Sunday, April 5, 2015

Iran: What's the Dealio?

Obama and Iran have entered into an historic agreement. Essentially, they have agreed to disagree and to look the other way while Iran builds a nuclear bomb. This is perhaps not the deal most people expected, but with Obama in charge was there really ever any other possibility? Here are the problems with the deal.

(1) It's Iran: In all deals with Iran, there is always one overriding problem: you just can’t trust Iran to keep to anything they agree to. No deal with Iran is worth the paper it is printed on. So if you reach a deal with Iran, then you are already a failure... and a moron.

(2) Fuzzy Promises: Turning to the deal specifically, the next problem is that the deal leaves all the key areas fuzzy. Here are some examples:
● Iran will be limited in its research and development into improved centrifuges, though apparently the limits are rather fuzzy and both sides already disagree about what they are. Those improved centrifuges, by the way, can’t be used to enrich uranium for ten years. After that, all bets are off. So expect an "Obama bomb" in 2025.

● Iran must uninstall some of its current centrifuges. That sounds good, except they are allowed to replace them with the more efficient centrifuges they are working on. Also, the numbers don’t make sense. When this process began, they had 12 centrifuges. They brought this up to 20,000 over time. They only run 9,000. Now we are told they need to reduce that amount to 6,000. That’s way more than 12, and it leaves 14,000 centrifuges ready to be run whenever they feel like breaking the agreement.

As an interesting aside, we are also told that Iran can’t enrich any more uranium. But if that is true, why let them spin the 6,000 centrifuges? The only reason to do that is to enrich uranium... which they aren’t allowed to do... except they can spin 6,000 centrifuges.

● Iran is required to reduce its current stockpile of enriched uranium from ten tons to just a few pounds – less than is needed to make a bomb. But no timeline is given for this, nor is a method specified. Obama is claiming Iran will export the material to places like France, but Iran is claiming they can dilute it rather than getting rid of it. That will leave the stuff ready to be returned to military use at any point. It's a bit like "diluting" bullets by storing them with chocolate.

● The IAEA and the US wanted Iran to admit that they have been researching bomb design and detonators and to identify what they've achieved. Some groups even suspect Iran has developed a detonator. Iran has refused to answer this. The agreement is really vague on this point and even team Obama only says that Iran “will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA’s concerns,” with no mention of what those measures are.
Essentially, on every significant issue, Iran has agreed to do something, but that something is always nebulous and vague and, even then, disputed.

(3) Trust, Don't Verify: Obama’s talking points meant to sell us on his “brilliant” plan also do a good deal of misleading bait and switch work. For example, Obama claims that the agreement subjects poor Iran to extensive snooping by international inspectors, with some surveillance lasting for up to 25 years! Sounds great, only, there will be no inspections allowed of military sites... where the Iranians would be building the bomb. Sure, you can look in my garage, but not in my secret lab in the basement.

And don’t worry about all those centrifuges Iran has because they aren’t allowed to spin them at the secret sites... only, no one is allowed to snoop at those sites, so no one but Iran will know what is happening there. Yet, John Kerry flat out lies in an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe: “To be clear, there is no aspect of this agreement that is based on promises or trust. Every element is subject to proof.” Right. Except the key provisions.

Obama also claims that sanctions could be snapped back into place if Iran cheats, but the agreement doesn’t actually allow that. Instead, it includes a dispute resolution provision that will likely take years before sanctions could be re-imposed... if ever.

So there you have it. I can’t say I’m disappointed per se because this is exactly what I would expect from an agreement negotiated by Obama. Seriously did you expect anything better?

Anyways, the way I see this going is that Iran will do whatever it wants and Obama will try to cover for them until it becomes too obvious to sustain. Then he will blame the next administration. In the meantime, Saudi will develop its own nuclear bomb. What happens next is anybody’s guess. Pakistan and India have avoided a nuclear war and Pakistan is batshit crazy. But Pakistan also doesn’t have Israel as a scapegoat, nor do they have a terrorist wing who would happily transport a bomb to some western city and set it off.

I guess the only thing we can say for sure is that Obama’s policy of pretend problems don’t exist is about to leave the world a much more dangerous place... again.


Kit said...

re "Things I Trust More Than Barack Obama", you can apparently add Rolling Stone articles about campus sexual assault to that list.

Kit said...

I think Chamberlain got a better deal from Hitler.

Hitler just had no desire to follow it.

Anthony said...

Obama's deal with Iran is kind of like Obamacare, an attempt to solve a problem that just makes things worse, Also like Obamacare, it is sheer awfulness is blinding people to how bad the current system was/is.

For the past couple decades Western intelligence sources (including but not limited to those of the US and Israel) have warned the public that an Iranian nuke was right around the corner. Iran's nuke has been treated as an inevitability unless something radical was done, but no one has wanted to do anything radical.

Obama's bad deal messes with the timing a bit, but the real implications are political. Obama will be blamed when the inevitable happens. If something heavy and expensive is about to fall, trying to do something different puts you in a position of liability, but if you do the same nothing the people before you did...

I'd pity Obama if I thought this was a real attempt to do something good rather than a desperate attempt to secure a legacy,

tryanmax said...

You guys are looking at this all wrong. The real issue is that [insert past or future Republican president here] was/is acting like a cowboy on the world stage, encouraging Iran to use the nuclear weapons that the US have no right to deny them.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Excellent post, Andrew.
Obama wants Radical Iranian bakers to be able to serve nuclear cakes at Jewish weddings.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ben!

Somehow, I doubt Obama would have been as forgiving if the issue was Iranians refusing to provide yellow cake to gays. (Yeah, that's a nuclear joke! :D)

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, No doubt the issue is/will be [insert Republican name here]'s failures and screw-ups because that's how thee left rolls.

Step One: Act like idiots.
Step Two: Create problems.
Step Three: Blame the right... blame the victims... blame everyone but themselves.
Step Four: Create new problems to solve their own problem.
Step Five: Repeat 1-4.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, Yeah, Rolling Stone needs to be sued.

The difference between Hitler and the Iranians is that Hitler had a better tailor.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Andrew, lol! Yellow cake is just radiating with unique flavors.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I agree. The current situation is an absolute mess. But this only makes things worse because it gives the political class thee opportunity to claim that the problem has been solved and to take Iran off the "to do" list.

I have no sympathy for Obama either. This is an intensely cynical ploy to claim he fixed something. If this guy was a mechanic, he would be sued and probably jailed.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

I like what Iowahawk said:
Obama is celebrating a touchdown when hejust got sacked for a safety.

AndrewPrice said...

Yes it is, Ben! LOL!

Iowahawk is brilliant at cutting right through the BS and putting out the perfect metaphors.

BevfromNYC said...

"Somehow, I doubt Obama would have been as forgiving if the issue was Iranians refusing to provide yellow cake to gays."

THAT is exactly it! Something for tomorrow...

Kit said...

Iowahawk is probably one of the funniest humorists and satirists working today.

AndrewPrice said...

Yes, he is! He has a sharp and clever mind. I appreciate that very much.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I look forward to it! :D

Post a Comment