LogFAQs > #888403036

Zeus posted...

Given that the deal doesn't adequately prevent that, it doesn't really do much of anything.

It does, though. Literally every signatory to the agreement has verified this and has certified Iran's compliance.

Even if you want to assume that Obama was feckless in signing this, are you going to assume that the leaders of the UK, China, France, Russia, Germany, and the EU, along with all their advisors, all somehow missed this oversight which you, in your wisdom, have spotted?

Pardon my skepticism, but I trust their word over yours.

Zeus posted...

...because you can negotiate a new deal, one that includes some of those and better oversights.

a) You could just as easily negotiate a new deal on those things without torching this one. The US is not bound by an "Only one deal with Iran at a time!" clause.
b) What are you prepared to give up to make that happen? Do you think Iran is even interested in playing ball?
c) Are you seriously suggesting that Donald Trump - the man who hasn't been able to pull his own party together for a successful vote on any of his major campaign priorities, nevermind negotiating with a hostile power - is going to succeed where the aforementioned parties failed? Yeah... good luck with that.

For starters, the deal doesn't give us enough oversight into making sure that they have halted their nuclear ambitions and, in all likelihood, they haven't.

That's not the US giving up anything. And note that even Trump, who is transparently eager to dump this deal, is unwilling to say that they aren't standing by the deal (the farthest he's willing to go is saying that they're not abiding by "the spirit" of the agreement, whatever he's defining that as).

Zeus posted...

Second, what we gave them was ending some massive sanctions (including weapons sanctions) and returning a metric assload of money to them, much of which was then funneled to terrorists

That's also not the US giving up anything. The US could re-instate those sanctions tomorrow, if it wants, it just has to make them about something other than nuclear non-compliance. And there's no shortage of things to sanction Iran over if the US wants to go down that road.

So yeah, you've basically just tacitly admitted that the US gave up nothing in this deal. That's a pretty good deal, if you ask me.

Zeus posted...

What we got in return? Little more than their word that they wouldn't develop nukes because the oversight is shaky.

You keep saying this, but it seems good enough to satisfy seven of the most powerful governments/organizations in the world. Why do you think it's insufficient?

Zeus posted...

We didn't get our prisoners back, we didn't even get token assurances in regards to them ceasing funding terror, etc. There's a pretty huge wish list and none of the boxes were checked.

That's not what the agreement was for. Again, if the US wants those things, nothing is stopping them from negotiating for them and striking up another agreement. And, most critically, that's never what this particular agreement was supposed to do in the first place.

The goal of this agreement was to stop Iran's progress towards a nuclear weapon. That's it. Not "get US prisoners back", not "stop Iranian terrorism," not "turn Iran into a democracy" - those things, while laudable goals, were not the priority for those negotiations. You want those? Go continue dialogue. But axing the previous agreement is not going to endear the Iranians to making any more deals (which could just as easily be reneged on the way this one is).
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!