IRAN IS CUTTING ITS LOSSES WITH A NUCLEAR DEAL

[AUUSN 823]

This week will likely — and finally — witness the dénouementof the longstanding nuclear dispute between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany). Now that we’ve reached the July 7 deadline, there appears to be a strong chance that the negotiations will result in an agreement. Predictably, this has led to a wave of criticism against the Obama administration. For many critics, in particular, a key problem with the deal is that it will inevitably unshackle Iran’s power and consolidate its place as a rapidly rising regional hegemon.

Yet Iran does not come close to having the power necessary for the hegemony that anti-Iran hawks in the United States, Israel, and the Sunni Middle East fret over, and a nuclear deal will not change this reality. Iran’s power is brittle: Its conventional military is increasingly obsolescent, its economy is strangulated by sanctions and mismanagement, and the country is more diplomatically isolated than it has been for decades. As it finalizes negotiations with the P5+1, Iran is dealing from a position of weakness, not strength. The status quo is, for the Islamic Republic, excessively and increasingly costly. Tehran’s optimal outcome from these talks is not to consolidate its regional preponderance but rather to cut its losses after years of mounting sanctions and isolation.

...

Any gains that Iran would make from an agreement resolving the nuclear issue must be seen as opportunities for Tehran to cut its losses, not to make net gains. Iran has made extremely costly choices that have caused major harm to its economy, diplomatic standing, and military power. The Islamic Republic will need decades to repair this damage and eventually generate sufficient capabilities to fulfil its regional ambitions. Those who worry that a deal will irrevocably damage U.S. interests in the Middle East by strengthening its main regional adversary seriously overestimate Iran’s power and influence. They forget that containment has worked: Iran’s economy today is stagnant, its power is brittle, and it is more diplomatically isolated than it has been for decades. This will not change easily.

http://warontherocks.com/2015/07/iran-is-cutting-its-losses-with-a-nuclear-deal/?singlepage=1

[AURaptor 1,122]

Thanks , Tehran Tony.

[AUUSN 823]

Thanks , Tehran Tony.

So lucid....

All we need now is for cooltigger to post that the world is about to blow up, war timmy to post something about a pantsuit and proud tiger to post something in defense of the confederate flag; the 'conservative' brain power will be complete.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Just give peace a chance, man....

[AUUSN 823]

Just give peace a chance, man....

Do you have children? We'll need them for the war effort against Iran. All you other chicken hawks, get your children to the recruiting station as well. We need them all.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Thanks Neville.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Yeah, you really make a good point. I don't want my kids fighting in a war. Iran and its military , they might just kill all of us.

[AUUSN 823]

Yeah, you really make a good point. I don't want my kids fighting in a war. Iran and its military , they might just kill all of us.

Got it. Let other people's kids die fighting your idiotic war. You are such a patriot. Thanks for your service because 20,000 post to a sports forum takes some serious work.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Yep, only those who pretend to or say they served get in opinion on anything.

[homersapien 11,357]

Let's face it.

The same old ODS sufferers oppose a treaty with Iran because the Obama administration will be given credit for doing it.

To them, nothing is worth more than having that happen. Not the best interests of our country. Not even our children.

[AUUSN 823]

Yep, only those who pretend to or say they served get in opinion on anything.

I'm just saying that fighting a two front war (Pacific and Middle East) will take some manpower. Since you're such a war monger, your children are needed for the war effort.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Let's face it.

The same old ODS sufferers oppose a treaty with Iran because the Obama administration will be given credit for doing it.

To them, nothing is worth more than having that happen. Not the best interests of our country. Not even our children.

I want him getting full credit for what happens.

@ usn - 2 front? Where have i posted any support for s war in the Pacific ??

Cite that, please. I'm an old white guy & must be losing my memory. Help an old guy out.

If you can.

[homersapien 11,357]

Let's face it.

The same old ODS sufferers oppose a treaty with Iran because the Obama administration will be given credit for doing it.

To them, nothing is worth more than having that happen. Not the best interests of our country. Not even our children.

I want him getting full credit for what happens.

Good, because if it happens, he will. It - along with healthcare - will be the pillars of his historical legacy.

All that remains for you is to hope for some sort of disastrous calamity resulting to the country from either. Ain't gonna happen.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Sum people just dont get how barry sux an wars is good. We need us another tough talkin aint scared precedent like Trump. We should attack the OP guy personally. He dont no nuthin.

[AUUSN 823]

Let's face it.

The same old ODS sufferers oppose a treaty with Iran because the Obama administration will be given credit for doing it.

To them, nothing is worth more than having that happen. Not the best interests of our country. Not even our children.

I want him getting full credit for what happens.

@ usn - 2 front? Where have i posted any support for s war in the Pacific ??

Cite that, please. I'm an old white guy & must be losing my memory. Help an old guy out.

If you can.

Beefing up resources in the Pacific is happening and a much needed course of action for our national security. You and your other 'old white guys' keep harping on invading Iran. That will take much more resources, hence, offer up your children because we will need them.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

This old white guy doesn't want to invade Iran, just stop them from getting a nuke or prolong it as long possible. Only a sucker would take the deal they want and a ton of retired military people agree.

[quietfan 233]

This week will likely — and finally — witness the dénouementof the longstanding nuclear dispute between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany). Now that we’ve reached the July 7 deadline, there appears to be a strong chance that the negotiations will result in an agreement. Predictably, this has led to a wave of criticism against the Obama administration. For many critics, in particular, a key problem with the deal is that it will inevitably unshackle Iran’s power and consolidate its place as a rapidly rising regional hegemon.

Yet Iran does not come close to having the power necessary for the hegemony that anti-Iran hawks in the United States, Israel, and the Sunni Middle East fret over, and a nuclear deal will not change this reality. Iran’s power is brittle: Its conventional military is increasingly obsolescent, its economy is strangulated by sanctions and mismanagement, and the country is more diplomatically isolated than it has been for decades. As it finalizes negotiations with the P5+1, Iran is dealing from a position of weakness, not strength. The status quo is, for the Islamic Republic, excessively and increasingly costly. Tehran’s optimal outcome from these talks is not to consolidate its regional preponderance but rather to cut its losses after years of mounting sanctions and isolation.

...

Any gains that Iran would make from an agreement resolving the nuclear issue must be seen as opportunities for Tehran to cut its losses, not to make net gains. Iran has made extremely costly choices that have caused major harm to its economy, diplomatic standing, and military power. The Islamic Republic will need decades to repair this damage and eventually generate sufficient capabilities to fulfil its regional ambitions. Those who worry that a deal will irrevocably damage U.S. interests in the Middle East by strengthening its main regional adversary seriously overestimate Iran’s power and influence. They forget that containment has worked: Iran’s economy today is stagnant, its power is brittle, and it is more diplomatically isolated than it has been for decades. This will not change easily.

http://warontherocks...l/?singlepage=1

How dare you introduce a rational and reality-based argument into this forum, AUUSN! Just who do you think you are?!

[AURaptor 1,122]

So many hate filled racists against Obama...

A bipartisan group convened under the auspices of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy released a “Public Statement on U.S. Policy Toward the Iran Nuclear Negotiations.” The group—comprising former Obama administration officials like David Petraeus, Robert Einhorn, Dennis Ross, Gary Samore, and David Makovsky—sets out a list of five conditions that have to be met for a good deal.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/experts-caution-against-bad-iran-nuclear-deal_978194.html

[AURaptor 1,122]

USN - again, cite where I've advocated invading ANY ONE . 2x now you've made unsupported claims. Wanna go for 3 ?

[homersapien 11,357]

This old white guy doesn't want to invade Iran, just stop them from getting a nuke or prolong it as long possible. Only a sucker would take the deal they want and a ton of retired military people agree.

How do you propose we "stop them from getting a nuke" outside of a treaty?

And who suggested we agree to the "deal they want"?

[homersapien 11,357]

So many hate filled racists against Obama...

A bipartisan group convened under the auspices of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy released a "Public Statement on U.S. Policy Toward the Iran Nuclear Negotiations." The group—comprising former Obama administration officials like David Petraeus, Robert Einhorn, Dennis Ross, Gary Samore, and David Makovsky—sets out a list of five conditions that have to be met for a good deal.

http://m.weeklystand...eal_978194.html

I don't get your point. Are any of those people arguing against Obama for even trying?

[homersapien 11,357]

USN - again, cite where I've advocated invading ANY ONE . 2x now you've made unsupported claims. Wanna go for 3 ?

If we walk away from the talks, what do you think is likely to happen?

[AURaptor 1,122]

USN - again, cite where I've advocated invading ANY ONE . 2x now you've made unsupported claims. Wanna go for 3 ?

If we walk away from the talks, what do you think is likely to happen?

Iran just added another condition to the equation, so yes I think this negotiation will fall apart.

[AUUSN 823]

USN - again, cite where I've advocated invading ANY ONE . 2x now you've made unsupported claims. Wanna go for 3 ?

Aww, look at you trying to be cute. Want them to give up the nuclear race? Other than military action, just how do you do that? Sanctions? No-fly zone (wait that's military intervention), Enforce an embargo (wait military intervention again). So again, get your children to the recruiting office so we can schedule a physical. We need them for this new two front war you're drumming.

[Grumps 3,704]

Interesting article. Thanks for posting USN.