Do critics of the Iran nuke deal have a point? Yes, they do

(AP)

(AP)

The 15-member UN Security Council voted unanimously this morning to endorse the international agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear program. The vote clears the way for the removal of U.N. economic sanctions against Iran as long as Iran meets its own obligations under the agreement.

Reportedly, the Obama administration had sought to delay the U.N. vote until the U.S. Congress had been given a chance to weigh in, but its negotiating partners overwhelmingly rejected the idea. France, Russia, China and other participants wanted to be on the record in support as soon as possible, thus making it more difficult for either the United States or Iran to withdraw.

And withdrawal would be a stunningly bad idea. Since the plan’s announcement almost a week ago, arms-control experts have overwhelmingly given the agreement high marks, with many saying that it achieves more than they thought possible. The tenor is reflected in the assessment by the nonpartisan Arms Control Association, which concluded that the deal “establishes a strong and effective formula for blocking all of the pathways by which Iran could acquire material for nuclear weapons and promptly detecting and deterring possible efforts by Iran to covertly pursue nuclear weapons in the future.” (For additional examples of overwhelmingly positive analysis, see here and here and here).

So why the almost hysterical opposition from critics? Why has Marco Rubio dubbed today “capitulation Monday,” accusing Obama of “flat-out‎ abandoning America’s vital national security interests to cozy up to the world’s most reprehensible regimes.”? Why has Lindsey Graham called it “akin to declaring war on Israel and the Sunni Arabs”? Why did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu call it Iran’s “dream deal,” claiming that the deal “paves Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal” when arms experts believe it does quite the opposite?

Politics is of course much of the answer. But there’s also a more substantive explanation, an explanation suggested by Netanyahu’s other comments Sunday on “Face the Nation”.

“It makes the problem of terrorism in the region and the world much worse by giving Iran billions of dollars for their war and terror machine,” Netanyahu said. “Not a good deal.”

That’s a legitimate concern. The deal ensures that as long as the Iranians abide by its terms, they won’t be attacked militarily, not by the United States and not by Israel. It means that Iran will be able to rejoin the global economy, once again selling its oil on the free market. It means that the world will reopen to Iran, with the hope that Iran reopens to the world.  And it means that a less isolated, more prosperous Iran will be able to throw its weight around a little more openly, including militarily.

In short, it makes a nuclear Iran much less likely, but by doing so it might make Iran more dangerous in other ways. That’s the tradeoff.

Netanyahu and his supporters don’t accept that tradeoff. They envision an outcome that both guarantees a non-nuclear Iran and that keeps Iran weakened and isolated, but as many have pointed out, they propose no feasible means of attaining that dual outcome. Reality tends to be like that. It does not allow for perfect solutions, only solutions that might be better or worse than others.

In this case, arms-control experts believe that the nuclear deal with Iran is a significant, even improbable accomplishment within the parameters of an arms-control agreement. It does what it was supposed to do, what many thought it could never do.  It does the Big Job of not just stopping but rolling back Iran’s nuclear program.

The fact that it does not resolve issues outside those parameters should not lessen the importance of what it does do.

 

 

Reader Comments 0

1094 comments
StraightNoChaser
StraightNoChaser

All it took for Donald Trump to start polling as number one for the Republican party is to become as vile and he can be.  All of his job materials are made in China and  all of his labor intensive jobs are done by immigrants but because he has an R by his name he is their man.  Please.....

Maggot_Man
Maggot_Man

Well, Kerry is 'very disturbed' by comments by Iran made this weekend. Big surprise. Where is W, Cheney, and Rumsfeld when you need them?

lvg
lvg

@Maggot_Man Time for Trump to swift boat Kerry  so he can show he is a real Republican

Wena Mow Masipa How
Wena Mow Masipa How

@alexander2

How do you know I only got one? How do you know I'm not a collector of fine, non-US made automobiles? And are you my bro-in-law? You seem surprisingly bent out of shape by that one comment I made. And, no, I don't now own and will never own a Maserati. It is for poseurs or those who don't know any better.

Mick11
Mick11

"keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer",  godfather 101

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@TBS

systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation


Yep. Right there in the mission statement, folks. Not pretending to be fair and balanced.

Shocking, innit?

td1234
td1234

Well I will be danged. Obama has ordered the flags at the WH to be lowered to half mast in honor of the Chattanooga incident as he heads to speak to the national VFW's convention. 

Wena Mow Masipa How
Wena Mow Masipa How

I guess you finally got through, td. Well done old chap!!!

See, your persistence paid off.

TBS
TBS

This James O'keefe type edited video isn't going to do anything except allow social conservatives to use it for contributions

I hope that the House and Senate do convene hearings

Going to be more than just the edited video presented

I will have the popcorn ready for that comedy show

Going to be a lot of laughter going on

td1234
td1234

@TBS You have come back as TBS this morning and not Nobody knows?

td1234
td1234

Media Matters For America founder David Brock admitted Monday that his nonprofit, tax-exempt organization specifically defends Hillary Clinton, a political candidate for office, from Republican criticism.

Brock’s stunning admission calls into question the nonprofit status of his left-wing media monitoring organization.

Brock made the admission in an op-ed defending his group’s association with Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary Clinton’s political adviser and informal Libya consultant.

Blumenthal fed Clinton information from Media Matters while advising the former secretary of state in the aftermath of the Benghazi terrorist attack. Blumenthal was serving as a paid Media Matters consultant at the time.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/22/media-matters-founder-we-defend-hillary-clinton/#ixzz3gXI3TpiK

td1234
td1234

@Visual_Cortex Meaning they are NOT a legitimate news source. Anything published by the organization can be eliminated immediately as nothing more than propaganda. 

ByteMe
ByteMe

@Nick_Danger it's so blindingly obvious they had to throw in a Benghazi reference just to be sure that the dog whistle got blown loud enough.

ByteMe
ByteMe

@Visual_Cortex That'd be "no", considering where he posts info from.  Facebook links?  (eyeroll)

td1234
td1234

@Visual_Cortex They present themselves as a legitimate news source not like Bill O'Reily who presents himself as an opinion journalist. Do you not see the attempt to defraud? 

GaBlue
GaBlue

@td1234

And slimy little hate bloggers defend Bill Cosby's decades of drugging and raping women. SO? 

ByteMe
ByteMe

@Visual_Cortex He'll dodge that as well and change the subject to something else while never admitting he's being duped.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@td1234 @Visual_Cortex

Dude, seriously, who calls them a "news source"? Do you seriously not get the difference between down the middle reporting and analysis/opinion?

Brosephus
Brosephus

@td1234 

Not a legitimate news source while linking something from the Daily Caller... LOL!!!!


Wanna talk propaganda outlets??

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

...and the Center for Medical Progress and Anti-Babby-Killin', or whatever that outfit was calling itself.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@td1234

admitted Monday that his nonprofit, tax-exempt organization specifically defends Hillary Clinton

And? So?

Do you think your pooooor, persecuted-by-the-Ah-Are-Ess Teaper groups don't defend GOPers?

ByteMe
ByteMe

 @td1234 Claims this is in the video: “Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine, if it’s still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.”

Put up or shut up.  Get us the timestamp in the unedited 3-hour video to go watch this being said.

20 minutes later and td isn't even woman enough to respond that he's being duped.

Oops, was that sexist? ;)

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

hey, td?


Oh, so it is reasonable to go to Media matters or the Think progress to get your rebuttal points


When I happen upon a video or audio clip at Media Matters, it is always presented with a decent amount of context, never jump-cut or edited to pile one comment atop another in an way that wasn't intended.

They don't have to do that to make right wingers look foolish, you see. It'd be gilding the lily.


td1234
td1234

@Visual_Cortex Media Matters is nothing more that a progressive propaganda machine. The founder admitted his organizations main goal is to elect Hillary. 

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@td1234 @Visual_Cortex

a progressive propaganda machine

Yes, they're that.

Does that mean the videos are doctored? 

The audio clips are cut in a way to make the speaker look foolish?

Got proof, td?

consumedconsumer
consumedconsumer

@DownInAlbany yeah, and the Soviets said they'd bury us, but we still entered into a lot of agreements with them before they fell now didn't we. Cut the fake outrage. It just makes you look foolish.

ByteMe
ByteMe

@DownInAlbany "complicated".  Just like it is with China and Mexico and Brazil.

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

@DownInAlbany 

You mean there's a guy in Iran who doesn't like the US? 

We should never make an agreement with a country that has somebody in it who doesn't like us, right, td?  *sigh*

ByteMe
ByteMe

@td1234 Claims this is in the video: Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine, if it’s still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.

Put up or shut up.  Get us the timestamp in the unedited 3-hour video to go watch this being said.

TBS
TBS

Hope you are not holding your breath

DownInAlbany
DownInAlbany

@ByteMe @td1234 Ahhhh, getting caught up in the talking points, but, unable to defend the FACT that PP is selling body parts.

Wow

ByteMe
ByteMe

@TBS I'm not.  td is very predictable.

ByteMe
ByteMe

@DownInAlbany Nope, he's making a specific claim that I don't think happened at all.  I want him to defend it.


As for what you're claiming as "FACT", that's not substantiated either and we've already posted a number of refutations of it that you choose to ignore to keep the conversation going.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@ByteMe @td1234

Look, isn't it enough that Gay Mattie with the Smellie Hattie put this atop his page this mornin'?


DOCTOR HAGGLING PRICE OF BABY SCRAPS

LAMBORGHINI FOR TISSUE


what more proof do you need?

consumedconsumer
consumedconsumer

@DownInAlbany @ByteMe @td1234 body parts get sold. the question is whether what they're doing / suggesting is illegal. so far, i haven't seen any charges, or even hints of charges. until then, it's a right wing noise machine doing what it does . . . making noise

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

@DownInAlbany @ByteMe @td1234 

"unable to defend the FACT that PP is selling body parts."

Have they been charged?

I'm beginning to suspect you don't know the true definition of the word, "fact."  That explains a lot, actually.