Iran

Senators Still Pushing Iran Sanctions Even With an Actual Deal on the Table, Reluctant Warmongers Want War

Slouching toward Tehran

|

head strong, dead wrong?
ABC News

Negotiators from Iran and Germany, France, and England (the E3), and later also the US, Russia, and China (the E3+3, or P5+1) have been working on-and-off for more than seven years on a deal about Iran's nuclear program, which the West insists is actually about acquiring nuclear weapons. After a deal appeared just out of reach in a round of negotiations earlier this month, some US senators, most notably Bob Menendez, the Democrat chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pushed for more sanctions, to show the Iranians the US was not as interested as they were in reaching a deal, a silly argument of which Secretary of State John Kerry was nevertheless unable to disabuse senators interested in a more hostile policy toward Iran.

This weekend, the latest round of talks actually produced a deal, with Iran agreeing within the first six months to stop enriching uranium beyond 5 percent, and to downgrade or eliminate its uranium stockpile that's at near 20 percent enrichment. In exchange, the Western powers agree to a limited lifting of sanctions. As the White House explains, "the overwhelming majority of the sanctions regime, including the key oil, banking, and financial sanctions architecture, remains in place." That's not enough for Senate hawks, Democrat and Republican, who are starting to push, again, for more sanctions. This time, Menendez wants to work on sanctions legislation that somewhat incorporates the recently reached deal—it would "provide for a six month window to reach a final agreement before imposing new sanctions on Iran, but will at the same time be immediately available should the talks falter or Iran fail to implement or breach the interim agreement." Armchair (dais?) tough guy to the last.

Republicans are even more eager to show voters they're tougher than the president on Iran. Marco Rubio, for example, sees an "even more urgent need for Congress to increase sanctions until Iran completely abandons its enrichment and reprocessing capabilities." Establishment Republicans aren't just interested in showing they're more headstrong than President Obama, they may also be trying to isolate non-interventionists in their own party, most notably Kentucky senator and likely future presidential candidate Rand Paul.

It's a bizarre move by establishment Republicans, and Democrats. As recently as late September, 75 percent of Americans favored direct negotiations with Iran over the nuclear issue (even as Obama's poll numbers have plummeted). That number included a full 68 percent of Republicans. The argument that direct negotiations need sanctions to work is specious, as I made the case earlier this month. Attempts by senators to jump the gun on sanctions now, as talks are moving forward, destroy the good faith  it was so difficult for negotiators on all sides to build. Americans, too, are weary of war, something the White House has not shied away from pointing out would be the direction increased sanctions and failed talks would push US policy toward.

this close
UN

Bill Kristol takes issue with this, calling it a "smear" to identify politicians pushing policies that would lead to war as "reckless warmongers."  He follows this, in typical embellished fashion (the battle of Gettysburg makes an appearance), by noting Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu would have the "burden of history" hanging over him as he decides whether to launch military action to "thwart" Iran's nuclear ambitions. Polling last year showed fewer than 20 percent of Israelis supporting a unilateral strike. As negotiations have begun to show progress, and Netanyahu has continued to push the argument that the US is wrong to negotiate with Iran in the fashion it has, those numbers have reversed. One poll earlier this month showed 52 percent of Israelis now supporting a solo strike now, with 65 percent opposing the ongoing talks with Iran. Israeli columnist Shlomi Eldar questions the depth of Israeli support for war with Iran. "Israelis should be asked if they are for or against an attack in Iran that could develop into a war with hundreds of casualties," he writes in Al Monitor. "Would 65% of Israelis still vote in favor? I doubt it." The argument of pro-war supporters in Israel, the US, and everywhere in between hinges on how close Iran is to developing a nuclear weapon (Years! Months!), even though intelligence analysts have been predicting Iran being close to the development of a nuclear weapon since at least the late 1990s. Instead of the burdens of history, self-professed reluctant warmongers should consider the burdens of proof.

Advertisement

NEXT: FDA Warns Company to Stop Selling Genetic Testing Kits

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Bomb Bomb Bomb; Bomb Bomb Iran

    1. Rather than peace in our time?

  2. These are senators with large Jewish voting blocs? Or defense contractor voting blocs?

  3. We need drones, not more cold-war bullshit.

  4. showing their more headstrong

    tsk tsk tsk.

  5. Senators Still Pushing Iran Sanctions Even With an Actual Deal on the Table, Reluctant Warmongers Want War

    DISTRACTIONS….DAMMIT WE NEED DISTRACTIONS!

    /dem senators who supported obamacare

  6. Menendez? I live in NJ. Most of his campaign money came from pro-Israeli groups. The grandparents of his last opponent were Lebanese immigrants.

  7. This may be a time when it is good to bomb them back to teh stone age.

    1. What possible justification do you have for believing that?

      1. Does violating the non-proliferation treaty which Iran ratified before the country had a revolution count as an act of aggression?

        I’m seriously asking this question as it is the only way I can remotely see it being legal for the US to attack Iran.

        1. But the NPT lets them have a nuclear program for energy.

          1. I mean in the case that they are found to be breaking the treaty?

            First, does the NPT still apply to a post-revolution Iran. Second, if it does and they are found breaking the treaty, is that reason enough to declare it *legal attack Iran?

            *I know legal is a loose term when it comes to governments and foreign affairs.

            1. I would say unless Iran has specifically repudiated the treaty then it is still a signatory. It’s had 35 years since its revolution if it wanted to say, “we’re out”, but it has not done so.

      2. Hugh,

        Do you really believe anything named “ADAMSMITH1776” ISNT some kind of prog-troll-bot thing sent on a mission to go HURR-DURRing all over the internet to ensure any person remotely referencing positive aspects of ‘capitalism’ are associated with said retard-machines?

        I’m fairly convinced that 30% or so of internet content by this point is auto-generated by retard-algorithms. In fact, we’re getting close to the singularity where the troll-bots begin talking to each other, and human input becomes entirely unnecessary.

        I’m hopeful that at that point they will destroy themselves at the very moment they become self-aware. Out of disgust.

  8. Instead of the burdens of history, self-professed reluctant warmongers should consider the burdens of proof.

    The heavy water reactor at Arak and the previous detection of isotopes that exist only for weapons and EVERYTHING ELSE is proof. What the US should do and what Israel should do are two separate stories.

    Interesting that the Israeli public comes around as America takes the training wheels off. American hawks should be glad for this.

    1. that’s evidence, not proof. For example, the Arak reactor MAY process weapons-grade plutonium, but it may not as well.

      1. Exactly. Heavy water reactors are used in both South Korea and Canada and they have no nuclear weapons. But the Arak reactors are suspicious. The reactor includes hot cells which are not typically found at any power reactors but are useful for spent fuel processing.

        1. Doesn’t everyone already agree that Iran would have to build another facility because Arak doesn’t have this kind of capability?

          1. I’m not sure. I haven’t read too much on the consensus but it does seem to have the ability to produce weapons grade plutonium if operated correctly.

            Right now it is all speculation as there is no evidence that they have the facilities to process the spent fuel to get the plutonium out of it.

            1. I think the special pleading on Iran (and I am not directing this at you) has grown a bit tiresome. For my entire adult life, a nuclear Iran has been “just around the corner”. Apparently we’re supposed to believe any scrap of evidence, no matter how scant or shadowy, that Iran is (a) just about to get a nuclear weapons and (b) they plan on acting counter to their own survival instinct and start a war that would ensure the entire planet would wipe them out. I don’t buy it.

              1. Perhaps the delay in the Iranian nuclear program is due to Flame and other block ops.

              2. (a) solid, and you can show many examples of such,

                (b) There is some evidence that Islamic fanatics do not mind dying in an attack, nay, even desire it. Heh.

                (a) is probably the way to go, argument-wise.

                1. SSR, what evidence is there that the leaders of Iran fall in that category? It’s never the Osama bin Ladens of the world who strap a bomb to their chest in the name of jihad.

                  Also, Iran getting nuked in retaliation would be a massive, crippling blow to Shi’a Islam. The only other major country that is majority Shi’a is Iraq (and there’s a large Sunni minority there), which would presumably also be affected by such a retaliation. Shi’a and Sunnis obviously don’t get along well, and I find it hard to believe that Shi’a fanatics would not account for the devastating effect on their religion that a retaliation would have. Sunnis already are dominant in the Islamic community and without Iran, Shi’a Islam would have a fraction of the influence it currently does.

              3. I agree with you here. But I do understand that Iran would want a weapon and think that if left to their own devices would eventually build one.

                I discussed this in the AM links but Iran building nuclear power reactors to allow for more export of their oil/gas resources makes perfect sense if they can build Nukes at a cheap enough cost. Russia is pursuing the exact same path, they have already declared that they want 50% nuclear power for electricity by 2050 and 80% by 2100. Iran is buying their nuclear reactors from Russia.

    2. You do realize that weapons-grade material is also useful for energy generation, right? Weapons-grade uranium is specifically useful for light-water reactor designs, which are fairly common.

      1. *heavy-water reactors, and I really should have refreshed before posting. Oh well.

        1. Actually, the light water design, what I know as the pressurized-water reactor, is useful with weapons-grade uranium. Good enough to be the choice of the US Navy. High energy density and reprocessing recovers plenty of U-235 for the next iteration or core refueling. If Iran does manage to keep its enrichment program, then I’d expect to see them interested in nuclear vessels, of Russian design, somewhere down the road.

      2. The number 1 reason for using heavy water in a reactor is so you can use natural uranium. Heavy water is the best neutron moderator known to man because it absorbs many times less neutrons during moderation than light water.

        CANDU reactors runs on natural uranium. Using weapons grade uranium in a heavy water reactor does not makes sense. It makes even less sense if you want weapons. Heavy water reactors produce more plutonium because they use natural uranium which contains more U-238, which is the uranium isotope that breeds plutonium.

        HEU is definitely useful outside of weapons. Submarine reactors for example, or any place you want to build a thermal reactor that does not need to refuelled for decades.

  9. Marco Rubio, for example, sees an “even more urgent need for Congress to increase sanctions until Iran completely abandons its enrichment and reprocessing capabilities.”

    In other words, Rubio calls for the United States to utterly defy the NPT.

  10. “US senators, most notably Bob Menendez, the Democrat chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pushed for more sanctions, to show the Iranians the US was not as interested as they were in reaching a deal, a silly argument of which Secretary of State John Kerry was nevertheless unable to disabuse senators interested in a more hostile policy toward Iran.”

    This seems like a fantasy to me.

    The reason Iran is at the negotiating table is becasue they’ve had to burn through their currency reserves because of the sanctions, and becasue of the sanctions, they couldn’t turn to the world’s credit markets to borrow.

    That isn’t just the reason why they’re at the negotiating table, that was the purpose of the sanctions, too: it was a race to see if we could make them burn through their currency reserves before they could test a nuclear device.

    So, yeah, the sanctions worked in their intended purpose, and if, despite having the Iranians by the throat, they’re still reluctant to make the necessary concessions, then squeezing them by the throat harder makes a lot of sense.

    1. I like the way your think. Other point to consider is Iran’s bleeding to support Assad in Syria. That’s gotta hurt.

      1. They’re scared to death that the Arab Spring will become a Persian Summer.

        Yeah, they’re spending a lot of money to support Assad. That pushed the burn rate up even higher.

    2. “Amid the usual hyperbolic conspiracy theories, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said something incisive in a televised address last week: that the West is waging economic “war” against Iran.

      He’s right, and the Iranian rial’s death spiral is the first clear sign that we’re on a path to victory. The 40 percent drop by the rial against the dollar since late September is a symptom of larger woes: oil exports are at 1 million barrels a day, down from 2.2 million last year; quarterly oil revenue is down by about $15 billion a quarter; inflation, officially at 25 percent, is probably closer to 70 percent; unemployment is probably three times higher than the official 12 percent; and the country has been hemorrhaging foreign-currency reserves, which were estimated at about $110 billion at the end of 2011.”

      —-Bloomberg Editorial, October 7, 2012

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..ution.html

      $110 billion in foreign reserves.

      That was the purpose of the sanctions. If they had tested a nuclear device before they ran out of reserves, the purpose of the sanctions would have been moot, and the Europeans almost certainly would have abandoned the sanctions.

  11. This weekend, the latest round of talks actually produced a deal.”

    This seems to betray your bias.

    Talks didn’t produce a deal. If the Iranians are giving up their nuclear weapons program, it isn’t because we all sat in a circle together and talked honestly about our feelings.

    If the Iranians give up their nuclear weapons program, it will only be because they were driven to it.

    1. Bias and bullshit in a Kraewski article? Say it isn’t so!

      1. Stick to the facts, Cyto. You’re not very good at sarcasm.

        We have, simply put, the Rule of Law on this tiny little blue sphere of ours. Iran has the “right” to a non-weaponized nuclear program, right?

        1. I know you’re being sarcastic, but just for those who aren’t getting it, the Iranians were found to be out of compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

            1. “The Rule of Law on this tiny little blue sphere of ours. Iran has the “right” to a non-weaponized nuclear program, right?”

              The “rule of law”, in this case, has a name, and it’s called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which stipulates that nations have the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..reaty#Iran

              Iran is a signatory to that treaty, and has been found to be in non-compliance with the treaty they signed.

              What you’re saying is like saying a convicted bank robber should get to keep his gun because of the Second Amendment. No, actually, a jury of his peers can, in fact, take his gun away (after respecting his rights to a fair trial). That’s the “rule of law”.

              1. There are violations and there are violations, Ken. They are not all equal.

                This has grown tiresome. You claim to be against war but you’re coming up with every excuse in the book to go to war.

                1. No, I’m in favor of “negotiating” an agreement with them that will get rid of their nuclear weapons program–and then engage them with a free trade agreement.

                  I’d like our relationship with Iran to be, like our relationship with China, based on trade.

                  But I’m not willing to pretend things are other than the way they are. If Iran has a nuclear program and is a security threat to the Untied States, I’m not willing to pretend otherwise.

                  And if Obama engages in appeasement-like behavior, and does so to the detriment of American security, I’m not willing to pretend otherwise.

                  …not just because I’d rather not go to war.

        2. Stick to not sounding like a pompous asshole, if possible.

          Iran is a dictatorship and therefore has no rights.

          1. I put “rights” in quotes for a reason. I would like to know where you draw the line between legitimate government and illegitimate government. After all, there are plenty of despotic actions taken by the United States, but done under what we call “due process” or done within our system of laws, correct? Or, for a less inflammatory example, what about say, China? France? Are these legitimate regimes or illegitimate ones, and what set of circumstances do you use to make that determination?

    2. You just made that up. There’s no reason to think Iran could not have voluntarily foregone a nuclear weapons program in exchange for X, Y, and Z. Have you ever negotiated anything in your life?

      1. Now you got me worried that you’re not being sarcastic.

        Have I ever negotiated anything? I’m in commercial real estate.

        The guy with the most leverage wins. Lawsuits are simply a means of achieving more leverage.

        1. It seems to me Iran has a decent amount of leverage, because we have a relatively anti-war President and a populace tired of war. So, if the other side isn’t willing to pull the trigger, then you have a decent amount of latitude.

          1. I think the Iranians might be more worried about the IDF than the USAF/USN.

            Iran isn’t going to nuke us, even if they manage to construct something – they would fall into the Nork camp of nuclear delivery.

            1. They also have a long range missile program, which is, likewise, a serious threat.

              1. Hence the IDF’s keen interest. But to reach the US….? The EU types were a bit concerned too, IIRC.

                1. Yeah, it isn’t what they have now that scares them so much–it’s what they could develop.

    3. If the Iranians give up their nuclear weapons program

      What nuclear weapons program?

      1. Beware Jane Fonda Syndrome.

        https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4076399

        1. If you think I have some kind of sympathy for the Iranian regime, you’re off by a long shot.

          What evidence do you have for an Iranian nuclear weapons program? None.

          1. I think you’re being willfully ignorant.

    4. If the Iranians give up their nuclear weapons program

      What nuclear weapons program?

    5. If the Iranians give up their nuclear weapons program

      What nuclear weapons program?

      1. The one they’ve been pursuing for over a decade now. Pretty sure Israel wouldn’t pour resources into countering a nonexistant program. Mossad knows what it’s doing.

        1. The one they’ve been pursuing for over a decade now.

          The one that the entire US intelligence community says doesn’t exist?

          1. It’s a matter of more direct and personal concern to the Israelis than to the CIA.

            1. And that’s why Iran has an actual weapons program? You have no evidence.

              1. No, I only state Israel has much more reason to worry about it than the CIA does, or you do for that matter.

                It just cracks me up that h&r is full of commenters who believe that citizens should be individually armed to fend off encroachments by their own government but seize up when citizens arm collectively to fend off the encroachments of somebody else’s government.

                1. I think there are a couple of things at play, here.

                  One is that people are wary of getting sucked into another Iraq, or, in Iran’s case, something that would probably be worse than Iraq.

                  The second thing is that people really were misled about Iraq’s “yellow-cake”, it’s mobile weapons labs, etc., and they don’t want to get fooled again.

                  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com…..iraq_x.htm

                2. What you said, the hand waving, it has nothing to do with whether Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

                  1. That was to Homple but it equally applies to Ken above.

                    1. Juice,what you or I think about whether or not Iran has a nuclear weapons program means diddly squat. They do or they don’t. The consequences of their having one fall most heavily on Israel. Let them alone to worry about it.

                    2. Ok, I agree with that.

                3. Nice to see I’m not totally alone. I find it utterly fascinating that we sit on a stockpile of thousands of nuclear weapons yet no one else is allowed to “join the club.” The current government of Iran surely didn’t sign up for the NPT while it hasn’t disabused us of believing they are trying to comply either. And Israel has, according to everyone who’s anybody EXCEPT Israel, has around a hundred or so.

                  The better way of dealing with this is to tell whoever is in charge in Iran that if they detonate a nuclear weapon, or using our equivalence doctrine any WMD, we will nuke Tehran and Qom. Both. Why Qom? It’s one of the great holy cities of Shi’a and home to more than a few Ayatollahs. Half-MAD, but effective.

                  Designing and building a successful nuclear weapon is a very technically demanding but not difficult process. The North Koreans are still working on the kinks. And yes, I know exactly how to do it having worked in the field. If the Iranians with more than a bit of technical advice from outside haven’t got them online and tested by now, given all their resources, they really aren’t trying.

                  I’m far more concerned about loose Russian and Pakistani weapons and weapons-grade material than a loose nut in Iran.

          2. “What nuclear weapons program….the one that the entire US intelligence community says doesn’t exist?”

            This is an absurd claim.

            The entire US intelligence community does not say that Iran’s nuclear weapons program doesn’t exist.

            They do agree that Iran doesn’t yet have a nuclear weapon, but that’s hardly the same as not having a nuclear weapons program.

            At some point, this went from wishful thinking to being willfully obtuse.

        2. Pretty sure Israel wouldn’t pour resources into countering a nonexistant program.

          Jeez. I didn’t even get to this ridiculous statement. Read what you read again and then go hit yourself in the head with a stick a few times. Then read it again.

          1. What proof do you need that the Iranians have a nuclear weapons program?

            Are you going to wait until they actually test a device?

            Because by then it’s too late.

            You understand the purpose of non-proliferation is to try to prevent our enemies from getting nuclear devices–that’s before they actually get them–right?

            1. What proof do you need that they don’t?

              Seems to me that once the war boner is erect, nothing will satiate is short of full scale penetration, er, I mean invasion.

              1. “nothing will satiate is short of full scale penetration, er, I mean invasion.”

                What would air strikes/naval missile launches qualify as…substitute BJ? Handjob? Cuddling?

              2. I can be against war with Iran and still recognize that they have a nuclear weapons program.

                Jane Fonda Syndrome kicks in when you assume Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program because you don’t want to go to war with Iran.

                Incidentally, Jane Fonda Syndrome ends when you say that the Iranians are actually the good guys–then you go pose on their anti-aircraft guns and talk about how well they treat their tortured prisoners. …but there are other stops along the way before you get there.

                Anyway, one of the reasons to think that Iran has a nuclear weapons program is because they violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they signed when Iran neglected to declare their uranium enrichment program as they are required to do in the treaty.

                There are other reasons to believe they have a nuclear weapons program, too.

                1. I can be against war with Iran and still recognize that they have a nuclear weapons program.

                  But you can’t provide one shred of evidence that they do.

                  1. If breaking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which they signed, isn’t a “shred of evidence”, then what is?

                    1. They never did. They “broke” an additional protocol that was never fully ratified. And even if they did violate the NPT, that’s not a shred of evidence that they have a weapons program.

                  2. It’s Israel’s worry whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons, not yours, regardless of how much we yammer about it here.

                    1. It isn’t clear whether Iran Safir technology, they apparently use in the rockets for their space program, could be used in an ICBM, but the potential is already there.

                      Again, the idea is to engage Iran before they develop ICBMs–not wait until after they have them.

                      And they have a long range missile program. As much as we’d rather they didn’t, they really do!

                    2. just for the record…

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safir_(rocket)

                2. Anyway, one of the reasons to think that Iran has a nuclear weapons program is because they violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they signed when Iran neglected to declare their uranium enrichment program as they are required to do in the treaty.

                  No, they didn’t and even if they did, it doesn’t mean they have a weapons program.

                  1. “No, they didn’t and even if they did, it doesn’t mean they have a weapons program.”

                    Yes, they did.

                    They are required by the treaty to declare that they were enriching uranium, and they didn’t do so.

                    Just because I walk into a bank with my gun drawn doesn’t necessarily mean I’m there to rob it, but if I were later being prosecuted, I suspect the judge might think that’s a shred of evidence the jury should probably know about.

                    1. When did the Islamic Republic of Iran ratify the NPT?

    6. Damn. I even checked to make sure it didn’t go through before trying again.

      1. Three o’clock squirrels claim another victim! Muahahahahah!

  12. I’ve been pushing people’s buttons at the Daily Caller today (which is all too easy to do) over the story about the Iranian-American pastor who was predictably locked up in Iran for proselytizing, after knowing exactly what he was getting into and ignoring every warning, from the State Department on down, to obey local laws while traveling. I guess he’s somehow exempt from the principle of personal responsibility, and we should tirelessly demand his deliverance from his own stupidity.

      1. It’s nowhere near the fun I have with my cam girls, but sometimes, things need to be said…

    1. “Do I detect the smell of burning martyr?”

  13. I think it silly to believe more sanctions will prevent the Iranians from building nuclear weapons. Even sillier – believing that this deal will prevent it.

  14. Jews ought to worry about Iran and nuclear weapons. The virulently antisemitic Tehran mullahs keep whooping for the destruction of Israel and, in light of historical events, Israeli leadership is inclined to take such threats seriously.

    Don’t expect the argument that “The’re only funnin'” will convince Netanyahu to relax.

  15. Funny how a war boner causes conservatards who may normally reject fallacies to embrace the Precautionary Principle.

    1. And here you have both TEAMs grasping at this for their own cynical reasons. If that shouldn’t give each of them pause…..sigh.

  16. “Let Israel and Saudi Arabia defend themselves”

    Discuss.

    1. I, for one, am all for it. And don’t interfere with Israel and Saudi Arabia as they go about defending themselves.

    2. I imagine they will.

      The Saudis will buy what they need and the Israeli’s won’t wait to be proven wrong.

    3. We should encourage the Chinese to get another aircraft carrier ready, so they can take over Persian Gulf security. They buy most of the oil, they have the money to pay for it, and I guarantee they’ll keep those straits open.

      1. That same thought occurred to me when I saw an item that they’d deployed their one and only to the Diayo/Senkaku ADIZ.

  17. “India and Pakistan more likely to eventually engage in nuclear conflict than either North/South Korea or Iran/other”

    Discuss.

    1. Betting on bad things happening, involving Pakistan, is usually the smart way to go.

  18. “Jewish girls even more slutty than reputation would lead one to assume”

    Discuss.

    1. I wish I knew

      *shakes head wistfully at high school memory*

    2. I don’t know enough examples, but I would guess it’s less true of Reform girls than Orthodox and Conservative.

      When I was in NYC again last month, I was on that street that’s 100% Hasidic on one side and all black on the other, or as my host called it, “the line.”

      1. The referenced ‘street’ could only possibly be in Crown Heights =

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..mographics

        I live in Williamsburg, the other major Hasidic population area, and there are only hipsters on the other side of the street.

        As for your speculations on the diminished sluttyness of various jewish religious denominations…

        (use John McLaughlin’s voice)
        “WRONG!!”

        Religion has nothing to do with it. You are banished to Scarsdale until further notice.

  19. I have no desire for the United States to attack Iran, and neither do I have any desire to impede Israel should it decide to attack Iran. It’s not in our interests to attack them, but I fail to see how it’s not in Israel’s.

    1. Exactly, it’s none of our business either way.

    2. It depends on how much of an effect the Israeli government thinks an attack could have on Iran’s nuclear program, what effect a retaliation by Iran and/or its proxies would have, the odds of Iran getting a nuclear weapon without an attack, and what they think would happen if it does. There’s calculation there. Perhaps it is in “their interest” (not really a fan of that phrase tbh) to do it, but I don’t think it’s nearly as straightforward as you seem to think. There definitely isn’t a unanimous opinion amongst the Israeli populace.

  20. Sorta OT, but some fun reads nevertheless:

    “Why Arabs* Lose Wars”

    http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

    (*yes I fucking know Iranians aren’t “arab”, so shut the fuck up its OT yet somewhat *germane*, OK?)

    Gary Brecher (aka THE WAR NERD)on the Iran-Iraq War:
    “The War No One Watched”

    http://www.exile.ru/articles/d…..LOCK_ID=35

    e.g.We voted [Carter] out in ’80, but we still couldn’t stand to hear about Iran. So when they announced that Iraq was invading Iran, most people just said Great, I hope they kill a lot of Iranians, and left it at that. Nobody wanted details.

    I remember thinking — I was only a kid — “Hey, it’s like a bowl game to decide which country that has a four-letter name beginning with I-R-A gets to be top dog. The “Ira Bowl” or something.”

    1. Ah, good times. The Iran-Iraq was awesome. Lasted 8 glorious years. Should have lasted 80.

  21. So, we have peace in our time?

  22. Its not really a deal if only one side intends to abide by it.

  23. The only reason Iran was willing to talk was because the sanctions were effective. Now Obama and Kerry have agreed to lift the sanctions, in exchange for nothing much. Obama says the sanctions can be reimposed if the Iranians cheat, but this is BS.

    The best chance for Mideast peace is if the Senate rejects the deal, toughening the sanctions instead of relaxing them. Otherwise there is likely to be a major war within the next six months, with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf Cooperation Council states all allied in opposition to Iran. Such a war will be a natural consequence of Obama’s “peacemaking”.

    1. Agreement or not we need to start tilting the playing field in Iraq to the Sunnis.

      War in an of itself not necessarily a bad thing. The Iran-Iraq war was great for us and most countries around the world. The Syrian civil war is awesome too. Long may it last.

  24. Wow, this says a lot about the sick kind of people who “run for office”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.