Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I think Iran wants to get the most they can from the situation.
Oh my . . . this senseless discussion is, at best, like being on laughing gas. Yeah . . . like most negotiations where parties try to get the worst from the situation.
If it means trading off nuclear capability to benefit economically from reduced sanctions they'll do it.
This is as hilarious as watching a dog chase its tail. Let's see . . .there were no sanctions (ergo beneficial to its economy) on Iran until it was suspected they were trying to develop nuclear weapons. So, when sanctions were imposed, negotiations went on and on for years (while Iran continued enrichment). And agreements appeared to have been reached, only to be broken. So now we are to believe that Iran will finally trade off that which caused the sanctions in order not to have sanctions. Which is supposedly where they were before sanctions.
But it doesn't want to trade it all away. So the U.S. says, OK, just give it up for 10 more years. Well, of course, the round and round has been going on for more than 10 years, so what's another 10? Besides, during the previous 10++ years Iran has been gaining the nuclear capability it wanted, and that advance will not be forfeited. And, if during the coming 10 years it "appears" that Iran is still working toward the bomb, we'll do what? Negotiate some more? Militarily attack it--which we haven't been willing to do the previous 10 years because that would create a supposedly worse mess? And Iran probably realizes that we won't do so in the future. Especially since, if sanctions are lifted now, it will be welcomed into the anti-Western SOC and BRIC alliances (which are basically run by Russia and China). And which will serve as an even more powerful face against Western military action.
At the same time if we think they're crazy and hell bent on destroying Israel it's probably going to help them get a better deal. It's a position to negotiate from.
Negotiate what? This is maddening. If all Iran wanted was a nuclear program for peaceful purposes it could have had it YEARS ago. It could have restarted the program the Shah had started. There would be no need to be in "a position to negotiate from." I don't know if "they're crazy and hell bent on destroying Israel". Do you? They keep threatening to do so. What? . . . is that merely a ploy to get a deal which they could easily get without misleading us into thinking they would destroy Israel? What's the point of creating disinformation to get what can be had by an honest contracting with an outside designer and implementer of a peaceful nuclear program? Why do the dogs in this charade keep chasing their own tail?
The Zakaria piece you so adored makes a great point. Does Iran have more to gain by having some capability than actually having a bomb and starting a new arms race? If they really wanted a bomb couldn't they have had one years ago? According to Bibi they've been on the cusp for decades.
|
If you try to understand what Iran has to gain by filtering their thoughts and desires through YOUR brain, you will, in effect, decide what THEY want to gain by what YOU think it is worth it for them to gain. I don't think the leaders of Iran view life, the world, the way you, or I, or the West does. What they consider gain is probably worlds apart from our opinion.
I don't know if they could have had the bomb years ago. And the world has changed dramatically in some major respects in the last decade or two. And seems to change more rapidly as time goes on.
Are we going to rely on our ability to monitor Iran's nuclear progress? Then do we rely on that ability which was supposedly monitoring it all along, and that monitoring has been saying that Iran has been creeping toward nuclear weapons ability to the point where, as Zakaria says, it is only months away? I don't know if Iran could have had the bomb years ago. There were stronger forces against it back then. But I believe they could have had a peaceful nuclear program years ago--very easily by continuing the Shah's program.
What are we supposed to think Iran has to gain from getting a bomb? Wouldn't we have to think like the Iranian leaders in order to have an idea of what they believe they will gain from getting it? What were they thinking when they replaced the West friendly Shah with their theocratic regime. And what do they profess are the aims of their theocracy? We refuse to accept what they actually say their world view is and what they say about us, what their aims are vis-a-vis the West. We want to rationalize their desires into what is desirable in ours.
Iran, even more than being on the cusp of getting the bomb, is only a moment away from joining powerful anti-Western alliances. The only reason they are not at this moment a contractual partner in those alliances is because of U.N. sanctions. Once those sanctions are lifted (as would happen when an agreement is reached) they will very quickly become official members of SOC and probably BRIC. And the most pacifistic desire of those alliances is merely to neutralize the power and influence of the U.S and what they consider its lackeys. But their darkest desire may be far more than a neutralization, maybe closer to a replacement. A destruction of Western civilization to be replaced by what they refer to as a Eurasian civilization.
Let us just ignore all that. Iran and everybody else in the world, is basically like us. Go along to get along. Social justice, equality, everybody pursuing their individual dreams. Respect for the integrity of other nations. Hey, if Obama and Iran get together on a deal, the mullahs will recognize Israel's right to exist, correct?
Is it conceivable, in your mind Spence, that what Iran wants to gain is not only nuclear weapons but a stronger more secure face to the West, whom it considers an enemy to its values, and the power, through military might and powerful alliances to face down the West, even defeat it?
No, Zakaria's piece doesn't make a good point.