.

So my argument is that history and what has happened has a very big impact upon the destiny of a country and its make up, and when a country or group of countries oust a popular democratically leader, that is going to cause deep resentment. Hell, I'm Irish Catholic and Maori and I still bear resentment towards the English for what they have done to my peoples over the centuries. It's something that we don't forget, so why should the Iranians be any different. In fact in the old days with Maori we had and still have utu (a form of restitution for wrongs committed) that went for generations upon generations, and not only this world but into the next as well. We still believe in it too. After the missionaries arrived 200+ years ago they eventually got everyone to agree that all utu was to be have to been met and no utu left outstanding. However there are certain areas where I go to where I have to be careful because of what my ancestors did as was their right at the time.
Yeah, history and all, but I think people need to stop giving history precedent over logical, calculated policy.
The British and Turks were in my country. I don't resent them for oppressing my ancestors because the oppressors are long dead and their decendents are hardly representative of cultural traits and ideologies that existed almost a century ago.

I mean, Germany genocided its way through an entire continent and now it's best buddies with everyone, particularly those in its continent.

And for a fact, Iranians want peace. It's just that they're ruled by a regime that hates them more than any other government/people.
Courting their moderates wasn't helpful because the IRGC was using their new funds to seriously ramp up their activities across the entire ME. What it was did not feel like a more moderate government in reality.
So what alternative is there to maximum pressure?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yeah, history and all, but I think people need to stop giving history precedent over logical, calculated policy.
The British and Turks were in my country. I don't resent them for oppressing my ancestors because the oppressors are long dead and their decendents are hardly representative of cultural traits and ideologies that existed almost a century ago.

I mean, Germany genocided its way through an entire continent and now it's best buddies with everyone, particularly those in its continent.

And for a fact, Iranians want peace. It's just that they're ruled by a regime that hates them more than any other government/people.
Courting their moderates wasn't helpful because the IRGC was using their new funds to seriously ramp up their activities across the entire ME. What it was did not feel like a more moderate government in reality.
So what alternative is there to maximum pressure?
Unfortunately history does matter. Why do you think Russia is so paranoid about its western borders? It's because there has been a history of invaders coming from the west with the last two being Napoleon and Hitler. Before them it was Swedes, Poles, Germanic knights etc. So history is important for a lot of reasons.

I totally agree with your comments about the leadership and that's why I worded my post the way I did, swapping one dictator for another set of dictators. Unfortunately we see that elsewhere as well and it never ends well.

A cousin of mine and his now wife push biked their way across Iran about 10 years ago. They said that they felt really safe there and the people really friendly. They went from east to west and at one stage had to extend their visa by a week. So went to the appropriate place in a rural city. The official takes their passports, both are Kiwis, asks a few questions and disappears for about 15 minutes. He then comes back with new 3 month visas. Cuzzie says we only need the extra week and official replies, we know but we thought that you might like extra time and that was all. People took them into their homes for meals and to stay because they thought that they would get to cold in the tents. He did say that in the big cities they were viewed with a bit more suspicion but away from the cities everyone was so welcoming. They noticed the same in Turkey. Mind you, you wouldn't catch me push biking across Iran or any other country. That's why we have planes, trains, and automobiles. It is an interesting place and I would like to visit it even just to visit the ancient Persian archaeological sites.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I remember reading about the "modern pa" & its use in battle, with such things as concealed bunkers with firing ports at the back, overlapping fields of fire, & the like. Clever buggers, your 19th century ancestors. Adapted their traditional warfare to guns very quickly & effectively.
Yep and we didn't even eat any. :D Actually well before that the word went out among the tribes not to eat the Pakeha (non Māori) because they didn't taste right. At the beginning of the 19th century a couple of shipwrecked sailors off a sealing ship washed ashore on the west coast of the North Island and were found by a tribe that didn't like outsiders. So they were killed and eaten. But when you think of a sailors diet back then, hard tack, salted meat seal meat and grog, no wonder they tasted funny.

I have a direct link because my great great grandfather visited the UK in the 1820s with the great Ngapuhi chief Hongi Hika, where they met William IV before he was king. Both men also met the first Duke of Wellington and Hongi Hika took great interest in Napoleon, whilst my gg grandfather formed a friendship with the Duke and learned a lot from him. They both came back to NZ and embarked on the musket wars which decimated the opposition until they acquired muskets. We had a lot of utu to settle.
 

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
@ngatimozart I think we're talking about different things so I'll clarify.
History is only relevant to a certain extent.

Does it make sense to form a competent army for self defense?
For most, yes. For some, no. And history can help determine the approximate size of the armed force to fulfill its task.
You can reach the same conclusions with sound logic, but it adds some valuable context.

But then, does it make sense to resent enemies and see their demise as the only solution? No, not at all.
Countries like Russia and Turkey are seen as enemies of the west, but they deserve credit. They are very competent in their foreign policy.
Part of that involves frequently reversing relationships with enemies and allies alike.

So Iran should keep a competent armed force.
But is history enough reason to keep it aimed at the US, Israel, and basically the entire MENA and west?
Not at all.
 

Big_Zucchini

Active Member

Iranian nuclear scientist, Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, has been reportedly assassinated near Tehran. Reports are still inofficial, but there is wide coverage of the incident.

In 2018, Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu presented the results of a Mossad operation that involved looting an entire archive from Tehran.
Some of the findings that were presented were that Iran's past concealed nuclear weapons research (not merely nuclear material, but weaponization), named AMAD, was ongoing under a different name, still led by the same man - Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

Fakhrizadeh was apparently tagged in 2018 when Netanyahu told press to 'remember the name'.

Reports are still coming in from the scene. Apparently a shooting.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

Iranian nuclear scientist, Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, has been reportedly assassinated near Tehran. Reports are still inofficial, but there is wide coverage of the incident.

In 2018, Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu presented the results of a Mossad operation that involved looting an entire archive from Tehran.
Some of the findings that were presented were that Iran's past concealed nuclear weapons research (not merely nuclear material, but weaponization), named AMAD, was ongoing under a different name, still led by the same man - Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

Fakhrizadeh was apparently tagged in 2018 when Netanyahu told press to 'remember the name'.

Reports are still coming in from the scene. Apparently a shooting.
A VBIED was used and then gunfire according to reports. The Iranians are blaming Israel and TBH that would be a pretty reasonable bet. After all they have form for it. The Iranians have vowed revenge and they won't take this assassination lightly.

If this is a play by Netanyahu to kibosh Biden's chances of ressurrecting the 2015 agreement then it may well just backfire on Netanyahu and Israel. The cost to Israel could be quite expensive in more ways than one.

 

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
A VBIED was used and then gunfire according to reports. The Iranians are blaming Israel and TBH that would be a pretty reasonable bet. After all they have form for it. The Iranians have vowed revenge and they won't take this assassination lightly.

If this is a play by Netanyahu to kibosh Biden's chances of ressurrecting the 2015 agreement then it may well just backfire on Netanyahu and Israel. The cost to Israel could be quite expensive in more ways than one.

Such operations are very complex and therefore take a lot of time. Years, actually. 2 years to complete an op is quite standard in the Israeli intelligence community.
Trust me, this is not something that could have been done now in response to an election result from less than a month ago.
Netanyahu implied very heavily back in 2018 that Fakhrizadeh will make headlines somehow.

As for Biden's policies regarding Iran, it is believed he will be much softer than Trump, but chances are he's not going to immediately re-enter the deal. He'll face opposition now not only from home (remember, Congress opposed the original deal before the extent to which Iran concealed weapons development was revealed), but from European allies as well who prefer to wait for the Iranian "elections".


I also believe Iran's nuclear program is now bigger than merely its head, but the assassination is still a very important action. Iranians need to be constantly reminded that the project is costly to Iran in many ways, and also demoralize everyone involved.

I understand why people like seeing things from the eyes of the US or Europe, or other countries conducting complex relations with Iran or Israel, but much of Israel's relationship with Iran is independent of its allies and the international community. Not every action of Israel is a result of the desire of its allies. Otherwise we'd lose our early wars and won't exist.
 

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
The EU chose a very harsh and frankly equally hypocritical response to the assassination of Fakhrizadeh.


An organization of countries who have seen an unprecedented era of peace, and who so heavily rely upon a distant ally for their own security and maintenance of said peace, is condemning an ally and telling it how to maintain its own security. Amazing.
Maybe someone will listen when they stop referring to eastern European countries as buffer states.
 
Top