improving in other areas. It would be a nice side benefit as they did, but the ONLY thing this agreement is based on is keeping them from getting an nuclear bomb. Assume that they do refuse to change in any other way, is it better that they are under this agreement -- or back to where they were before negotiations - about 3 months from a nuclear bomb. THE MORE RECALCITRANT IRAN IS THE MORE IMPORTANT THIS DEAL REMAINS.
Do you prefer where we were? Where it was internal Israeli forces that at least three times stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran? Note that Iran already has the knowledge required to make a bomb, this means that even if every facility is blown to pieces, they could rebuild facilities in an estimated 3 to 5 years - according to both Israeli and US estimates. So, do we want to initiate a military action - that could with high likelihood become a war OR do we accept an agreement, that if followed, keeps Iran from getting a bomb for at least 15 years?
Not to mention, we have seen this before. Remember before the interim agreement, before the framework, and before the final deal -- hardliners in Iran, including the Ayatollah put out many many statements that YOU JUMPED ON to suggest that Kerry/Obama were naive or not telling the full story. Yet, as Kerry responded many times when Republicans claimed the framework was not real --- that they could look at who said what before the interim deal and it was clear that the international community did really get a deal in line with what they said was agreed. In July, we saw that the deal is in line with the framework -- just as Kerry and others said.
Now, there was ONE comment of hope - where Kerry spoke of Zarif telling him that he might be able to work with him on regional issues. This appears to be real, though that should not be interpreted to mean that Zarif will suddenly back the US position - whether on Syria or Yemen -- any more than Lavrov speaking with Kerry does not mean that Russia's position changes in that direction.
Not to mention, from reading various opinions on the impact of this deal - it seems that there is actually a fear that Iran DOES moderate enough that they become a stronger geo-political force in the area. For many neo cons, this is a huge negative, rather than a potential positive. In fact, I suspect that much of the anger over this agreement is that it is an absolute step back from neo con ideas.
= new reply since forum marked as read
