Joe Biden wants to return to the nuclear agreement between Iran and the six major world powers. Would restoration of the nuclear deal be good for the United States -- and also for Israel, despite the opposition of its government? Yes. The agreement does not cover other conflicts, and key provisions are for limited time periods. But the United States and Israel -- and everyone else including Iran's Arab neighbors -- are better off with the deal than without it. Consider the following basic facts:
The only way that the U.S. got such universal support to force the Iranians to back down on nuclear weapons was by focusing on that alone. There was no such support (Russia, China, etc.) on other issues. Throwing them into the mix would have led to failure on the main goal.
Glad to see you are active. Although I agree with several of your posts, this one ignores an important tradeoff that critics have highlighted. The JCPOA eliminated most sactions that would end of strengthening Iran economically and thus providing more revenues to pursue the aggressive and often terrorist tactics in the region and elsewher. Certainly, Hezbollah has fewer resources because of the reimposition of sanctions, with several articles citing their difficult in paying salaries of their armed men. With more revenues and fewer sanctions, Iran would be able to do more to build up non-nuclear military weaponry. And the JCPOA ended up removing the UN sanction on missile development (yes, I know they would be ignoring this saction but at least their violation would be clear). Despite all these negatives, I can understand some arguing for the JCPOA, but what I cannot understand is how you can ignore the tradeoffs embedded in the policy.
Alan, it seems clear that the nuclear agreement with Iran is in the interest of Israel as well as that of the US. Why then has Israel opposed the agreement? Trump opposed the agreement because many Americans did, mostly American Jews, maybe some Christians? What has been the thinking of those Americans who opposed the agreement? I do not understand them! If there were a war, how would the costs be apportioned among Iran, Israel, and the US?
The only way that the U.S. got such universal support to force the Iranians to back down on nuclear weapons was by focusing on that alone. There was no such support (Russia, China, etc.) on other issues. Throwing them into the mix would have led to failure on the main goal.
Hi, Alan,
Glad to see you are active. Although I agree with several of your posts, this one ignores an important tradeoff that critics have highlighted. The JCPOA eliminated most sactions that would end of strengthening Iran economically and thus providing more revenues to pursue the aggressive and often terrorist tactics in the region and elsewher. Certainly, Hezbollah has fewer resources because of the reimposition of sanctions, with several articles citing their difficult in paying salaries of their armed men. With more revenues and fewer sanctions, Iran would be able to do more to build up non-nuclear military weaponry. And the JCPOA ended up removing the UN sanction on missile development (yes, I know they would be ignoring this saction but at least their violation would be clear). Despite all these negatives, I can understand some arguing for the JCPOA, but what I cannot understand is how you can ignore the tradeoffs embedded in the policy.
Alan, it seems clear that the nuclear agreement with Iran is in the interest of Israel as well as that of the US. Why then has Israel opposed the agreement? Trump opposed the agreement because many Americans did, mostly American Jews, maybe some Christians? What has been the thinking of those Americans who opposed the agreement? I do not understand them! If there were a war, how would the costs be apportioned among Iran, Israel, and the US?