Is the nuclear deal a good thing

[MorningGlory]

 

 

Lets have a class 101 on exactly what is going on.A lesson for dummies on the nuclear deal. 

 

Okay, bopeep.  I elect you as the teacher.  I have to admit I haven't studied up on this interminable, boring, stupid, lopsided 'deal' at all.  But we all should know what's going on with it. 

 

What?That is why I was passively asking for help.I would like someone to hand over a little grace and give me a novice lesson.I have not studied it either. 

 

 

Well, phooey.  Okay does anyone reading this have a lot of knowledge about the subject?  I'll admit to not being interested enough to read up on it. 

[Guest]

This is from KGS NightWatch, a worldwide security analysis organization:

 

Iran-US:  Special comment: The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).  A number of Readers sent special requests for NightWatch comments on the JCPOA, the title of the nuclear agreement between Iran and six powers.  NightWatch is a commentary on foreign threats to the US and its interests. That focus normally excludes most developments involving US negotiators, but not always.

 

As for the JCPOA, a few obvious points have been missed in most news coverage of this plan of action. The comments that follow are judgments based on the language of the public text, in context.  They are not value judgments.

 

First, the agreement is not a non-proliferation agreement. It is an agreement that approves limited proliferation of nuclear technology.  This characterization means that the US and others states surrendered or abandoned their longstanding position of banning any Iranian nuclear program, peaceful or not.

 

It also is not a nuclear containment agreement. At most, it postpones some aspects of Iranian nuclear infrastructure development. In other areas, Iran can continue to develop and modernize to keep up with technology.  At the end of 15 years at most, Iran has no more restrictions on its nuclear program, with the approval of the UN and the other powers, by implication.

 

This compromise of the longstanding programmatic ban for Iran is curious because that remains the US objective for North Korea. The US insists that North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons, must dismantle its nuclear program, not just its weapons program. That is the premise of the Six Party Talks.

 

The difference in the negotiating positions is even stranger because the Iranian and North Korean weapons programs appear to be essentially variants of the same program. The North Korean variant is more advanced. Nevertheless, North Korea has assisted Iran’s ballistic missile programs since the Iraq-Iran War.  Iranians have been reported as observers at North Korean missile and nuclear tests. The cooperation continues as does the North Korean program.

 

The second point is that it is a very one-sided deal. It lacks mutuality. By an overwhelming margin the burden of performance is on the UN, the European Union and the US.  Its economic implications far exceed its nuclear restrictions. From the Iranian viewpoint, the JCPOA is primarily an economic agreement.

 

In return for some reduction in the Iranian nuclear programs, the UN and the US will remove the entire architecture of sanctions imposed by any party on any Iranian party. In addition, they will allow Iran to buy and sell conventional weapons and they will help Iran get access to trade, technology, finance and energy. According to the text, this is one paragraph in which Iran “agreed” to the actions by the UN and the US.

 

One of the implications of this is that Iran stands to emerge quickly as a regional economic power. Using Germany as a model, that condition is far more enduring and consequential than a delayed nuclear program. 

 

Once Iran’s economy starts to rebound, it will be free from the threat of sanctions to ensure compliance.  There is no credible enforcement mechanism.

.

A third point is that the text is a plan of action, as it is entitled. Significant by their absence in the text are the words “promise” and “agree” which are the cornerstones of enforceable agreements.  

 

The text uses the formulation that the parties “will” do things. Those could all be done independently or not. There is no bargain evident.

 

An enforceable agreement is an exchange of promises of performance.  A plan of action implements those promises. The performance of one party is conditioned on the performance by the other party, by the language of the agreement. The terms of the JCPOA are independent.

 

This plan of action implements no agreement because no such document exists.  An agreement can be implied from the language of the plan, but the language must establish a “meeting of the minds.” 

 

Fourth, a strong argument can be made that there is “no meeting of the minds,” a classic term of contract law that is the basis for every agreement.  The awkwardness of the structure makes clear that the intentions of the parties are not congruent and the goals are even farther apart.

 

Fifth, the JCPOA text contains no definition of terms, such as explanations for the various time terms. A plan of action requires some agreed definitions of terms. One plausible theory for a ten year time period, for example, is that Iranian strategists might have concluded that Iran faces no existential threat for at least a decade, as long as Iran did not provoke a regional nuclear arms race.

 

They also might have judged that after ten years Iran must be prepared for an even more uncertain strategic environment than the present. If this theory is accurate, Iran gave up little in return for a chance to be the regional economic hegemon. The emergence of an economically powerful Iran would alter strategic power relationships.

 

Finally, the six powers did not include a term requiring Iran to affirm or promise that it possesses or has access to no nuclear weapons now, in Iran or elsewhere. That seems to be a significant omission in crafting. If Iran already has nuclear weapons, the JCPOA would be a strategic victory for Iran.  

 

Assuming Iran abides by the JCPOA to the letter, the JCPOA will empower Iran economically and that will shift the balance of power in the region, regardless of the nuclear program. The Iranians do well to celebrate.There will be more on this.

[missmuffet]

 

 

Listen to Glenn Beck...

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-framework-agreement-2015-4

I thought Glenn Beck is Mormon.

 

He is, but he has a good news show....   do you discount everything a Mormon says????/

 

When it comes to anything that has to do with God...yes.

[missmuffet]

This is from KGS NightWatch, a worldwide security analysis organization:

 

Iran-US:  Special comment: The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).  A number of Readers sent special requests for NightWatch comments on the JCPOA, the title of the nuclear agreement between Iran and six powers.  NightWatch is a commentary on foreign threats to the US and its interests. That focus normally excludes most developments involving US negotiators, but not always.

 

As for the JCPOA, a few obvious points have been missed in most news coverage of this plan of action. The comments that follow are judgments based on the language of the public text, in context.  They are not value judgments.

 

First, the agreement is not a non-proliferation agreement. It is an agreement that approves limited proliferation of nuclear technology.  This characterization means that the US and others states surrendered or abandoned their longstanding position of banning any Iranian nuclear program, peaceful or not.

 

It also is not a nuclear containment agreement. At most, it postpones some aspects of Iranian nuclear infrastructure development. In other areas, Iran can continue to develop and modernize to keep up with technology.  At the end of 15 years at most, Iran has no more restrictions on its nuclear program, with the approval of the UN and the other powers, by implication.

 

This compromise of the longstanding programmatic ban for Iran is curious because that remains the US objective for North Korea. The US insists that North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons, must dismantle its nuclear program, not just its weapons program. That is the premise of the Six Party Talks.

 

The difference in the negotiating positions is even stranger because the Iranian and North Korean weapons programs appear to be essentially variants of the same program. The North Korean variant is more advanced. Nevertheless, North Korea has assisted Iran’s ballistic missile programs since the Iraq-Iran War.  Iranians have been reported as observers at North Korean missile and nuclear tests. The cooperation continues as does the North Korean program.

 

The second point is that it is a very one-sided deal. It lacks mutuality. By an overwhelming margin the burden of performance is on the UN, the European Union and the US.  Its economic implications far exceed its nuclear restrictions. From the Iranian viewpoint, the JCPOA is primarily an economic agreement.

 

In return for some reduction in the Iranian nuclear programs, the UN and the US will remove the entire architecture of sanctions imposed by any party on any Iranian party. In addition, they will allow Iran to buy and sell conventional weapons and they will help Iran get access to trade, technology, finance and energy. According to the text, this is one paragraph in which Iran “agreed” to the actions by the UN and the US.

 

One of the implications of this is that Iran stands to emerge quickly as a regional economic power. Using Germany as a model, that condition is far more enduring and consequential than a delayed nuclear program. 

 

Once Iran’s economy starts to rebound, it will be free from the threat of sanctions to ensure compliance.  There is no credible enforcement mechanism.

.

A third point is that the text is a plan of action, as it is entitled. Significant by their absence in the text are the words “promise” and “agree” which are the cornerstones of enforceable agreements.  

 

The text uses the formulation that the parties “will” do things. Those could all be done independently or not. There is no bargain evident.

 

An enforceable agreement is an exchange of promises of performance.  A plan of action implements those promises. The performance of one party is conditioned on the performance by the other party, by the language of the agreement. The terms of the JCPOA are independent.

 

This plan of action implements no agreement because no such document exists.  An agreement can be implied from the language of the plan, but the language must establish a “meeting of the minds.” 

 

Fourth, a strong argument can be made that there is “no meeting of the minds,” a classic term of contract law that is the basis for every agreement.  The awkwardness of the structure makes clear that the intentions of the parties are not congruent and the goals are even farther apart.

 

Fifth, the JCPOA text contains no definition of terms, such as explanations for the various time terms. A plan of action requires some agreed definitions of terms. One plausible theory for a ten year time period, for example, is that Iranian strategists might have concluded that Iran faces no existential threat for at least a decade, as long as Iran did not provoke a regional nuclear arms race.

 

They also might have judged that after ten years Iran must be prepared for an even more uncertain strategic environment than the present. If this theory is accurate, Iran gave up little in return for a chance to be the regional economic hegemon. The emergence of an economically powerful Iran would alter strategic power relationships.

 

Finally, the six powers did not include a term requiring Iran to affirm or promise that it possesses or has access to no nuclear weapons now, in Iran or elsewhere. That seems to be a significant omission in crafting. If Iran already has nuclear weapons, the JCPOA would be a strategic victory for Iran.  

 

Assuming Iran abides by the JCPOA to the letter, the JCPOA will empower Iran economically and that will shift the balance of power in the region, regardless of the nuclear program. The Iranians do well to celebrate.There will be more on this.

Thanks Rick 

[Guest shiloh357]

No wonder groups like Hizbollah were dancing in the streets.

[Tolken]

One will find various views on the "Deal", setting aside the political over tones many experts believe it to be a "good" deal. And as always few really confront the alternatives.

 

 

“Kingston Reif, the director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, said that the deal is an “historic” achievement that could, if properly put into practice, ensure that Iran does not attain a nuclear weapon.“If successfully implemented it would be a historic non-proliferation and national security breakthrough,” he told Anadolu Agency. He said that despite compromises made to broker the accord, it is “overall a very strong, effective, and verifiable agreement.”

http://waarmedia.com/english/iran-nuclear-agreement-a-good-deal-say-experts/

[Guest shiloh357]

Chamberlain all over again.

[OneLight]

This only pushed the seriousness to another president and off Obama's back.  Time will tell how Iran will move on this peaceful mission.

[Tolken]

shiloh357 wrote - Chamberlain all over again.

 

http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/why_critics_of_the_iran_deal_should_hope_obama_is_like_neville_chamberlain

 

 

 

Onelight wrote - This only pushed the seriousness to another president and off Obama's back.  Time will tell how Iran will move on this peaceful mission.

 

Yes, exactly what Presidents have been doing for 50 plus years with their failed Middle East policies. I agree time will tell whether there is any gain from this, but certainly we should realize how military intervention has failed in the past...and miserably.

[Guest shiloh357]

I am not hoping he is like Chamberlain.  He IS just like Chamberlain.   Iran has no intention of abiding by anything and they are now free to support terrorism and bankroll Hizbollah.

 

Even if Iran abides by this deal, they will EVENTUALLY get a nuke   All this stupid deal does is kick the can down the road and then someone else has to deal with this problem. It is not a solution, nor is it a good deal.