First off, I want the Mullahs out of power, but I don't see any way that we can accomplish that through policy means, and I don't think Sanctions can decisively tip the scales to do so. I think they can help, and may be a prerequisite to an overthrow of the Mullahs, but I don't think it is a decisive measure.

That said, if all of what is coming out about the deal to be signed is true, then I may be coming around to thinking this will be a good deal - too good to pass up.

Specifically, Russia must take custody of the existing stockpiles, and that would include basically 100% of the stockpile of Highly Enriched Uranium - above 10%, and probably everything above 3% or so. Iran does have some legitimate reason to use HEU (maybe at 50% ??) for research reactors... specifically to create medical isotopes. That must be highly monitored, as must reactor "waste product". I would think that must also be transported out of country in dry cask storage once it is safe to do so. I would say that the bulk of sanctions must remain in place until Iran demonstrates a good faith effort to work with the IAEA (i.e. no obstruction and no more surprises). And, i think that they need to open up their weapons research facilities for inspection (i.e. the one that mysteriously exploded recently... either demonstrate that those have nothing to do with nuclear weapons capabilities or shut it down).

I think there has to be a ceiling on enrichment levels (or, if HEU is allowed, then a tight ceiling on the amount of material that is enriched above requirements for their reactors). And, enrichment activities can't be at a level to do more than keep the stockpile of enriched uranium in steady state (i.e. enrich just as much as they need to for their reactors).

I may be missing something, but if a deal can be reached that meets those criteria, I think it would be historic.

I think that could complete a pivot to improve relations with Iran, and I think it is something that Israel could actually live with. I'll be surprised if Obama/Kerry pull off something like what I've outlined, but I think it would be a massive accomplishment for them.

That would be best case scenario. I have a feeling though that this new Arab Coalition that the Saudi's have cooked up to deal with the Yemen problem, will also take care of the Iran problem if need be. It also wouldn't shock me if they are in double secret probation cahoots with a certain Jewish state located in the middle east, at least in terms of dealing with said Iran problem.

(03-30-2015 01:27 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  That would be best case scenario. I have a feeling though that this new Arab Coalition that the Saudi's have cooked up to deal with the Yemen problem, will also take care of the Iran problem if need be. It also wouldn't shock me if they are in double secret probation cahoots with a certain Jewish state located in the middle east, at least in terms of dealing with said Iran problem.

The Arab nations are complete lightweights in dealing with Yemen compared to Iran, who has battle-hardened advisers and experience in taking control of other nations. It will be interesting to say, but a sideshow.

However, I think there's no practical likelihood of an Arab strike against Iran. With the exception of Egypt, I don't think any of them could withstand the resulting counterattacks, and Egypt only because it is large and far away.

edit: Israel is of course another matter. I could see them attacking the weapons research center if that were left out of a deal, but probably not any facility that *is* part of the deal.

(03-30-2015 01:30 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 01:27 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  That would be best case scenario. I have a feeling though that this new Arab Coalition that the Saudi's have cooked up to deal with the Yemen problem, will also take care of the Iran problem if need be. It also wouldn't shock me if they are in double secret probation cahoots with a certain Jewish state located in the middle east, at least in terms of dealing with said Iran problem.

The Arab nations are complete lightweights in dealing with Yemen compared to Iran, who has battle-hardened advisers and experience in taking control of other nations. It will be interesting to say, but a sideshow.

However, I think there's no practical likelihood of an Arab strike against Iran. With the exception of Egypt, I don't think any of them could withstand the resulting counterattacks, and Egypt only because it is large and far away.

edit: Israel is of course another matter. I could see them attacking the weapons research center if that were left out of a deal, but probably not any facility that *is* part of the deal.

From one of my favorite defense writers. This coalition actually seems to have some teeth, especially when given logistical support from the US.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/second-...1694268668

*Edit* I'm not saying this coalition is for the express purpose of attacking Iran, in fact I don't even think that is on the platter to be brought to the table yet. But, it could be in the oven that the Saudi's are using to serve the table of the nations involved, deep down in there, waiting to be preheated.

All this assumes that Iran acts in good faith. And Iran has shown no good faith in international relations and foreign affairs for close to 40 years.

Why does this change now, with the most feckless American president in office since Carter?

(03-30-2015 01:38 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  All this assumes that Iran acts in good faith. And Iran has shown no good faith in international relations and foreign affairs for close to 40 years.

Why does this change now, with the most feckless American president in office since Carter?

And that is the real issue. Because someone has to validate the transfers and conduct the monitoring. Iran has been receptive to either of those actions. So while the deal might say that on paper, I'm doubtful of Iranian compliance.

We didn't monitor Iraq effectively, and Iran has far more places to hide things than Iraq did.

(03-30-2015 01:32 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 01:30 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 01:27 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  That would be best case scenario. I have a feeling though that this new Arab Coalition that the Saudi's have cooked up to deal with the Yemen problem, will also take care of the Iran problem if need be. It also wouldn't shock me if they are in double secret probation cahoots with a certain Jewish state located in the middle east, at least in terms of dealing with said Iran problem.

The Arab nations are complete lightweights in dealing with Yemen compared to Iran, who has battle-hardened advisers and experience in taking control of other nations. It will be interesting to say, but a sideshow.

However, I think there's no practical likelihood of an Arab strike against Iran. With the exception of Egypt, I don't think any of them could withstand the resulting counterattacks, and Egypt only because it is large and far away.

edit: Israel is of course another matter. I could see them attacking the weapons research center if that were left out of a deal, but probably not any facility that *is* part of the deal.

From one of my favorite defense writers. This coalition actually seems to have some teeth, especially when given logistical support from the US.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/second-...1694268668

*Edit* I'm not saying this coalition is for the express purpose of attacking Iran, in fact I don't even think that is on the platter to be brought to the table yet. But, it could be in the oven that the Saudi's are using to serve the table of the nations involved, deep down in there, waiting to be preheated.

Ok. I guess I misread you on that score. I could see Syria and/or Iraq moving from cold war to hot, but never Iranian territory itself. Region wide, the US may well be moving into "don't give a crap what happens" territory, but this demonstrates why Israel would prefer Assad to the alternatives because they have a reason to care.

(03-30-2015 01:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 01:38 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  All this assumes that Iran acts in good faith. And Iran has shown no good faith in international relations and foreign affairs for close to 40 years.

Why does this change now, with the most feckless American president in office since Carter?

And that is the real issue. Because someone has to validate the transfers and conduct the monitoring. Iran has been receptive to either of those actions. So while the deal might say that on paper, I'm doubtful of Iranian compliance.

(03-30-2015 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We didn't monitor Iraq effectively, and Iran has far more places to hide things than Iraq did.

Well, hopefully, deferring decisions on whether to actually relieve sanctions based on said compliance would be in another administration's hands. The problem there is that even with Iraq, the leads of the IAEA and UNMOVIC who appeared to migrate to partisan stances (even if neither pro-US nor pro-Iraqi).

(03-30-2015 01:19 PM)I45owl Wrote:  First off, I want the Mullahs out of power, but I don't see any way that we can accomplish that through policy means, and I don't think Sanctions can decisively tip the scales to do so. I think they can help, and may be a prerequisite to an overthrow of the Mullahs, but I don't think it is a decisive measure.

That said, if all of what is coming out about the deal to be signed is true, then I may be coming around to thinking this will be a good deal - too good to pass up.

Specifically, Russia must take custody of the existing stockpiles, and that would include basically 100% of the stockpile of Highly Enriched Uranium - above 10%, and probably everything above 3% or so. Iran does have some legitimate reason to use HEU (maybe at 50% ??) for research reactors... specifically to create medical isotopes. That must be highly monitored, as must reactor "waste product". I would think that must also be transported out of country in dry cask storage once it is safe to do so. I would say that the bulk of sanctions must remain in place until Iran demonstrates a good faith effort to work with the IAEA (i.e. no obstruction and no more surprises). And, i think that they need to open up their weapons research facilities for inspection (i.e. the one that mysteriously exploded recently... either demonstrate that those have nothing to do with nuclear weapons capabilities or shut it down).

I think there has to be a ceiling on enrichment levels (or, if HEU is allowed, then a tight ceiling on the amount of material that is enriched above requirements for their reactors). And, enrichment activities can't be at a level to do more than keep the stockpile of enriched uranium in steady state (i.e. enrich just as much as they need to for their reactors).

I may be missing something, but if a deal can be reached that meets those criteria, I think it would be historic.

I think that could complete a pivot to improve relations with Iran, and I think it is something that Israel could actually live with. I'll be surprised if Obama/Kerry pull off something like what I've outlined, but I think it would be a massive accomplishment for them.

That's a good read. I actually think its possible no deal gets done. But no harm in talking.

However, even if a deal can be done, it won't complete a pivot, but will hopefully unpivot us from Saudi Arabia. The US-Saudi relationship needed to be reevaluated. We aren't going to be Iran's BFF anytime soon (nor should we be), but we should make both sides COMPETE for our attention. And there's evidence that's already taking place.

Any real change in Iran will likely take place long after Obama has left office.

If Iran does anything with their "nukes" it would be the worst decision they've ever made. They know full-well that we can destroy their country in about.....48 hours.

(03-30-2015 02:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 01:19 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I think that could complete a pivot to improve relations with Iran, and I think it is something that Israel could actually live with. I'll be surprised if Obama/Kerry pull off something like what I've outlined, but I think it would be a massive accomplishment for them.

However, even if a deal can be done, it won't complete a pivot, but will hopefully unpivot us from Saudi Arabia. The US-Saudi relationship needed to be reevaluated. We aren't going to be Iran's BFF anytime soon (nor should we be), but we should make both sides COMPETE for our attention. And there's evidence that's already taking place.

Consider that a horribly butchered paragraph. It would do nothing more and nothing less than present such a pivot as a possibility, and be the first step on that path. But, it would be big.

All of this said, I may have been a bit premature in assuming that stockpiles would be part of the deal...

U.S. Says Shipping Uranium Out of Iran Is Still Part of Possible Nuclear Deal - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/world/...talks.html Wrote:The American officials were pushing back against public statements made on Sunday by Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araqchi, that seemed to rule out an accord under which uranium would be sent abroad.

“The export of stocks of enriched uranium is not in our program, and we do not intend sending them abroad,” he said, according to Agence France-Presse. “There is no question of sending the stocks abroad.”

Those comments represented an apparent change in position by the Iranian negotiators, who had been reported as having tentatively agreed for months to send a large portion of their uranium stockpile to Russia for reprocessing into a form that would be extremely difficult to use in a nuclear bomb.

(03-30-2015 02:14 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  If Iran does anything with their "nukes" it would be the worst decision they've ever made. They know full-well that we can destroy their country in about.....48 hours.

If they do anything, our nukes wouldn't even be the first ones in the air. Israel would have theirs launched before we can even go "which ones do we send?"

(03-30-2015 02:44 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 02:14 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  If Iran does anything with their "nukes" it would be the worst decision they've ever made. They know full-well that we can destroy their country in about.....48 hours.

If they do anything, our nukes wouldn't even be the first ones in the air. Israel would have theirs launched before we can even go "which ones do we send?"

Another reason why I'm not worried about Iran.

The only worry I potentially have is some idiot in the White House wanting to go into a ground war with them.

Our national interests are not aligned with the group that wishes to keep Iran out in the geo-political cold.

I predict extensive IAF airborne refueling exercises over the Med in the next couple if weeks.

You know it's almost impossible to distinguish a Saudi F-15 from an IAF F-15. Imagine how much mischief you can cause with a paint job.

(03-30-2015 02:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Our national interests are not aligned with the group that wishes to keep Iran out in the geo-political cold.

Iran is doing that all on their own. It's going to be hard to walk back from their state sponsored terrorism and proxy land acquisitions.

(03-30-2015 03:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 02:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Our national interests are not aligned with the group that wishes to keep Iran out in the geo-political cold.

Iran is doing that all on their own. It's going to be hard to walk back from their state sponsored terrorism and proxy land acquisitions.

Actually look it from the Iranian perspective at the various pressure points. Not to defend Iran, but just look at how it might look to a nation that prides itself as the champion of Shia Islam. Here are the flash points from the likely IRANIAN point of view.

1) Iraq - Shia government in majority Shia nation under violent attack by Sunni extremists. There's a lot more to it than that, but that's how Iran is likely to view it first.

2) Syria - Same as Iraq, only difference is that Syria's government wasn't Shiite, but wasn't Sunni either.

3) Lebanon - Shiites are the largest group in Lebanon. They've were excluded from the elite until Iran's proxy army got involved.

4) The Gulf States - Shiites form a majority in many of these states but are discriminated against heavily by Sunni monarchies.

5) Saudi Arabia - Shiites are heavily discriminated against. Lots of very bad blood between them. Iranians blame Saudi policies for much of the anti-Shiite actions in the region.

6) Yemen - Shiite versus Sunni again.

-----

Here is where Iran operates outside of a Sunni - Shia framework.

1) Hamas - Iran has provided material support for Hamas. There's no defense of it from any significant geopolitical perspective. Perhaps Iranian action is simply to destabilize the Sunni majority PLO or prevent Gaza from becoming Saudi client state.

All the other stuff appears to be quite marginal and basically looking to undercut The Saudis and/or the Gulf States.

----

That whole region appears to me to be less of a Arab versus Israel than a Saudi Sunni versus Iranian Shia battleground. It is both. But its really a proxy war based upon religion. No point in tying ourselves down with one side IMHO.

Neither is our ally. Neither is going to stop looking for a nuclear bomb as a result of our action or inaction.

(03-30-2015 03:54 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Neither is our ally. Neither is going to stop looking for a nuclear bomb as a result of our action or inaction.

Then what is the point in negotiating if there is zero chance of stopping them?

(03-30-2015 03:54 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  2) Syria - Same as Iraq, only difference is that Syria's government wasn't Shiite, but wasn't Sunni either.

Wrong. Assad leads the Alawaites, which are a Shia Group.

(03-30-2015 03:54 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  3) Lebanon - Shiites are the largest group in Lebanon. They've were excluded from the elite until Iran's proxy army got involved.

Absolutely wrong. Lebanon as a nation was created as a Christian bastion in the Middle East - Syrians view Lebanon as merely a breakaway province that will re-unite with Syria once things settle down.

Lebanon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon Wrote:Lebanon is the most religiously diverse country in the Middle East.[160] As of 2014 the CIA World Factbook estimates the following: Muslim 54% (27% Shia Islam, 27% Sunni Islam), Christian 40.5% (includes 21% Maronite Catholic, 8% Greek Orthodox, 5% Greek Catholic, 1% Protestant, 5.5% other Christian), Druze 5.6%, very small numbers of Jews, Baha'is, Buddhists, and Hindus.[161] A study conducted by the Lebanese Information Center and based on voter registration numbers shows that by 2011 the Christian population was stable compared to that of previous years, making up 34.35% of the population; Muslims, the Druze included, were 65.47% of the population.[162]

Muslims outnumber Christians, but Christians are the largest of the three main religious groups - Christian, Shia, Sunni. Christians have been leaving in droves to get away from Hezbollahland, but Iran did not come in to save the day for their Shia brethren... they have royally ****** up the country in order to have their own remote forward military base.