Discussion saved as draft

If you have something you'd like to say on this topic, please Log in or Register and Click the box to Start A New Discussion.

NAIVE OR DEVIOUS?

by Marvan Buren (Principles: Politics is a contact sport) - 2 year ago

The Democratic Party Platform states that Democrats will never allow Iran to get a bomb. Yet they support the JCPOA. Are they naive in believing the Ayatollahs will change, or do they have something up their sleeve?

Offered for your consideration are the following two statements from the 2016 Democratic Party Platform:

  1. We support the nuclear agreement with Iran because, as it is vigorously enforced and implemented, it verifiably cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb, and
  2. We will continue the work of this administration to ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon

These words might be very comforting to those who are concerned about Iran joining the nuclear club except for one big problem. The Iran nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), contains a notable double standard. The provisions which stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons end after 15 years while any re-imposition of sanctions automatically terminates the agreement. Thus, if Iran follows the JCPOA to the letter, it can become a nuclear nation immediately after 15 years.

So with this in mind, how do we reconcile the Democratic platform?  On the one hand they say they will ensure that Iran never acquires nuclear weapons. On the other hand, they  say they support the JCPOA which permits Iran to obtain those weapons after 15 years.

As I see it, the answer is that Democrats are one of two things:

NAÏVE: They believe that in 15 years, Iran will change its behavior and become a good citizen of the world. They are betting that within that timeframe, the Ayatollahs will either be overthrown or will give up their plans to dominate the region. However, its hard to argue with the statement that  anyone who believes that a regime which has maintained a consistent enmity for the U.S., Israel and the West for over 40 years will change in the next 15 can only be called Naïve.

DEVIOUS: The “punishment” for re-imposing sanctions is that the JCPOA terminates. Right now, Iran has leverage over the U.S. in that if sanctions are applied, Iran could expel the inspectors. In 15 years,however, Iran’s leverage goes away. Thus, the U.S. would have nothing to lose by restoring sanctions at that time. Further, in the preamble of the JCPOA, Iran commits that “under no circumstances” will it “ever” seek to acquire nuclear weapons. This provision gives the U.S. the cover it needs to break the JCPOA should Iran “ever” take steps toward acquiring nuclear weapons. Devious, indeed. 

So, are Democrats naïve, or are they devious? As a Democrat, I say they are devious. What's your view? 

Comments and Responses (8)

General Comments
By  Facebook Commenter - 2 year ago
I don't think they will even wait out the 15 year period, they will start creating nuclear weapons as soon as they are able , i give it two years, the Dems are both Naive and Devious, thats how they work on the stupity of others, that way they someone else. and Kerry come on , of all people to make a rightful decision.
Discussion Leader's Response : This comment is neither relevant nor interesting. (Comment will be removed)
Discussion Leader's Explanation : Unless they have hidden facilities, it is very likely that any activity toward developing a nuclear weapon will be exposed. If so, Iran would open themselves to a military response. Therefore, unless you can provide a reason for why Iran would want to do this, I can't accept your premise.
Reasoning used for ARGUMENTS presented
By  Facebook Commenter - 2 year ago
I think the Democrats are out of their stupid minds. Iran professes to kill all infidels and I am sure they mean it by any means available. This goes back to the hostage situation in the 70's. The Shah of Iran was our puppet and once he was ousted Iran was free to pursue us. Anyone who thinks any radical Islamist country is going to change is not naive they are downright ignorant.
Discussion Leader's Response : This comment is interesting but not directly relevant. (It might be a good topic for a new discussion)
Discussion Leader's Explanation : Feel free to replace the word "naïve" with the words "downright ignorant." I agree that all evidence says that Iran will never change. However, before you call the Democrats "stupid" you have to outline how Iran is actually going to build a bomb. The most common assumption is that they will build it after the deal expires in 15 years. However, you have not explained why you disagree with my statement that prior to the 15 years, the U.S. will threaten to re-impose sanctions unless Iran agrees to further restrictions on their nuclear program.
General Comments
By  Facebook Commenter - 2 year ago
I believe the Democrats are naïve. Chamberlain thought his political acumen could persuade the Germany to avoid war with the Munich Pact and a non agression treaty, that he thought would bring "...Peace in our time." He stood before Parliment on Sept. 29, 1939 and stated "... Everything I have worked for, everything I have hoped for...has crashed in ruins". In much the same way, Democratic naviete brings us closer to the war we wish to avoid, because they refuse to see the danger Iran poses through the eyes of history.
Discussion Leader's Response : This comment is interesting but not directly relevant. (It might be a good topic for a new discussion)
Discussion Leader's Explanation : The Munich analogy has been used many times in connection with the Iran deal, however, there are critical differences. Munich gave away a country to Hitler for nothing but promises in return. The JCPOA gives away no land and includes a strong mechanism for verifying that Iran is meeting its promises. Yes, Iran and Nazi Germany are both evil and neither can be trusted. However, until you provide evidence that the verification mechanism in the JCPOA is fatally flawed, the analogy with Munich simply doesn't apply.
Reasoning used for ARGUMENTS presented
By  Facebook Commenter - 2 year ago
Donald Trump advises that the first question that should be asked going into any deal is "What's in it for ME?" Look back through Obama's deals. The Bergdahl trade, release of Gitmo terrorists, Iran Nukes deal, ransom of American hostages and ask yourself WHAT if anything did WE get?
Discussion Leader's Response : This comment is interesting but not directly relevant. (It might be a good topic for a new discussion)
Discussion Leader's Explanation : With Iran, what was in it for the U.S. was to at the very least, delay a war with Iran. We also obtained the authority to have experts inspect all known nuclear facilities in Iran. Iran, on the other hand, received access to their own money and the ability to trade on the world market. They also received the same rights that other countries have to do nuclear research. You are correct to ask the question "What's in it for me" rather than the more standard question of "Who won." If, in fact war is avoided and Iran doesn't go nuclear then everyone gets something and everyone wins. However, in order for that to happen there will need to be a new deal negotiated well before this one expires.
General Comments
By  Facebook Commenter - 2 year ago
I am with Donald Trump on this, what is in it for the USA? all of Obama's so called deals, they're not deals!!! In a real deal, both sides get something. We never get anything in his deals. Seems like he is always on the other side. DON'T TRUST IRAN!!!!!!
Discussion Leader's Response : This comment is interesting but not directly relevant. (It might be a good topic for a new discussion)
Discussion Leader's Explanation : Every war that we have become involved with in the Middle East - Iraq, Libya, Syria - has had catastrophic consequences. The Iran deal, IF SUCCESSFUL, would prevent a war with Iran. We save the money that a war and its aftermath would cause and, no Americans die or get maimed in another Middle Eastern country. At no time has Obama or the Dems said that we can trust Iran - only that the JCPOA has a mechanism for verifying that they are fulfilling their commitments. Thus, if we can avoid war without having to rely on trust, then we are getting something very important from this deal.
INFORMATION used
By  Facebook Commenter - 2 year ago
Obama is just so desperate to have something in his legacy this deal is a No Deal it's just on paper Iran still is working to make a nuclear bomb we have to notify them in advance about our inspectors but we are not allowed to inspect certain facilities I think our Administration has gone off to la-la land
Discussion Leader's Response : This comment is interesting but not directly relevant. (It might be a good topic for a new discussion)
Discussion Leader's Explanation : Actually, I think the better argument against the JCPOA is that Obama was desperate to not have his legacy include a) Iran developing a nuclear weapon on his watch, or b) starting a war with Iran. You leave out the fact that the deal does permit immediate inspections of all known nuclear facilities in Iran. This was a significant concession by the Iranians and shows that the administration was not totally in "la-la land."
General Comments
By  Facebook Commenter - 2 year ago
This story really doesn't get into what is in the treaty. If I remember correctly, Iran is given a 20 day notice and if not convenient then an extension is given. Most of the actual inspections are to be carried out by Iran and or by their inspectors. There were other parts that really said that Iran was in charge.!
Discussion Leader's Response : This comment is interesting but not directly relevant. (It might be a good topic for a new discussion)
Discussion Leader's Explanation : Opponents of the deal have build opposition by taking certain provisions out of context. It was agreed that Iranians would conduct inspections intended to determine the prior history of Iran's nuclear program. This is a weakness in the deal but does not apply to current inspections of known sites. The notification requirement you mention applies to suspected sites which were not previously known. There are also restrictions on inspectors going into military sites. However, under the deal, all known sites are subject to inspection at any time. This leaves open the matter of whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons at unknown sites. While this is a hole in the JCPOA it would have been just as big a problem if the JCPOA hadn't been signed. We would have bombed the known sites but they could then have retaliated by attacking us with bombs built at the unknown sites. I would argue that with inspectors on the ground, we have a better chance of discovering those sites,
General Comments
By  Facebook Commenter - 2 year ago
Devious!
Discussion Leader's Response : This comment is neither relevant nor interesting. (Comment will be removed)
Discussion Leader's Explanation : Actually, the comment is relevant but PWG doesn't give me the option of saying the comment is relevant but not interesting.