US / Iran

Published by

Clarissa

November 24, 2013

Netanyahu’s reaction to the astounding success of US-Iran negotiations demonstrates that his need to bomb Iran is not in any way linked to what Iran says or does. It isn’t really about Iran at all. If Iran didn’t exist, there would be somebody else.

Isn’t it cool, though, that in his second term Obama is finally fulfilling the promise of a more reasonable foreign policy? I feel a lot more hopeful for the region (and the world) now that Iranians have a chance to recover from the devastation of the sanctions.

Rate this:

11 responses to “US / Iran”

danmillerinpanama

November 24, 2013

For those who have not yet read the text (in English) of the deal, the preamble is quoted and the full text is linked in an article I posted today.

The deal does indeed appear to be an “astounding success,” but not for the United States, Israel or any other nation that hopes to live in peace.

LikeLike

Reply
Herr Wilson

November 24, 2013

I visit here often from Aaron Clarey’s blog and I find what your have to say interesting, but have never commented. I think this post warrants comment, however. With that out of the way…

“Netanyahu’s reaction to the astounding success of US-Iran negotiations”

HOLY MOLY! The Iranians signed a piece paper….that’s it. It’s not an astounding success, unless 50 years down the line the Iranians still don’t have nuclear weapons. Do you remember the North Koreans signing a nuclear treaty? How did that turn out? Munich, anyone?

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  November 25, 2013
  
  I don’t see success in terms of whether the Iranis have nuclear weapons or not. Success here is whether the relations between the Us and Iran are cordial and whether war is likely.
  
  The idea that some countries are entitled to the nuclear bomb while others aren’t is untenable morally, intellectually, and politically. I don’t see how anybody can reasonably claim that it’s OK for, say, Pakistan and Israel to have it but not OK for Iran to do so.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Tim

November 25, 2013

It is always interesting to see how people from a nation that has lost,misplaced or used more nuclear warheads than most other nations are also the ones most interested in moderating who else gets to have them…

Pretty sure it has got something to do with having a bigger stick, but I might be wrong 🙂

LikeLike

Reply
Anonymous

November 25, 2013

Today I heard on Israeli radio that one aspect of the problem is that sanctions take months, even years, to have an effect, especially on a totalitarian regime. If they are lifted now and Iran doesn’t sign the real treaty (this one is supposed to be temporary) or even breaks this one, what next? Apply the sanctions again and wait a long time till they have an effect? Also, the Iranian regime will be less afraid of future sanctions since if things get too bad, they can sign another empty treaty, get millions of dollars into economy and then break the treaty again.

It isn’t only Israeli worry:

Saudi Arabia also expressed anxiety over the new deal. […] a Saudi government official said [that] “Many in Saudi Arabia worry that Iran is not being sincere, and the worry during the negotiations was that any deal reached would mean Iran would widen their influence in the region — in countries like Lebanon and Bahrain — and become a bigger threat.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/24/world/iran-deal-reaction/

– el

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  November 25, 2013
  
  Iran is Shiite while Saudi Arabia is Wahabbist Sunni. So of course Saudis are unhappy that Iran will not starve.
  
  All economic sanctions have ever achieved is radicalize people. Look at North Korea. They are starving but they have their nuclear weapons.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. danmillerinpanama
    
    November 25, 2013
    
    Saudis are unhappy that Iran will not starve.
    
    Had Iran not been pursuing its nuclear ambitions with vigor, there would have been no sanctions. In addition, substantial resources devoted to the nuclear program would have been available to do far better than merely prevent starvation.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      November 25, 2013
      
      This would have meant giving up on medical isotopes and nuclear energy. I don’t think anybody can reasonably expect such an enormous sacrifice from a country.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
titfortat

November 25, 2013

@Tim

Yes, its not like being the #1 arms dealer or prism or drone attacks should count for anything. The USA is the harbinger of freedom, ya know. 😉

To think any nation would use nuclear weapons on Israel is ludicrous. They may be somewhat nuts in Iran but they sure aren’t stupid.

LikeLike

Reply
David Bellamy

November 25, 2013

I have never believed that Iran wants a nuclear weapon.

LikeLike

Reply
Evelina Anville

November 26, 2013

I agree 1000%. I know it sounds naieve but I was honestly surprised at the negative reaction to this news. This is one of the best things to come out of Obama presidency in my opinion. How can anyone be “against” peaceful negotiations that result in outcome satisfying to all parties? People prefer to be in a perpetual state of near war/ or war? Insane.

LikeLike

Reply