Is the Iran-IAEA Side Deal a Big Deal?

Iran can reportedly use its own experts to inspect sites where weapons research was alleged to have taken place.



The Associated Press reports on a secret side deal between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over how certain inspections related to prior claims that Iran did nuclear weapons research would be handled: 

Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press. 

The revelation on Wednesday newly riled Republican lawmakers in the U.S. who have been severely critical of a broader agreement to limit Iran's future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the wider deal is unwisely built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections. 

According to the AP, the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, China, and Russia were briefed on the deal and "endorsed it as part of the larger package." That package has to be approved or rejected by the Congress by September 17, a date set based on a process laid out in the Iran Nuclear Review Act, which Congress passed earlier this year. Under the legislation, if Congress votes to disapprove the deal, President Obama can veto their disapproval. If Congress doesn't vote either way, it will be considered the same as if they voted for it. 

Under the side deal, as reported by the AP, the IAEA will, in some unspecified way, "ensure the technical authenticity" of Iran's inspections of its site. Critics of the Iran deal call the confidential arrangement between Iran and the IAEA "unprecedented." Seperately, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has said he would push to cut off U.S. funding for the IAEA if its confidential arrangements with Iran (there are reportedly at least two, including this one) were not disclosed. The IAEA is supposed to submit a final report on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons research by December. The U.S. and the other countries that reached a deal with Iran in July will be among the countries voting to approve or reject that report. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency is tasked with monitoring member states' nuclear activities. Inspections focused on Iran's past and its future will be done under the auspices of the IAEA, not the United States. Insofar as that keeps the U.S. from bringing a new international security responsibility on itself, that's a good thing. It doesn't excuse the confidential nature of the agreement, nor the Obama administration's prior insistence there was nothing unusual about any of the side deals, both of which now work against the wider deal's passage. If Congress actually found the intestinal fortitude to withdraw from the IAEA over this, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Despite the rhetoric, there's limited U.S. national security interests in preventing nuclear proliferation.  

The White House issued a statement expressing confidence in the IAEA's arrangement with Iran, declining to confirm specifics but acknowledging they were unique. "We are confident in the Agency's technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran's former program, issues that in some cases date back more than a decade," National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said, according to Fox News. "Just as importantly, the IAEA is comfortable with arrangements, which are unique to the Agency's investigation of Iran's historical activities. When it comes to monitoring Iran's behavior going forward, the IAEA has separately developed the most robust inspection regime ever peacefully negotiated to ensure Iran's current program remains exclusively peaceful."

NEXT: Carly Fiorina Bashes Common Core: 'Overly Influenced By Companies That Have Something to Gain'

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Inspect themselves? Well, I mean if it's fair for the cops, the IRS, etc, etc, why not for the Iranians? Sounds fair.

    1. What could possibly go wrong?

  2. Despite the rhetoric, there's limited U.S. national security interests in preventing nuclear proliferation


    The U.S. does have a national security interest in keeping the club of nuclear powers small. The Pax Americana was built upon it. Of course, the Pax Americana is all but dead...

    As to the revelation, this is a big fucking deal; it means that the inspections are no longer credible.

    Even if the Iranians weren't engaging in prohibited actions at those sites, and the inspectors were to truthfully report that everything was on the up and up, nobody would believe them.

    I'm beginning to agree with John that the result of this deal is an almost inevitable Sunni/Shiite war that may be nuclear, will likely drag in the U.S. (even though it should stay the fuck out of it) , and will absolutely fuck up the world economy.

    1. It's in the security interests of anyone and everyone on the planet to prevent nuclear proliferation. Jesus, that was one of the dumbest statements I've ever read on Reason.

      1. Look, without nuclear proliferation, Krayewski's Fallout LARP will lack authenticity.

        1. He could hold it in Detroit maybe?

          1. That's BoS territory. With the proper costuming, it could be fun.

            1. Fallout 5 confirmed!

              1. But there are already 5 Fallouts..

                1. BROTHERHOOD OF STEEL DOES NOT COUNT!!!!!!!

              2. Eh, I thought they already did Detroit in an add-on.

                1. You're thinking of Pittsburgh I'm pretty sure, from Fallout 3? I believe Detroit was in the spinoff games I never played and may be non-canon.

                  1. FO:T took place 'in the Midwest' in the areas around Chicago. BOS take place in Texas.

                    AFAIK - none of the games have ever gone to Pittsburgh.

                    1. Fallout 3 Had a DLC that was set in Pittsburgh.

                    2. 'The Pitt' DLC for Fallout 3 is entirely about Pittsburgh being a shit hole slave city filled with disease.

                    3. Huh. I never got around to playing 3's DLC.

                    4. I need to get around to playing those DLCs. I specifically remember that Pittsburgh was relatively unscathed by the nukes...and as such remained a shit hole slave city filled with disease.

        2. I don't understand what you yoots are going on about. Does it have something to do with those nasty video thingys?

          /out-of-touch confused grandma (i.e. Hillary Clinton)

          1. Shh shh, it's alright grandma, just go back to your comfy chair and watch some Murder She Wrote.

            /Revenge for the race car beds

      2. What Juice said. I don't even know what to say to that statement. It is just unbelievable.

    2. What "Pax Americana"? When was this era of peace?

      Since 1941 we've only spent a handful of years NOT at war somewhere.

      1. I think it means that WW3 has been delayed for a time.

  3. Better alt text: "Suckers!"

  4. John Kerry: Working For America's Enemies Since the Nixon Administration.

    1. John Kerry: Let Me Swift Boat the World!

  5. You fucking morons. You fucking arrogant hydrocephalic mongoloids.

    1. Jesus, you gotta drag Trump into it, too?

      Just kidding. Remember when Netanyahu spoke to Congress about how idiotically the negotiations were conducted? Man, what does that chickenshit know?!

      1. I don't know about you, but I await, with bated breath, Richman's outrageously mendacious apologia on this issue.

        1. Oh good grief. I had totally overlooked that angle and you know it's coming.

        2. If the day ever comes that the Iranians set off the big one in Washington, I swear to God if I survive the blast I am hunting the mother fucker down.

          1. They won't be bombing D.C.; It'll be Jerusalem for sure.

            1. I doubt Jerusalem, it's a Islamic holy place. Tel Aviv, now those people are quite possibly fucked.

            2. I still think this is more likely to end up a power play against Sunni interests than a nuclear war with Israel. Saudi Arabia and maybe a few others nuke up, and then we have to deal with a regional cold war or, worse case scenario, a limited nuclear exchange over something moronic.

              1. I want to believe no leader would be horrifyingly evil enough to actually launch a nuke, but then I remember both Stalin and Hitler existed.

                /Godwin'ed (but still accurate).

                1. Well when you get down to it, the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon offensively was the United States. So you don't even need to be a Stalin or Hitler, just a Truman.

                  1. So small town machine politician lackey? Nothing like that anywhere else!


                2. Stalin had nuclear weapons and never used them. Mao too.

                  Would Hitler have done so? That's iffy. Nazi Germany largely stayed away from using chemical and biological weapons even when their backs were against the wall.

                  Remember, you have to be evil AND suicidal to go nuclear against a nuclear-armed opponent.

          2. Yeah, I think you're safe while there's Jews and heretics to kill.

        3. I dunno, for a writer of his talent, this seems like a gimme.
          "I told you Iran is honest, and IAEA agrees. Checkmate, bitches!"

        4. Oh god, Richman's comments on this are just going to be insane. Of course he'll entirely trust the Iranian government on this because for some reason some libertarians only apply their cynicism of governments to western ones.

          1. This is nothing new alas. See Mencken's and Randolph Bourne's articles on Imperial Germany.

            And Richman thinks Gareth Porter is a good source. Considering how Porter was initially a Khmer Rouge apologist I would doubt his credibility in discussing Iran's nuclear program.

            1. Mencken was a Nietzsche fiend, I can let that slide because it's at least in line with his beliefs. Richman, on the other hand, consistently abuses the libertarian label by refusing to hold foreign governments to a libertarian, that is to say, cynical standard.

              1. Richman, on the other hand, consistently abuses the libertarian label by refusing to hold foreign governments to a libertarian, that is to say, cynical standard.

                Good example here:

                In fact, the Houthis are merely the latest manifestation of a long-oppressed Yemeni religious minority seeking autonomy from the central government. After years of being frustrated, lied to, and double-crossed, it finally moved on that government. Say what you will about the group, but don't call it an agent of Iran

                So if the US-backed regimes had legitimate grievances Richman would not call them US puppets? Or is Richman saying that no US-supported Regimes ever had any legitimate reason whatsoever to fight against their enemies?

        5. I was about to post something along those lines. I fully expected to find an article by Richman telling us what a good deal this is and JOOOOOOOOOOS.

          I didn't expect something like this - "Despite the rhetoric, there's limited U.S. national security interests in preventing nuclear proliferation" - from Ed.

          Jesus Christ that is the dumbest fucking thing ever pixellated. He probably fell over dead just from typing it. Still, I am sure Richman will try to top it.

          "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits." - Albert Einstein

          1. Even if he thinks "there's limited U.S. national security interests", those "limited" interests are really, really important.

            If my home with my family in it is being invaded by violent criminals, and I'm in my pajamas with a firearm, my calculus of possible responses shows me my options are "limited" but those options are extremely important.

            And "despite the rhetoric" is some dismissive shit.

    2. Please clarify: Who are the arrogant hydrocephalic mongoloids?

      I have a confused.

      1. Who are the arrogant hydrocephalic mongoloids?

        Anyone who thought the Iranians negotiated in good faith.

        1. Well I mean to be fair the US didn't negotiate in good faith either.

          1. Well I mean to be fair the US didn't negotiate in good faith either.

            That's where the arrogance comes in. We thought we were pulling something off.

        2. I'm pretty sure everyone involved knows this is about the U.S. letting go of the sanctions regime and all responsibility for enforcing non-proliferation. The only ones not aware of this are our fellow citizens (and non-citizen aliens!).

          If this is the policy the president should be honest about it, but he's a lying scumbag and will continue on with the verifiable safeguard bullshit until the day the Iranians announce their achievement.

        3. Who are the arrogant hydrocephalic mongoloids?
          Anyone who thought the Iranians negotiated in good faith.

          Ah, so the Current Administration, Herman Munster and the rest of the Demotard Kool Aide drinkers.

          Thank you for the clarification.

  6. Is there anything more dangerous than a president in search of "legacy" achievements?

    1. secretaries of state who still harbor presidential dreams?

    2. No

  7. yeah, it's a big deal when any fox is put on henhouse guard duty. Really?

  8. I wish Obama would just throw his hands up in the air and say 'Fuck it' because that's basically what he wants to do. I really hate the obfuscation and lying. Little wonder Americans hate our politicians. Lying scumbags to the last one.

    1. I think Obama is counting the days until the end of his presidency. Then he gets to bask in adulation and rake in humongous speaking fees free of any responsibility.

      1. "Then he gets to bask in adulation and rake in humongous speaking fees free of any responsibility."

        So no change, except for the taxpayer paid vacas.

    2. Yeah, this. If Obama agrees with Ed that proliferation is no big deal then just say so.

    3. I wish Obama would just throw his hands up in the air and say 'Fuck it' because that's basically what he wants to do.

      Barry, you've got senioritis, we get it. Just go play golf and listen to your Spotify playlists and have your Chief of Staff call you in when there are bills to be signed or vetoed, alright? No more of this...

  9. Whether it is a big deal or not is not the real problem, as I see it.. It is that it would be allowed as a satisfactory inspection to begin with that perhaps shows how Obama negotiated this deal

  10. So will Sheldon Richman condemn the deal now? This is the sort of interventionism he would normally decry after all...

  11. And will Richman condemn the US for keeping the Cuban dissidents away from the embassy opening? Again that is the sort of behavior he condemns when the US does it to a regime Richman does not like. Or does he approve since it is a regime that he approves of?

  12. Oh, fer fuck's sake. Outsourcing the inspections to Iran basically means the whole deal is an overt and blatant sham.

    Unless you genuinely don't give a shit about Iran getting nuclear weapons whenever they want, yes, its a big deal.

    Nuclear proliferation in the Mideast? What could possibly go wrong*?

    *For values of wrong that exclude the nuclear extermination of Israel.

  13. "Despite the rhetoric, there's limited U.S. national security interests in preventing nuclear proliferation."

    Come again?

    I get the non-interventionist principle held by libertarians but practically speaking, this is a naive and baffling assertion.

    Do people realize Iran is a theocracy run by crazies?

    If acknowledged, how can the above quote be appropriate? Of course it's the interest of not just the United States but the Mid-East as a whole.

    1. It seems like it would be a global MAD doctrine. If everyone gets the bomb then no one uses the bomb. Which always seems to rest on everyone, everywhere, all the time, being rational.

      1. Yet, most countries show or have no desire to get one. E.g. countries like Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, Brazil and so on.

        I would just take Iran at face value and not try and *reason* in its current state. Help its population usher in a new government, keep it on its toes through trade restrictions/embargoes and let Israel keep a hawk's eye on them.

        Not perfect but I don't believe for one second Iran negotiated in good faith. Not this bunch. They probably, on the contrary, see America as *weak* for doing so.

        1. Those countries don't pursue nukes because they reside under the protection of the US government and its nuke umbrella, such as it is. We have negotiated security treaties with all of Europe, Britain, Japan and South Korea. I think we have a similar arrangement with Australia, and isn't Canada a member of NATO? Why take on the responsibility and draw attention to yourselves when big, bad America will do it for you?

          1. Yeah, pretty much this. And none of the countries mentioned are fearful of the US invading them either.

            If you're in the middle east and you're not Israel or the Saudis, you should be fearful of a US attack. You never can tell when the US is getting bored and wants to try out some new today and you're next. Even if we don't do it directly. I mean president Hillary decides to arm the good terrorists again and next thing you know, ISIS has taken over your country.

            1. Again, bullshit. If your ME country hasn't fucked with America, it won't be. Libya and Syria did fuck with America at some point in the past. Morocco and Tunisia aren't going to end up on America's hit list.

              1. Sorry, Cyto, but you're just way off here. No countries in the middle east were fucking with the USA when we decided to go over there and start fucking around and try to affect regime changes.

          2. I think we have a similar arrangement with Australia, and isn't Canada a member of NATO?

            Yes to both.


            Lists Canada as a founding member of NATO"

            1. Canada was a key player in 20th century international organizations from the UN to NATO. And it's also in a NORAD partnership with the USA.

              1. True that. I forgot about NORAD.

        2. Help its population usher in a new government, keep it on its toes through trade restrictions/embargoes and let Israel keep a hawk's eye on them.

          That option was mostly tanked when the Obama Administration decided to ignore the Iranians during the Arab Spring protests.

          1. America could have sent weapons to the Iranian protesters. Instead Obama, with Reason's support, took the pro-war option of leaving the Iranian regime intact.

            1. I see you've already set yourself up in Armchair General Command there Cytotoxic. Please, continue to ignorantly lecture people on military and foreign policy concepts you do not understand. It amuses me.

              1. Please, go ahead and point out what I got wrong. Oh that's right: you can't, as usual. CYTO-PWND

                1. Cytotoxic continues to think unfalsifiable hypothesis about his alternative history scenarios (which is based on no actual military knowledge or experience and is instead based on Cytotoxic's narcissistic view of his opinion) are actual arguments.

                  *Lowering myself to Cytotoxic's idiocy* Hey, instead, the Obama Administration could have helped the protesters peacefully take over the government, and everything would work out and Iran would become a westernized secular state!

                  There, my imaginary alternative history scenario is as equally valid as yours, because neither of them are actually based on evidence. Cytotoxic says an event could only happen one way and that's the only evidence he needs, his own imagination! CYTO-PWND.

                  Again, your narcissism utterly erodes any credibility you have.

  14. Of course, the $64 million question is how would you stop the Iranians building a bomb anyway?

    1. Well snapback sanctions of course.

      1. I saw that.

        "We totally have snapback sanctions!" *wink, wink, nudge, nudge*

    2. Sanctions and sabotage.

    3. I am thinking a single hellfire missile up the Ayatolla's ass might stall the program a bit.


    Barack Obama and John Kerry are playing with fire. They presumably want Congress and the American public to accept the nuclear agreement they and four other governments struck with Iran, but they work against their own objective by accepting the false premise of their opponents: namely, that Iran's regime is untrustworthy, dangerous, bent on becoming a nuclear power, and containable only by a U.S. readiness to wage war.

    It would be better for Obama and Kerry to tell the truth for once: Iran has not been seeking a nuclear bomb.

    You know for a trustworthy group of people that don't want the Bomb making secret deals to inspect areas themselves is rather strange.


    Interesting quote here:
    (Even Hamas has said it was willing to defer to the secular Fatah and the Palestinian Authority).

  17. Ok, let's be honest about a couple of things here.

    First of all, why the fuck would the Iranians not want a bomb? Look at what we did to their neighbors. Do you think that with all the war mongering talk spewing from the mouths of our politicians that they might get the idea that we just might start fucking with them with more than just words? You know, like we did in Afghanistan and Iran? That's awfully close to home for them. And then they look at that crazy loony toon character up there in Norkland and no one bothers him. Why? Well, everyone knows, including the Iranians.

    And 2nd, this is what we get for Late Nite Links? I mean, we can't even get REAL official Late Nite Links, or a FUCKING EDIT BUTTON and this boring shit is what we get?

    1. So time to admit that More Nukes=More Peace?

    2. The foolishly optimistic part of me wants to believe that we're willing to forgo the inspections and sanctions on Iran because we've found better tools to fuck with them. I'm thinking about Stuxnet and like - cyber warfare. But, nahhhh, I don't really believe that.

    3. Here is some excitement for you, Hyp.

      1. Well, gee thanks, man. I wasn't even going to drink tonight and now I'm not so sure.

    4. Or, here's a crazy thought, they could stop being dicks? Maybe emulate Switzerland, Canada, Sri Lanka, Namibia, Ethiopia, Greenland, New Zealand, Jordan, Belarus or Mongolia, which are also countries not fucked with by US? Apologize for embassy invasion, stop chanting "Death to US," stop funding terrorists, and maybe kill fewer gays while you are at it?

      I know, crazy, but possibly cheaper and less risky than pursuing the bomb!

      1. Well, with the Mullahs in charge, that won't happen. But there are millions of people in Iran who would surely like the Mullahs gone even more than we would. But it's their job to do it. Every time we try to do it, it's a total clusterfuck.

        1. Right, so instead of "hey, maybe these people should get a chance" foreign policy, assume that assholes are gonna be assholes, and then be a dick. Dick fuck assholes, too, as some wise people said.
          Seriously, you don't want US to fuck with you? One of the easiest things in the world - don't be South or Central American country. Then don't poke them in the eye, say "who, me?" when they say stop, and then keep poking. I dunno why it's so hard to get that into one's head, especially when you are a shit little country. I couldn't get it when 90s Serbia was doing it, either, and I lived there.

        2. "Every time we try to do it, it's a total clusterfuck"

          Bullshit. America got rid of Sadaam and the Taliban real easy and fast. The nation-building was stupid but that is a separate action.

          1. Are things better in Iraq and Afghanistan than they were before?

            What about Libya? That's not looking so good now is it?

            1. Who cares? Our problem is we cared about making then better rather than exacting revenge for them attacking us.

    5. "Like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq (sic)"?

      You mean the country that harbored terrorists that murdered thousands of Americans and the country with the maniac leader that funded other terrorists and pretended to have WMD?

      If Iran wanted peace, their leaders would not monger war. They want the bomb so they can continue funding terrorism with impunity and possibly to wipe Tel Aviv off the map.

      1. And the ultimate lesson of Iraq, if you go back far enough? One that Iran could really listen to right now?


        There's all sorts of debates that can be had about the Iraq War, but every single of those could have been avoided well beforehand had Saddam Hussein and his Gunboat Rape Circus put on their Big Dictator Pants in the ten years that he was sticking his dick in the Security Council's eye and chose one ?just one ?resolution to follow...

    6. Yeah we attacked Afghanistan for fun. We had no justification at all.

      Have you lost your fucking mind?

  18. I would think the $150 billion we promised to give to that murderous regime should at least buy us free and unfettered inspections.

    1. To be accurate, that's their money locked up by sanctions. But you can bet it's going towards funding terror. Their will be blood.

    2. We shouldn't be giving them any damn money, period.

  19. ran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

    And let's just allow Reinhard Heydrich to inspect those pesky "Death Camps" OK?

  20. Is there anything Obumbles has done that has not benefited the Islamists? Everything he touches over there comes up Islamist.

    I am not one of the 'secret muslim' crowd, but goddamn, he sure seems to be trying to give them credence.

    Has anyone heard any news from Libya lately, or is there a news blackout on that? Are they still cooking and eating each other?

    1. I did check up on Libya. ISIS is there and they got pushed out of a town or something. Seems lots of people who are otherwise fighting are allying against them. Unfortunately that includes Salafists.

  21. i need help i walktched the box thing with the pitchers that show the news show and my inside head thig is not so good feel no more and i afrayd my insside head thing may b damitched from the waltching the news show sshow on the tawking pitcher box thing and may it be that my iniside head thing never be no good no more for never kan sumone say if waltching news show kan make inside head thing all bad for all ways or may be ef i nno waltch no more no news sshow my inside head thing get better pleese help me pleese

    1. Fucking brilliant!

  22. This is truely one of those, "Fuck me in the ear!" moments.

  23. You know Reason writers, you can apologize for being stupid dipshits on this issue. The commentariat really outsmarted you here.

    There will never be peace in the ME so long as major state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran's government exist. All those opposed to destroying Iran's regime are pro-war.

    1. Remember, Egypt was a major enemy of Israel from 1948 to 1978. Egypt, like Iran, has a large middle class, large population, diversified economy and a need for stable international trade relations. Iran's regime is horrible, but it is also vulnerable to internal political pressures, unlike Saudi Arabia.

  24. It's high time someone-by which I mean Israel and maybe the Saudis-manned up and did the responsible, humane thing: blowing the shit out of Iran's nuclear and hydrocarbon facilities.

    1. I think Canada should take out Iran. Why don't you volunteer?

      1. Why don't you volunteer?

        Hilariously, he has addressed this multiple times. The time I told him to enlist when he was looking for work, he said he didn't like getting up early in the morning. Another time someone else asked him, and he said that he's too smart for military service, but that he should be responsible for military planning, i.e. he's legitimately narcissistic enough that he thinks it's other people's purpose to die for his premises. Cytotoxic's entire worldview centres around him as a spoiled child playing with other people like they're toys.

        1. Yawn. Ad hom harder, bitch.

          1. Ah, the characteristic whining of the Armchair General, a coward who spews whatever self-aggrandizing foreign policy nonsense the internet Objectivist zeitgeist shits out. Utterly ignorant of military affairs, yet somehow manages to Dunning-Kruger himself into an expert. Classic.

        2. "he said that he's too smart for military service, but that he should be responsible for military planning"

          Please stop lying.

          Cytotoxic's entire worldview centres around him as a spoiled child playing with other people like they're toys.

          Wanting someone to stop Iran's government from killing people = playing with other people like toys.

          This is like John-level retarded.

          1. Please stop lying.

            Except you specifically said that when someone asked you about enlistment, and then everyone mocked you for it. You unfortunately can't pretend that didn't happen because people on this forum other than you have actual memories. People actually remember the idiocy you spew Cytotoxic.

            Wanting someone to stop Iran's government from killing people = playing with other people like toys.

            Spare me the bullshit Cytotoxic. You have clearly laid out your views on military action and foreign policy on these threads. They are brutal and murderous, and yet you think you can somehow claim it's all about stopping the deaths of people? You're pathetic for even attempting to take a moral high ground.

            You really don't understand that your moronic self-obsession makes your judgement on anything entirely questionable. The fact that you almost always end every thread with some pathetic gloat about how you're the best reveals how utterly narcissistic and unfit for any political responsibility you are. I don't have to do anything to discredit you Cytotoxic, because your blatant issues do it for me.

            1. "...utterly narcissistic and unfit for any political responsibility..."

              That describes about 80% of people holding office.

        3. Cytotoxic's entire worldview centres around him as a spoiled child playing with other people like they're toys.

          Well he is an avowed Randian, right?

          Still, I enjoy seeing him tweak some of the other commenters here. It's good theater.

      2. Because I don't want to join the army. My place is in the lab.

        1. My place is in the lab.

          I agree. And that offers up another possibility for volunteerism. I'm sure they prefer the brains of chimps but yours is probably remarkably similar.

    2. Mating call of the Western Canadian Chicken Hawk.

      1. That video cracks me up for some reason.

      2. Holy shit. I gotta get this played before DotA2/LoL/whatever matches!

      3. "Chicken-hawk" joins "neocon" in the "list of words peacenazis use to describe people they disagree with or when they just run out of arguments".

        1. Lol DwT the peacenazi. hahaha

          1. Cytotoxic continues to believe 'peacenazi' to be very clever, rather than something that continues to render him a laughing stock. It's like someone mixed a Godwin with 'Block Yomamma'.

  25. We should start blocking access by IAEA inspectors to US nuclear facilities.

  26. The best thing that can happen is for Iran to rebuild a robust middle class with deep trade relations with foreign businesses. There is a long history of middle class merchants exerting internal pressure on Iranian regimes. A strong Iranian merchant class will likely moderate Iranian politics and counter balance the hawkish elements of the regime. The only way that a small business-owning class can flourish in Iran is if the sanctions are lifted.

    Lifting sanctions is an incentive for concessions and inspections, and it is a way to strengthen internal dissent against the hard line elements of the regime. Win-win. Call me old school, but free trade and open markets tend to lead to peace and prosperity.

    1. I believe Michael Ledeen of the AEI argued as much back in the early to mid 2000s and couldn't understand why the U.S. wasn't pursuing such a pragmatic (and peaceful) course.

      1. Yes. And the elements in the US that don't want the sanctions lifted try to confuse Iran with Saudi Arabia, North Korea or Yemen. Iran is very, very different than these countries.

    2. for Iran to rebuild a robust middle class with deep trade relations

      Who smashed the class that needs rebuilding?
      -Alexander of Macedonia?

      Nope, same regime currently in power, because that's how they came to power and stayed there. How in hell do you think US can rebuild it without the regime noticing? Trade and money is for regime members, not any asshole in Tehran!

      1. Ghengis Khan.

      2. Not exactly true, and the US doesn't need to rebuild the Iranian middle class, the Iranians do, and there are signs that the Iranian people really want this to happen.

        In the 60s and 70s the Shah implemented a number of economic "reforms" that were very hard on the middle class, but very good for those connected to the shah. When the revolution came, some of the merchant class backed the revolutionaries because they thought the revolutionary government would loosen business restrictions, oops. While the business men connected to the shah fled to the US. Even now, you can see that the ayatollahs struggle to sway public opinion. Iran is also not the sort of petro-economy that its enemies paint it as.

        1. Right, but that's how shit countries work. You make a deal, deal goes to people connected to mullahs. All approvals go through the regime, and it doesn't give a shit if this deal would only bring $50 to economy and not $100.

          1. I live in Illinois. I'm very familiar with the system you are describing.

            1. Touch?, sir!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.