(01-07-2020 03:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 05:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 05:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I did not, and still do not support the Obama-Iran deal. We gave away too much and got nearly nothing in return. The ultimate beans for a cow deal, except with not golden goose.

Therefore I support leaving the agreement.

Honest question, what did the USA give up that upsets you?

We all seem to have established that the BBC is about as good of a source as any of us can agree on. So here's the BBC's explanation of the Iran Deal. The west (including the USA) unfroze more than $100 billion in Iranian assets. So the USA didn't give Iran any money, just unfroze Iranian money that Iran did not have access to. This wasn't USA taxpayer money going to Iran. The lifting of sanctions appears to have opened oil markets to Iran that will increase Iran's revenue by $4-$8 billion per month. That is a lot of money, but it isn't the USA's money.

It was frozen for a reason.

Irrelevant the nominal owner of the cash. Money is money, and it made life easier for Iran. They got relief, we got an empty promise.

But the really stupid thing was that Obama effectively told them, you can have nukes, just not during my administration.

What is the empty promise? That is what I don't understand about your argument. Is there evidence that Iran did not destroy centrifuges and reduce its uranium stockpile?

Obama told them that we will unfreeze your money and give you sanctions relief it you take actions that effectively cripple your ability to make a nuke for the next 10-15 years. Then after that there would still be a rebuild/restart time that would add additional delay to Iran's capability. And that is assuming that further deals would not be worked out during the 10-15 years. How is Trump's approach, which is now allowing Iran to go back to full-scale nuke research and development, better?

(01-06-2020 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I can tell you what I would have done differently:
1) The money gets released in tranches--10% a year for 10 years, contingent upon continued good behavior by Iran.
2) A totally different inspection protocol--anytime, anywhere inspections with minimal notice and no places red-lined.

Do those things and it might be a viable agreement. And it should have been to the senate for ratification, which would probably have been agreed with those changes.

Those would all be improvements, but as you often point out when mentioning Rice in conference realignment talks, it takes two to tango. I'm sure the Obama administration asked for these kinds of things, but neither side gets everything it wants. The final deal was certainly a lot better than nothing and things have been steadily going to hell since Trump pulled out.