Iran

The Illogical Push of Neocons to Kill the Iran Nuclear Deal

Diplomacy is the only remotely effective option for curbing Iran's nuclear program

|

Neo-conservative hawks are apoplectic over the Iran nuclear deal. Even some pro-Israel Democrats like Sen. Chuck

MissileTweets
Zoolcar9 / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

Schumer are piling on. But setting aside the normative questions about economic sanctions and military strikes, the only other alternatives, how practical are these options?

Not very, I note in my column at The Weekthis morning.

Sanctions have inflicted a heavy punishment—not on Iran's mullahs who look just as fat and prosperous as ever – but on ordinary Iranians. They boycotted Iranian oil and restricted Iran's access to refined oil. The latter was a big problem because Iran does not have enough refinery capacity to meet its energy needs. They also barred international banks from doing business with Iran, producing a near-collapse of its currency. The upshot has been a multi-year recession, inflation and shortages. It was no surprise, therefore, that the Iranian street broke out into celebrations at the slightest hint that a deal lifting the sanctions might be imminent – which is why it'll be too bad if their own leaders fuck things up by making demands that'll never fly. President Rouhani's ill-advised harrumphing yesterday that he won't sign any deal that doesn't instantly lift all the sanctions, is a case in point.

That said, the sanctions haven't been costless for the countries imposing them either, especially Russia and China. Hence they (meaning sanctions, not Russia and China) are not long for the world, regardless of whether America signs or walk's away from the deal. But if it walks away, I note, "Iran will slowly resume normal trade ties with much of the world — but without having to accept any curbs on its nuclear program."

And what about military strikes? They could backfire big time too.

Go here to find out why and how.

Advertisement

NEXT: Tapping Water Markets in California

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. But does Iran have open borders? huh?

  2. I dunno, it sounds like this deal isn’t worth anything to us, anyway. I’m all for diplomacy, but it should be done to advance our interests rather than for whatever reason the administration is doing it.

    1. And a non-nuclear weapon Iran could not possibly be in our interest. You consistently post shit as stupid as John does.

      1. BUUUUUUUUTTTTTT PLUGGGGGGGGGGGG!

      2. A non-nuclear weapon Iran is a good thing.

        Ergo an agreement to end pressure to remain non-nuclear in exchange for an unenforceable promise to remain non-nuclear is a good thing.

        Do you try for this level of stupidity? Or does it just come naturally?

  3. Shhh! We have H&R “libertarians” who are opposed to a treaty with verification.

    1. You never stopped to think that maybe people could doubt the authenticity of that “verification”. It’s much easier to debate against people whose views you’ve entirely fabricated.

      1. But Obama said it would all work. Yes, the Iranians are contradicting almost everything he’s claimed in the framework for a memorandum of understanding for a binding agreement, but it’s going to work because Obama said it would.

      2. You only doubt the authenticity because he is not a fucking Republican.

        1. Or because almost everything he’s said has been weapons grade bullshit. Or because of what even democrats have said about it. Or because of what the Iranians have said about it. Or…

        2. BUUUUUUUUUTTPLUUUUUUUUUUUUUG

    2. Please tell me about verification again.

      http://www.latimes.com/world/m…..tml#page=1

      1. And further shit stain. I don’t think it’s any of our fucking business if Iran is building a nuke until they attempt to drop one on us. But the whole verification thing is a huge joke.

    3. Damn H&R neocons!

    4. We have H&R “libertarians” who are opposed to a treaty with verification.

      SInce the Iranians have said they will allow no inspections of military facilities, I don’t this is really a treaty with verification.

      And, of course, its not even a treaty. Because Obama has already said he’s going to do it out of his office, and not send it to the Senate.

      Incredible – in a mere 12 words, two fundamental errors. An error rate of one for every six words is going to be hard to top.

    5. A “verification” that their military leadership says exempts military installations?

    6. BUUUUUUTTTTPPPPLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUG

  4. Bob Menendez was against it from the start. Now Chuckie Moobs. Neo-con does not mean what you think it means. And, of course, sanctions affected ordinary Iranians more than the mullahs; that’s how it always works. The point is to create some groundswell of public pressure that is brought to bear on govt. Weren’t sanctions lifted? Hard to imagine how that’s helpful but then, I think Arab states have to be more involved than they have been and that seems a perennial non-starter.

    1. Is it sanctions doing that to Iranians or just their government’s policies?

  5. not having an agreement does not automatically mean war starts. that being said maybe if Obama was more open about what is in the agreement there might be less backlash. I recall whenever Reagan negotiated with Russia we knew most of the details and when he (Reagan) didn’t get what he wanted he left the negotiations thus getting what he wanted. We see none of that but capitulation from Obama.

    1. Obama is negotiating just to say he did, not because he wants to further anything but his ego. Like all liberals everything is solved by meetings, NOT.

    2. Given how things are playing out, I’m not sure why anyone thinks this deal–whatever it is–will actually reduce their capacity to develop nukes. I suspect they just want to ride out the current oil situation until the market gets more favorable, then they’ll do whatever. And they’ll likely be doing some whatever all along.

  6. Aren’t there countless stories based around making Deals with the Devil?(I don’t care if you think we are the Devil, it still makes sense.) Never make a deal with someone you can’t trust, that just ties the good guys hands while the bad guy stabs you.
    Go on down with your drivel Shikha.

  7. There is nothing illogical or hysterical (as the author implied) about opposing this treaty. Nor does one have to be a “neo-con.”

    Iran signed the NPT and are bound by its rules. It has flouted those rules. A third party cannot go in to absolve them of their responsibilities any more than I can absolve Jack of his car loan. That’s between Jack and his bank. Similarly, compliance with the NPT is between Iran and the IAEA.

    Think of what will happen to international law if miscreants are let off the hook. The same thing that would happen to the car business if third parties could absolve debt. It would grind to a halt.

    There is nothing illogical or “apoplectic” about my arguments.

    1. Iran signed the NPT? When was that?

      1. 1968?

      2. Signed 1 July 1968
        Deposit:
        2 February 1970 Washington
        10 February 1970 Moscow
        5 March 1970 London

        http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/npt

      3. So, IOW, the Shah signed it?

        1. Yes. The Mullahs have never renounced it.

          1. Ummmhhhmmm.

            I’m sure that was the first thing on their minds…sorting through agreements made by regime they just ousted.

            I’ve heard this argument before. I’ve even heard people claim the new government said they’d honor it. Never seen any actual documentation to that effect, but it may, in fact exist.

            I think arguing that Iran signed the NPT is dubious, at best.

            1. http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iran/

              Check where Khomeni did a two step on the whole thing. They have never withdrawn and changed their tune once before.

              1. It’s good cover. “Of course we aren’t building nuclear weapons, we signed the non-proliferation treaty!”

            2. I’ve heard this argument before.

              It’s not an argument, it’s a statement of two facts.

    2. Iran can leave the NPT anytime it wants, thus no longer being bound by its rules and not being in the situation of being a rule-breaker. It’s a voluntary membership. It could’ve left it years ago, but it didn’t and instead chose to negotiate with the US et al. Thus, Iran can let itself off the hook for any violations of the NPT, thus no longer being the “miscreants” you say they are.

      The IAEA reports to the UN GA and the Security Council. Since it negotiated this proposed deal with all five permanent members of the Security Council, they de facto negotiated with the five world powers who are the ultimate authorities for directing the operations of the IAEA. These five are not third-parties, they are the principals of the UN’s body that oversees the IAEA as well as being, given their status as the original 5 nuclear powers who established the IAEA, the principals of the IAEA in another way.

      Would the world and all parties be better off of Iran left the NPT and no longer was the “miscreant-violator” as you label them in their current status? I bet you think not.

      You are not apoplectic, but you are indeed illogical.

    3. Iran can leave the NPT anytime it wants, thus no longer being bound by its rules and not being in the situation of being a rule-breaker. It’s a voluntary membership. It could’ve left it years ago, but it didn’t and instead chose to negotiate with the US et al. Thus, Iran can let itself off the hook for any violations of the NPT, thus no longer being the “miscreants” you say they are.

      The IAEA reports to the UN GA and the Security Council. Since it negotiated this proposed deal with all five permanent members of the Security Council, they de facto negotiated with the five world powers who are the ultimate authorities for directing the operations of the IAEA. These five are not third-parties, they are the principals of the UN’s body that oversees the IAEA as well as being, given their status as the original 5 nuclear powers who established the IAEA, the principals of the IAEA in another way.

      Would the world and all parties be better off of Iran left the NPT and no longer was the “miscreant-violator” as you label them in their current status? I bet you think not.

      You are not apoplectic, but you are indeed illogical.

      1. What? Are you saying as long as Iran is part of the NPT it’s ok for them to violate the rules?

  8. What deal? The more the Administration insists that we have a deal, while the Iranians say the absolute opposite, the sillier they sound.

    Does anyone really thing we are close to any kind of a deal?

    1. You tell ’em, Drake!

  9. What deal? The more the Administration insists that we have a deal, while the Iranians say the absolute opposite, the sillier they sound.

    Does anyone really thing we are close to any kind of a deal?

    1. What the hell?

  10. And what about military strikes? They could backfire big time too

    Nonsense! I’m assured they’ll only take a few days. Easy shit.
    The aftermath? Eh, whatever.

  11. Yeah, no.

    What deal? The one the Iranians say we don’t have? The one that – even if we do have it – doesn’t seem to….I dunno…DO anything?

    That deal?

    Yeah – I’m not for that deal, if that’s what you’re talking about, Ms. D.

    1. She’s debating the imaginary deal that some people would be for and others against if it existed outside of John Kerry’s imagination.

      1. Thank you for the clarification, my good man!

        1. Why is it that Reason goes full-tard when writing about foreign policy? I really have trouble thinking of an actual intelligent, thoughtful, and useful article about it that’s appeared here. It doesn’t help that they seem to default to Richman or Chapman, but Dalmia doesn’t seem much better.

          1. I think this is a very good question for which I have no good answer. Therefore

            *PUNT*

          2. Zenon Evans was one sane voice on Putin back when Reason could be bothered to write about Russia. Other than him, it’s Chomsky-lite all the way.
            Only reason that I can figure is Bush broke them, so foreign policy is stuck on “Would W hate this? Then it’s the right thing to do.”

            1. Zenon was an alt-text pro too 🙁

          3. Because they and a large number of libertarians hate the USG more than they love freedom. They myopically conflate USG inaction with peace. Peacenazis

  12. Diplomacy has much to recommend it – but negotiations are only worthwhile if all parties are actually quasi-serious about holding to their agreements. (Or if they’re a stalling tactic until you’re ready to shoot the bastards.) And only someone as dense as buttplug would believe that the current Iranian regime is at all trustworthy. As Pro Lib says, the only reason they’re willing to pretend to talk at all is because oil prices are in the tank right now, and Iran needs it be to selling for some absurd amount – something like 120 or 130/barrel – to stay in the black.

    1. But Pro Lib is a dirty NEOCON!!!!!1! so you can’t take anything he says seriously.

      /sarc

      1. My love for Bush is well-documented, as are my warlike impulses and love for all things Republican. And don’t forget how much I like to see the government spending money.

  13. No deal is better than a bad deal. Diplomacy can continue even if this deal falls apart. And why do you suppose Iraq is at the negotiation table? Sanctions. The mullahs may still be fat but they certainly aren’t comfortable.

    1. What’s stunning is that the Iranians are getting quite desperate. We hold almost all of the cards. We could get up and leave if they don’t cooperate fully.

      I wouldn’t let the “professionals” in this administration negotiate my next car purchase.

  14. Shikha Dalmia|, the major flaw in your analysis is that you fail to recognize that, with the agreement to general terms of this deal, the negotiations do not end. They, and the bargaining, now continue in pursuit of final terms. As well, the commentary by officials of the various involved parties are also motivated by influencing their respective domestic political competition and their citizens. I see ignorance and naivete in your comment about the Iranian new “demands” and your failure to apply the same type of criticism to “demands” coming from US officials that are new.

  15. OK, as one who negotiates for a living, e’erbody – what’s rule #1 of negotiations? Anybody? Bueller?

    YES! In front…..RIGHT! “There is no good time for a bad deal.” None. Ever. As someone noted above, “no deal is better than a bad deal.”

    And what else do we need to look at? Correct! “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement”! What can I do without negotiating?

    Do I need to negotiate to get what I want? Am I better off not negotiating? What am I trying to get out of any discussions? What do I want to happen? What do I not want to happen? What’s my leverage? What’s the other party’s/parties’ leverage? Etc. Etc. Etc.

    It appears to me the Obama Administration (may it burn in hell for eternity) has asked none of these questions, and has established no recognizable goals to achieve potential US “national interests”, whatever those may be….

    Captain Obvious, out.

    1. Its incredible to me how many politicians, whose only point for existing is to negotiate deals, really, have no fucking clue in the world how to negotiate. Not even the very most elementary basics. Zip. Zero. Nada.

    2. Just think, when you’re representing the 800-lb. gorilla in contract negotiations, would you ever act this meekly or put up with this kind of shit?

  16. My co-worker’s step-sister makes $80 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of work for seven months but last month her paycheck was $21155 just working on the laptop for a few hours. find out here now
    ????????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  17. Who cares if Iran has the bomb? Unless their leaders are suicidal it can’t be used. What we should do is sign a free trade agreement with them, improve the lives the average citizen and sit back and watch the people kick them out.

    1. First they can stop sponsoring anti-American terrorism.

      What we should do is sign a free trade agreement with them, improve the lives the average citizen and sit back and watch the people kick them out.

      Faith-based dogmatism.

  18. This is pretty amusing. “Iran’s nuclear facilities are hardened!” Yeah, and Sadaam had bunkers that the USG made a missile for in several months. Pretty sure the entrances of these facilities can be ruined and that’s all you need. Further, I doubt Israel or Saudi Arabia give a shit about the potential ‘backfire’ from strikes on Iran or ruining Obama’s day. I would not be surprised if this ‘deal’ directly leads to Israeli strikes on Iran.

  19. It’s interesting how the author just glances over the Iranian leader saying there is basically no deal in place, they will not discuss a deal until all sanctions are lifted, and inspectors can’t go near military sites (which is usually where countries keep their bombs and stuff). Also, was it the “Neo-Cons” that said the only options were a deal or war? I think it might have been a certain Nobel Peace winner.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.