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.
Robert, Thanks for the comment. It's important to remember that the JCPOA was based on the assumption that keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons was the top priority. Other issues were never part of the negotiations -- and sanctions based on other issues remain in effect. The frozen assets that were unfrozen were significant, but it was Iranian money to begin with and it was the freezing of this money that brought them to, essentially, give up their nuclear weapons program. We are free to pursue other issues -- missiles, terrorism -- by other means, but need to keep the nuclear issue at the top of the agenda. Trump's leaving the deal simply gave them the excuse to resume weapons development.
I understand the other issues were not part of the negotiation but they should have been. Conventional weapons, especially a hundred thousand missiles in the hands of Hezbollah, can kill in a more practical way than a nuclear weapon. Moreover, as I pointed out, the negotiations led to relaxing a resolution on missile development. I can understand your viewpoint if the relaxed sanctions were minimal compared to other sanctions that could continue. I am not enough of a specialist to know. But enriching the Iranian regime, given its current and future expected behavior, is not a desirable policy in my view. I realize I could be incorrect but you seem to believe there are no or few tradeoffs.
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?
Ed, I have a hard time myself understanding opposition on both U.S. and Israeli sides. There was a misconception that when the time limits in the agreement come to an end, Iran would have a green light to go ahead. Simply not so. Other than that, there was criticism that it didn't cover Iranian missiles or terrorist support (it was never intended to), and a general feeling that Iran can't be trusted (the agreement doesn't assume such trust).
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.
Robert, Thanks for the comment. It's important to remember that the JCPOA was based on the assumption that keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons was the top priority. Other issues were never part of the negotiations -- and sanctions based on other issues remain in effect. The frozen assets that were unfrozen were significant, but it was Iranian money to begin with and it was the freezing of this money that brought them to, essentially, give up their nuclear weapons program. We are free to pursue other issues -- missiles, terrorism -- by other means, but need to keep the nuclear issue at the top of the agenda. Trump's leaving the deal simply gave them the excuse to resume weapons development.
I understand the other issues were not part of the negotiation but they should have been. Conventional weapons, especially a hundred thousand missiles in the hands of Hezbollah, can kill in a more practical way than a nuclear weapon. Moreover, as I pointed out, the negotiations led to relaxing a resolution on missile development. I can understand your viewpoint if the relaxed sanctions were minimal compared to other sanctions that could continue. I am not enough of a specialist to know. But enriching the Iranian regime, given its current and future expected behavior, is not a desirable policy in my view. I realize I could be incorrect but you seem to believe there are no or few tradeoffs.
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?
Ed, I have a hard time myself understanding opposition on both U.S. and Israeli sides. There was a misconception that when the time limits in the agreement come to an end, Iran would have a green light to go ahead. Simply not so. Other than that, there was criticism that it didn't cover Iranian missiles or terrorist support (it was never intended to), and a general feeling that Iran can't be trusted (the agreement doesn't assume such trust).