Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Deal With the Devil
The short version of the interim deal just struck between the P5+1 countries and Iran is this: Iran gave away almost nothing, got a major financial payoff, and will retain its entire nuclear infrastructure. The US got a check mark on Obama’s legacy ledger, under the column Stuff I Did That Looks Reasonably Good If You’re Myopic Or Uninterested But In Fact Conceals a Seething Cauldron of Awful That Will Probably Not Affect Me Personally, Since I Will Be Out of Office When the Full Magnitude of This Failure Becomes Manifest.
The US also got a new entry in the ever-increasing list of Things John Kerry Has Accomplished, If That’s the Word, of Which He Is Unaccountably Proud.
Here’s a crib sheet on the details of the deal.
On the one side:
- Iran is not required to halt uranium enrichment.
- Iran remains in control of all its existing centrifuges.
- Iran is not required to dismantle its heavy water reactor in Arak.
- Sanctions against Iran have been eased significantly: $8.5-10 billion in Iranian assets will be released by the US, and sanctions will be lifted on the export of auto parts, gold and precious metals, and aircraft spare parts. Several banks will also be exempted from financial sanctions.
On the other side:
- Iran has to suspend 20% uranium enrichment for six months and neutralize its stockpile. Uranium enrichment in Iran will be limited to 5%.
- During that six-month period, Iran will not produce, install, or activate any new centrifuges, and “construction activities” in the Arak reactor will also be suspended.
- Iran has to allow the IAEA access to its nuclear facilities.
Omri Ceren of the Israel Project points out that President Obama’s goal for this six-month interim period was supposedly to prevent the Iranians from advancing their nuclear program. According to Orde Kittrie, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, this deal — which, if it were to have any teeth at all, would have had to “include stronger provisions relating to enrichment, Iran’s heavy water reactor at Arak, and Iran’s research into nuclear weapons design” — “falls far short of what the President set as the goal of this phase-one deal.” Iran will almost certainly be closer to a uranium bomb at the end of the six months, and according to Omri, they could be closer to a plutonium bomb.
In an extensively sourced email to press, Omri pointed out that the deal is assymetrical: the Iranian concessions are reversible while the American concessions are not:
Iranian concessions are reversible
– Iran reported won’t be forced to dismantle their centrifuges, such that at the end of six months they can just turn them back on. Even the conversion of 20% enriched uranium to oxide can be easily reconverted to uranium hexafluoride and enriched from there. The only way to put it beyond use is to actually irradiate the stock, but Iran doesn’t have the capacity to do that, even if the regime wanted to. Instead the stock will sit there waiting to be reconverted (link). Danielle Pletka, Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at American Enterprise Institute, has assed that “every single step is reversible, every single step will have no meaningful impact on Iran’s capacity to produce a nuclear weapon within weeks or months” (link).U.S. concessions are irreversible – Most straightforwardly, Iran will get to pocket the financial relief they get, using it to stabilize the Iranian economy, bolster its nuclear program, and fund its global terror network. The more significant danger, however, is that chipping away at the sanctions regime completely shatters it. FDD executive director Mark Dubowitz was briefed a few weeks ago by the White House specifically on the question of whether U.S. concessions would be reversible, and he nonetheless assessed that the broad contours of proposed deals “totally eviscerates the sanctions regime” (link). There are multiple scenarios for how limited sanctions relief causes a downward spiral that irreversibly and substantially erodes the regime. The most immediate fear is that major powers and corporations will engage in a feeding frenzy: no one wants to be left behind as Iran’s market opens up, and so everyone tries to get in first. Brookings Institute fellow Michael Doran yesterday pointed to evidence that such a downward spiral was already beginning, with Paris looking to reopen a trade-related attaché office in Tehran next year (link).
Some Iranian concessions are irrelevant to the Phase 1 deal – For example, Iran will reportedly consent to a more aggressive inspection regime during the interim period. More inspections, however, are irrelevant to the central question of whether, six months from now, Iran is closer or farther from a nuclear weapon. With limited exceptions – scenarios for a test run “ruse” at Arak – analysts’ concerns are focused on what Iran will be in a position to do six months from now, not that it will cheat during the interim phase.
As to local response: Israel is disgusted that the Americans caved so completely and abysmally, and are making noises about rethinking the American-Israeli relationship. (They can’t, really, but there’s a growing chorus that wishes they could.) The Iranian mullahs, meanwhile, haven’t felt this beautiful since 1979, and are crowing that their “right” to enrich uranium has now formally been recognized.
Published in General
– Iran reported won’t be forced to dismantle their centrifuges, such that at the end of six months they can just turn them back on. Even the conversion of 20% enriched uranium to oxide can be easily reconverted to uranium hexafluoride and enriched from there.This deal sound familiar?
Israel’s talented, successful tech entrepreneur and aptly appointed Minister of Economy, Naftali Bennett made this very point on a recent taping of Charlie Rose. He also emphasized that without the serious imposition of financial sanctions and the ensuing economic pain they would inflict upon citizens, President Rouhani will feel no pressure to reform political policy.
Sadly, the Minister also took note that Israel stands alone and understands she can depend upon no other nation for support- including the U.S.
On the other hand, the good news is that Israel is ready, willing, and able to do what must be done despite the fact that our administration is not.
I don’t know why we didn’t put as a precondition for relief from the sanctions a requirement that Iran recognize Israel’s right to exist. Because if we do, Iran proceeds to continue its bomb development, to threaten its neighbors and menace the tiny state of Israel in perpetuity? Which development we believe it will be undertaking surreptitiously anyway?
Is the US much of an ally here?
I wonder if Mr. Zafar would like to spend any significant time in Tel Aviv here in a few years time. Just to get a feel for what the constant threat of annihilation feels like. (Being in New York might give you perhaps 1/100th the sense of this – it being the favorite target inside the US for the incorrigible Islamic fanatics.)
Actually I’d love to spend time in Tel Aviv Manfred. Travel and putting ourselves in other people’s shoes broadens the mind and the heart – imo everybody who can should do it. The world would be a better place.
Do you think that is their plan? Can you see anything standing in the way of the happily ever after? If you can, can’t they?
Fun facts: Iran is about 10% Sunni (the Kurdish part); Saudi about 15% Shia (mostly where the oil is).
A nuclear Iran wouldn’t have to bomb Saudi Arabia, the threat would be enough to allow them to control Saudi’s leaders.
4. Iran wants control of Mecca and Medina. Or at least Shiite control.
Don’t Shiites view Sunnis as heretics or at least as apostates? If so, wouldn’t they want Islam’s two holiest shrines to be under Shia control?
Keep in mind that politicians often play to minority domestic constituencies with words they have no intention (or ability) to actually put into action. This is true for the US, and it’s true for Iran. (And it’s probably true for Israel.) It’s often upleasant stuff.
Sorry, it may be true for the US under Obama (viz. the recent one-act farce in Syria), but I do not agree at all that Iran is just posturing. I’ve heard the same said of Egypt in the run up to the Six-Day War, that Nasser was just bluffing. That was complete balls as well.
One possible outcome is that a nuclear Iran might be less aggressive outside its borders rather than more, because the regime would be more secure.
Really? This about the regime that has said repeatedly that Israel must be destroyed? One fatal error that keeps being made–not only by you, but far more dangerously by Western leaders–is the blithe assumption that the Iranian government leadership thinks like we do.
If Iran is destroyed in a nuclear exchange with Israel that also destroys Israel, or in the aftermath of a Western retaliation for the nuclear destruction of Israel (a most unlikely outcome given the current crop of Western leaders), the Iranian government will call that a fair exchange and a victory for Iran. If Iran isn’t destroyed, they’ll keep on making bombs, and now they’ll transfer them to terrorists to use on us and on Europe.
Iran isn’t going to get less aggressive. They feel insecure because Israel and the Great Satan (and our henchmen) exist, not because they don’t have nuclear toys of their own.
Eric Hines
[W]hy do you believe that? Has the Iranian regime behaved irrationally in the past?
I’ll ignore the strawman aspect of this to this point: on what basis do you think Iranian “irrationality” is a player here?
An even more blatant strawman: Isn’t that also a relevant piece of information when you impute murderous anti-semitism?
Perhaps you’ll be good enough to quote me, and then walk me through your logic in getting from my words to your question.
They feel insecure about regime change because the US has done it before in Iran in 1953.
Now this seems just cynical. You’re carefully eliding Iran’s existence as a sovereign state results from our having prevented the USSR from occupying the whole of Iran and having driven them out altogether before any regime change. (It’s interesting that you seem to think regime change is, of necessity, bad.)
Iranian fears may be exaggerated (or not, given some US rhetoric), but they’re not completely crazy.
Ah–Iran should take US rhetoric seriously, but we should blow off Iranian threats of utter destruction. Got it.
And, again, where have I said the Iranians were crazy?
Eric Hines
Eric, why do you believe that? Has the Iranian regime behaved irrationally in the past? Because basing their future actions on their past actions is a bit more sensible than basing their future actions on their past posturing.
Iran still has the second or third largest Jewish community in the Middle East, with the regime showing no desire to destroy it. (There are 13 synagogues in Tehran, and apparently zero sunni mosques.) Isn’t that also a relevant piece of information when you impute murderous anti-semitism?
If Iran is destroyed in a nuclear exchange with Israel that also destroys Israel, or in the aftermath of a Western retaliation for the nuclear destruction of Israel (a most unlikely outcome given the current crop of Western leaders), the Iranian government will call that a fair exchange and a victory for Iran….
…They feel insecure because Israel and the Great Satan (and our henchmen) exist, not because they don’t have nuclear toys of their own.
They feel insecure about regime change because the US has done it before in Iran in 1953. Iranian fears may be exaggerated (or not, given some US rhetoric), but they’re not completely crazy.
I agree that would be a good thing.
I’m not so much interested in Iran’s recognizing (or better still, accepting) Israel as I am about Iran’s ceasing to talk about its destruction as a consummation devoutly to be wished.
But two things:
1 Keep in mind that politicians often play to minority domestic constituencies with words they have no intention (or ability) to actually put into action. This is true for the US, and it’s true for Iran. (And it’s probably true for Israel.) It’s often upleasant stuff.
2 How many times have various members of Congress talked about ‘regime change’ in Iran? And the US actually did that in Iran itself in 1953 and in Iraq not that long ago. (Justifiably or not is off topic.) It’s a real possibility, but still it’s in both Iran and the US’ interests to talk rather than war. I think this holds true for Iran and Israel as well.
Zafar, your comments are such self-evident claptrap that I find it well-nigh-impossible to impute good faith to you in posting them. But if you enjoy pushing people’s buttons on this thread — and in general baiting those of us here who instinctively know to reject the moral double-standards with which you lace your “contributions” in this kind of discussion –that’s just as self-evidently your business.
Fact: The Jewish community in Iran are essentially hostages; when they cease being of use to the Khomeinist regime, rest assured the regime will liquidate them (R”L). If the regime genuinely meant no ill towards Jews qua Jews, why wouldn’t we see at least some appreciable flow of Persian Jews back to Iran, whether from Israel or from the US? Why wouldn’t we hear of backchannel negotiating breakthroughs between *Israel* and Iran, via Jewish go-betweens? The question-list can extend, but we know the overarching answer to the exercise.
Fact: Iran as a matter of state policy and Khomeinist guidance declares precisely as GC Mandrake indicates — it is utter disingenuousness for you to suggest this is the stuff of politicians lightly inflaming minority domestic constituencies.
I just disagree with you Danny. If you believe that disagreement wrt your assumptions about Iran means bad faith, I can’t help you.
Zafar, your comments are such self-evident claptrap that I find it well-nigh-impossible to impute good faith to you…
Fact: The Jewish community in Iran are essentially hostages…
Why do you say that? Are there restrictions on Jews leaving Iran if they want to? Is there a movement of non-Jewish Iranians back to Iran from the diaspora?
Since we disagree we should resort to facts to resolve our positions, right?
But what has it done, Danny? It’s facetious to insist that countries always do as they say. Quite often they do exactly the opposite.
#69 Zafar
Read the second-to-last chapter (Chapter 16: “Existential Challenge, 2013”) in Ari Shavit’s new book about Israel. In it, Shavit — decidedly no fire-breather — details a lengthy and fascinating conversation he recently had with retired IAF Gen. Amos Yadlin, who last served as Chief of Military Intel in Israel — and who also is not a fire-breather.
Yadlin takes considerable pains to note his respect for the Khomeinists at the helm of the regime in Tehran — in the sense of one politico-military strategist’s respect for the collective cunning and skill of a relentlessly lethal yet frequently subtle adversary. And as part of this pains-taking, Yadlin points out that the Khomeinists are very consciously playing the proverbial long game — they are determined to achieve their apocalyptic and genocidal objectives, but they are pragmatic enough to know that they cannot and must not blunder ahead obviously in that effort. And Yadlin notes that that effort covers, as he puts it, a broad front.
The Khomeinists haven’t *done* yet because they lacked means. Twenty years of ruthless dedication, careful subterfuge, and Western “cognitive impairment” (Shavit’s expression) about their aims have brought them the means.
#69 Zafar
As for the other parts of your reply, that’s just more of your characteristic smoke-blowing. The facts about Iran’s Jewish community are easily googled.
But thanks for thinking I might have buttons you could push, mate. Cute.
Judith, I am trying to figure out why should I care? The US Jewish politicians don’t seem to object to the deal, at least not enough to make a public issue of it, the local Jewish acquaintances that I know seem ambivalent as well. 60% plus of America Jews side with Democrats, the President and his foreign policy. If American Jews don’t seem to care about Iran and the bomb, then why should I?
“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.” (Churchill to Chamberlain)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/abject-surrender-united-states_768140.html
(N.B.: Please immediately click on the Printer icon in order to go to the print version of the article, which is the full version; otherwise, if you wait even a second too long, a paywall-type mechanism pops up, obscuring the non-Print-version of the article and making it impossible to scroll up/down.)
#41 Look Away
Congratulations on your trifecta — channeling Obama, Jarrett, and Kerry simultaneously.
To everyone else reading this thread: Let’s get back to pragmatic, morally-anchored, and adult discussion mode.
And especially on the pragmatic front, I suggest we try turning this thread toward the issue John Bolton raises in the OpEd that I copied in my #42 comment above:
Namely, how can we now build and propagate a supportive messaging campaign for Israel, given that Israel may well strike Iran in pre-emptive self-defense as a consequence of the Geneva deal? Israel is going to need all the moral support it can get now, in the run-up to and event of such a strike.
“The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make the rest of us wonder at the possibility that we might be missing something.” Former Egypt President Gamal Abdel Nasser.
I doubt that Russia wants a nuclear Iran. Maybe we inadvertently called Russia/Iran’s bluff, not because Obama/Kerry are so smart but because they are stupid in a complicated way.
Wow. Very scary if true. Why would the Mullahs resist a Jewish exodus…Oh, you explained it at the end there…Hmmmm. Well. These Mullahs are pretty diabolical, it would seem. Keeping hostages to be executed if Israel attacks? Wonder why the world doesn’t sit up and take notice of this potential threat.
….
If a Jew in Iran receives regime permission to travel abroad, his/her immediate family and/or nearest relations are not. The Jew is obliged to return due to the “or else” factor — one that need not be enshrined in law.
That’s a hostage-based policy. ·18 hours ago
So what is the 20% enriched uranium for, enquiring minds want to know? Just to assure US, Israel and Saudi Arabia that theycould build one if they decided to? To what end? What would cause them to take the final step to do so? Is that question left hanging for other countries to puzzle over, and conduct themselves more gingerly with respect to Iran as a result of not knowing the answer? If you have this matter thought out and can share with us, it could be enlightening.
Iran has also repeatedly said that it will not develop nuclear weapons. So when should we believe what Iran says and when should we not believe what it says – and most of all, why should we not believe that Iran acts in its own self interest rather than always mindlessly against Israel? ·9 hours ago
Very informative. Thanks!
Sources?
Here:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141144#.UpQjM9JHJc0
And some “personal color” here — note that the interviewee describes himself as having “escaped” Khomeinist Iran, and refers to activity assisting the “escape” of other Iranian Jews:
http://www.jewocity.com/blog/an-interview-with-jewish-iranian-author-simon-sion-ibrahimi/3992
Enjoy some more:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html
And most recently this:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/11/24/taking-iranian-jews-hostages/
And with that concluded, in the immortal words of Mark Twain, I have some religious advice for you. ·8 hours ago
Source please.
If a Jew in Iran receives regime permission to travel abroad, his/her immediate family and/or nearest relations are not. The Jew is obliged to return due to the “or else” factor — one that need not be enshrined in law.
That’s a hostage-based policy.
Clearly we just see many things differently.
972mag lists Larry Derfner on its roster.
This Larry Derfner:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-firing-of-Larry-Derfner
From the article you cite:
Derfner wrote: “The occupation does not justify Palestinian terror. It does, however, provoke it. Palestinians do not have the right to attack or kill Israelis. They, do, however, have the incentive to, and part, though not all, of that incentive is provided them by the occupation. I believe that if Israel gives the Palestinians their independence, we have enough military power to neutralize whatever leftover incentive they would have to attack us.”
…Derfner is no enemy of the Jewish people, and he wishes Israel no harm.
… readers who vehemently called for a boycott of the Post if Derfner were not fired […] present the real danger to Israel. Their narrow, self-righteous view of the world and Israel’s place within it, coupled with their failure to accept any criticism of Israel that jars with this viewpoint, encourages a totalitarian mind-set that damages the fabric of Israel as an open, tolerant society in which freedom of expression is a basic right.
So how come Israel isn’t controlling Iran’s leaders right now? (Or is it? Is that what’s stopping Iranian attacks on Israel, assuming that is all they want to do.)
Just having a nuclear bomb doesn’t mean everybody then does everything you want them to. It’s a bit more complicated, right?
A nuclear Iran wouldn’t have to bomb Saudi Arabia, the threat would be enough to allow them to control Saudi’s leaders.
Re Shia control of the Kaaba – I don’t see what Iran would get from it. Saudis used it to gain legitimacy for the State and the ruling family, but Iran doesn’t need that.
It would just be a big headache for Iran, imo. Though I could be wrong.
(In any case most Muslims, and therefore most pilgrims, would still be Sunni.)
Just having a nuclear bomb doesn’t mean everybody then does everything you want them to. It’s a bit more complicated, right?
A nuclear Iran wouldn’t have to bomb Saudi Arabia, the threat would be enough to allow them to control Saudi’s leaders.
Re Shia control of the Kaaba – I don’t see what Iran would get from it. Saudis used it to gain legitimacy for the State and the ruling family, but Iran doesn’t need that.
It would just be a big headache for Iran, imo. Though I could be wrong.
(In any case most Muslims, and therefore most pilgrims, would still be Sunni.)
There’s a difference between a country like Israel having the bomb and a country like Iran having it. Israel won’t use the bomb unless pushed to extremis and Iran knows it. By contrast, Iran regularly threatens Israel and other countries with annihilation. Israel cannot afford to be sure that Iran doesn’t mean it.
You’ve moved the goal posts again. Danny Alexander provided the sources, as you requested, in order to demonstrate Iran’s hostage-based policy (see your form of request at #82). To say that those sources don’t provide “convincing illustrations of deep seated social and institutional anti-semitism in Iran” is a red herring, since the sources were produced only to demonstrate Iran’s propensity for Jewish hostage-taking. If you ask me to provide evidence that it rained yesterday in New York, it’s illogical for you to examine the evidence and then find fault with it because it did not convince you that it was snowing.
Part I:
Because it would result in the destruction of Iran as a country. And the inevitable overthrow of the regime.
On what basis do you find this irrational–in their minds? Because it doesn’t comport with your requirement of what must be rational?
Where have they threatened Israel with a nuclear bomb?
Here. What else do you think Iran’s current stockpile of 20% uranium or for? It’s plutonium reactor? Or do you seriously think a threat must contain your specific wording before it counts as a threat? Or do you think merely counting coup is the means, and the Israelis, humiliated, will simply slink away, abandoning their houses and fields and factories?
And others you continue to ignore in Part II.
Eric Hines
Part II:
An even more blatant strawman: Isn’t that also a relevant piece of information when you impute murderous anti-semitism?
Perhaps you’ll be good enough to quote me, and then walk me through your logic in getting from my words to your question.
And
They feel insecure about regime change because the US has done it before in Iran in 1953.
Now this seems just cynical. You’re carefully eliding Iran’s existence as a sovereign state results from our having prevented the USSR from occupying the whole of Iran and having driven them out altogether before any regime change. (It’s interesting that you seem to think regime change is, of necessity, bad.)
Iranian fears may be exaggerated (or not, given some US rhetoric), but they’re not completely crazy.
Ah–Iran should take US rhetoric seriously, but we should blow off Iranian threats of utter destruction. Got it.
And [emphasis added to highlight the unanswered question]:
Iran has repeatedly said it will destroy Israel. Lying about its weapons program is entirely consistent with this goal. Why do you think they must always tell the truth or must always lie?
Eric Hines
Threatening Israel with a nuclear bomb would, I think, be pushing Israel (and the US) to extremis. And Iran knows that too.
There’s a difference between a country like Israel having the bomb and a country like Iran having it. Israel won’t use the bomb unless pushed to extremis and Iran knows it.
Iran has also repeatedly said that it will not develop nuclear weapons. So when should we believe what Iran says and when should we not believe what it says – and most of all, why should we not believe that Iran acts in its own self interest rather than always mindlessly against Israel?
#82 Zafar
Sources?
Here:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141144#.UpQjM9JHJc0
And some “personal color” here — note that the interviewee describes himself as having “escaped” Khomeinist Iran, and refers to activity assisting the “escape” of other Iranian Jews:
http://www.jewocity.com/blog/an-interview-with-jewish-iranian-author-simon-sion-ibrahimi/3992
Enjoy some more:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html
And most recently this:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/11/24/taking-iranian-jews-hostages/
And with that concluded, in the immortal words of Mark Twain, I have some religious advice for you.