Skip to main content

Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant.
Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant
Sixty percent of Americans surveyed in an Associated Press/GfK poll say they approve of a six-month agreement negotiated last year with Iran to curtail elements of that country's nuclear development program to keep it from obtaining nuclear weapons. But 47 percent say they think it is unlikely the agreement will achieve its ends. And only 42 percent say they approve of how President Obama is handling the situation in Iran.

Iran has repeatedly said it is only engaged in nuclear development for peaceful purposes and has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. U.S. intelligence officials say they do not believe Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons or the capacity for building them, but has sought to do so in the past.

Lara Jakes and Jennifer Agiesta report:

"From a diplomatic standpoint, it would be great to be able to negotiate and come up with a solution that would eliminate the chance for nuclear weapons for Iran," respondent Lance Hughey, 40, a lawyer from LaCrosse, Wis., said Monday.

However, "Iran is a difficult country to trust," said Hughey, who identified himself as an independent voter with slightly Republican leanings. "And the leadership that we see out of D.C., the way things have been conducted with Syria ... I don't believe (the president) has the leadership skills to deal with Iran."

The reporters did not quote anyone who approves of the deal or the president's leadership skills.

Negotiations that began secretly in March 2013 finally produced a deal in November between Iran and the so-called P5+1, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. The interim deal is designed to relieve economic sanctions that will mean a gain of $7 billion for Iran while it constrains that nation's nuclear development for six months while a permanent agreement is negotiated.

Among the restrictions: Iran must dilute or convert to uranium oxide all uranium enriched above 5 percent; no new uranium-enriched centrifuges can be installed or prepared for installation; no new enrichement or uranium-processing facilities can be built; half the centrifuges at the Natanz facility and three-fourths of those at the hardened underground facility at Fordow must be left inoperable; international inspectors will be granted access at those two facilities with 24-hour cameras installed in some locations; inspectors will have access to Iranian uranium minds and centrifuge factories; none of the advanced centrifuges Iran has built can be used for enrichment; no fuel tested or transferred to the heavy water-moderated nuclear power plant at Arak and details of its design must be shared.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 07:01 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  60% agree with the deal BUT only 42% approve (7+ / 0-)

    Of how President Obama is handling the situation with iran?  That poll does not make any sense.  Without Obama as president, there would be no deal.

  •  Because most agree with Winston. (5+ / 0-)

    "Jaw jaw is better than war war."

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 07:18:07 AM PST

  •  there won't be a permanent solution (5+ / 0-)

    unless the US comes clean about the Israeli nuclear arsenal and gives Iran security guarantees on that front.

    Nothing short of a call for a WMD-free Middle East will lead to a permanent settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue.

    Obama is unwilling to spend any political capital on a permanent solution; rather, he would kick the can down the road until he's out of office. If it blows up in the next president's lap, it's not his problem anymore, he can't be blamed.

    If he can buy six months with an interim agreement, that's six months he doesn't have to worry about it.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 07:29:59 AM PST

    •  Nothing to do with Israel (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe from Lowell, Victor Ward

      To the extent Iran want's it has nothing to do with Israel, but rather with (in no particular order):  the US, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

      •  you don't think an undeclared nuclear arsenal (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WattleBreakfast, Victor Ward

        belonging to a nation that constantly pushes for military confrontation with Iran affects Iran's nuclear policy?

        Anyhow, if the Iranians just want nuclear capability as a bargaining chip to give them regional hegemony, and not to maintain parity with hostile nations with WMD, then offering them a WMD-free Middle East ought to be a good test of their sincerity, yes?

        "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

        by limpidglass on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 08:26:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Israel has had nukes since the 70s. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Justanothernyer, Victor Ward

          The Iranians only stepped up their nuclear program since the invasion of Iraq.

          Anyhow, the US can't offer Iran a WMD-free Middle East. The Israeli government isn't exactly dancing to our tune.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 08:32:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I like to assume that Iran (0+ / 0-)

            …acquired nukes from Pakistan a rather long time ago, myself.

            This assumption explains a lot about foreign policies in the region -- and has made most short-term skirmish outcome predictions quite accurate.


            “The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had.” ― Eric Schmidt

            by Pluto on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:16:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Wrong -- the Iraninan program dates to Shah (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            truong son traveler, JesseCW

            The Iranian nuclear program dates back to the days of the Shah of Iran when it was considered really cool for them to buy American reactor technology from France.   After the revolution, France welched on the deal but kept the money that had already been paid.   (I think this has been sort of worked out by now but that is the genesis of the Iranian/Russian effort.)

            After operation Opera, when Israel blew up Saddam's declared civilian nuclear program, the Iranians decided to harden their sites for fairly obvious reasons.

            A lot has to do with what I consider to be poor decisions made long ago, partly at the instigation at the west.  

            The key to understanding the issue is to realize that Iran does not refine their own oil -- they depend upon the Saudis for a lot of their fuel.   Saudi Arabia and Iran are not exactly best buddies at the moment, so it is in their interest to cut that dependence.   We (the west) are willing for them to have nuclear power but we want to control the supply of enriched uranium so that we can keep them "under control."   Obviously they don't want that so they want to refine their own fuel and have an independent energy supply.    

            It sounds funny that Iran would need energy, but when your whole economy depends upon oil exports it is rather shortsighted to burn oil that you could be selling.    I think that choosing nuclear was a mistake and I suspect that the Iranian leadership is now looking to natural gas for more of their needs (they have the world's #2 reserves, Russia has the world's #1 and that explains a hell of a lot of the politics since Russia doesn't want to lose their monopoly to Europe...)

            •  Even if Iran abandoned nuclear energy tomorrow (0+ / 0-)

              and walked away from the sunk-cost in return for a renewable energy tech offer (which I bet they could get)....

              They'd still need their own research reactor or two and their own fuel for it.

              Because Iran simply cannot trust anyone else to provide them with fuel, period.  And without such a reactor, tens of thousands of Iranians will up dead from treatable cancers, just as tens of thousands of Iraqi's did while Clinton was laying siege to their country.

              "I read New republic and Nation/I've learned to take every view.." P. Ochs

              by JesseCW on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 01:01:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  An Iran that signs a nuclear deal with the world.. (0+ / 0-)

                would be able to trust other countries to provide them with fuel, because an Iran that enters such a deal would have both legal rights under that deal, and enjoy an end to its pariah status.

                Certainly, as things were in 2012, the Iranians couldn't depend on the rest of the world providing them with fuel, but changing their position in the world, and the world's position on the Iranian nuclear program, is what this whole diplomatic initiative (on both sides) is about.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 07:33:43 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Iran had not violated the NPT when France stole (0+ / 0-)

                  hundreds of millions of dollars and refused to deliver the reactor the Iranian people paid for.

                  When the Shah fell, multiple Western nations including the US stole hundreds of millions that had been pre-paid for weapons systems, leaving Iran unable to support the weapons systems the Iranian people had purchased over the years.

                  The result was a million dead Iranians.   And sick fucks chuckling in D.C. about how funny it was that we got Saddam to do it for us.

                  Iran is least untrustworthy party involved in the current negotiations.

                  To surrender their right to process their own fuel and go along with Obama's mercantilist fantasy of a "Nuclear Fuel Bank" is to surrender their energy independence and agree to give the US the power to unilaterally shut down their reactors at any time.

                  "I read New republic and Nation/I've learned to take every view.." P. Ochs

                  by JesseCW on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 02:09:11 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What is that, random stuff 'bout Iran day? (0+ / 0-)

                    Are you trying to make a point about the wisdom of Iran signing a deal, or have you appointed yourself Iran's lawyer?

                    And your last paragraph is just silly.

                    Art is the handmaid of human good.

                    by joe from Lowell on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:38:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ah. History started last Tuesday and Iran should (0+ / 0-)

                      forget a series of grotesque betrayals by three of the five members of the UN Security Council.

                      My bad.

                      It would take a special kind of stupid to believe that the US would not use a stranglehold on Irans fuel supply for economic leverage to get US based transnationals free access to Iranian markets.

                      "I read New republic and Nation/I've learned to take every view.." P. Ochs

                      by JesseCW on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:20:07 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Did you miss the phrase "stepped up?" (0+ / 0-)

              Here it is again:

              The Iranians only stepped up their nuclear program since the invasion of Iraq.
              From building the hardened nuclear site under a mountain, to jacking up their enrichment capacity, the current Iranian government clearly made a decision to speed their nuclear program along after the invasion of Iraq.

              Art is the handmaid of human good.

              by joe from Lowell on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 07:30:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  The problem with the sanctions against Iran (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    limpidglass, WattleBreakfast

    is that they aren't in place to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.  To the contrary, fear of the Iranian nuclear program is manufactured and lovingly tended by Israel and the American Likudniks in order to justify the sanctions program, which is Israel's actual goal here.

    With the end of sanctions, Iran (a nation of 80 million with a literate population and plenty of natural resources) would be able to wield considerable economic geopolitical influence in the region.

    This, and this alone, is what Israel fears.

    Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car, and his hat is made in China. © 2009 All Rights Reserved

    by oblomov on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 08:19:09 AM PST

    •  That faction certainly exists, but not everyone. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oblomov

      The Obama administration itself supported the sanctions, and they're obviously not on the same page as the Likudniks. Just look at the administration's support for a deal that would end the sanctions, and the hostility of the most conservatives and Israel supporters for such a deal.

      There were two factions behind the sanctions: those that, as you say, are using the nuclear threat as a cover for a maintaining a hostile stance towards Iran for other reasons, and those that are actually trying to deal with the Iranian nuclear program.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 08:35:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama wanted the sanctions to get us to where we (2+ / 0-)

        are now, a negotiation phase.

        There is no negotiation phase for Israel and the American Likudniks, who, upon seeing the effectiveness of the sanctions to date, want them tightened without end until Iran cannot build a four-lane highway.  Why should they brook an end to sanctions when the sanctions are doing what they want and were designed to do-- keep Iran down?

        And let's not forget that:

        (1)  it's the official position of both the USG and Israel that Iran (despite having the ability to build a bomb) is not doing so and has not decided to do so; and

        (2)  there is zero evidence of an Iranian bomb program.

        Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car, and his hat is made in China. © 2009 All Rights Reserved

        by oblomov on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 09:04:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right. The Likudniks are using Iranian WMDs... (0+ / 0-)

          the same way they used Iraqi WMDs. It's just an excuse.

          Before the past few months, it was very common around here to see people insisting that the sanctions were only a Likudnik plot, and that the agenda of the Obama administration was the same as that of, say, Lindsey Graham.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 09:21:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Regarding No. 2, there is no PROOF that... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erush1345

          ...Iran has a bomb program. But there has been a considerable amount of evidence pointing to that possibility as the IAEA has pointed out in several reports in the past decade.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:40:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, they prolly had one under the Shah-- (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WattleBreakfast

            and as late as 2003 there may have been some bomb-related work going on, but I focus on today.

            Prolly should have said "current Iranian bomb program."

            Because if ANY evidence of past bomb work is going to be raised to queer a diplomatic deal today, then Israel will get what it wants-- no solution.

            Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car, and his hat is made in China. © 2009 All Rights Reserved

            by oblomov on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 12:02:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Except....Iran is offering basically what they (0+ / 0-)

          were offering almost ten years ago.

          So, sanctions got Iran to keep making the same offer for a decade?

          What an achievement.

          "I read New republic and Nation/I've learned to take every view.." P. Ochs

          by JesseCW on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 01:02:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  It is a mistake to blame Israel alone (0+ / 0-)

      Obviously the current government of Israel is delighted by anything that hurts their neighbors, since that is their entire political justification ("see how we keep you safe.")  However they are not the only player.

      I suspect the most important player is Saudi Arabia, who is a political, military, religious, and economic competitor.   They are delighted to keep Iranian oil off of the market.

      The player playing the deepest game (in my theory) is Russia, who is also an energy competitor to Iran.   Russia has a near monopoly on natural gas supplies to Europe; when they had problems shipping gas through formerly-USSR states, people in Germany froze to death.     This gives them tremendous control over Western Europe.   However, this control is threatened by the fact that the world's #2 reserves of natural gas are under Iran, and they could ship to Europe via Turkey.   Not easily ("Kurdistan") but enough of a possibility that it could threaten their control.

      Russia is also the nation that has been encouraging and helping Iran to build their nuclear program and in my view pushing them to confrontation towards the West, (otherwise known as their customers.)     There is a joint pipeline project with France (to get around former USSR states) that would be irrelevant with Iranian gas hitting the market.

      China, in my view is sitting on the sidelines and laughing quietly as we push Iran further and further into their sphere...

  •  Would've been a great time for a followup question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    So WHY do you think it won't work?

    The one person expressed a lack of confidence in Obama's leadership skills and a skepticism regarding Iran's trustworthiness.

    Others fear that Republican sabotage might derail the agreement (with the help of a handful of Democrats).

    Others fear that Israel/AIPAC will intentionally derail the agreement.

    A useful poll would've followed up with another question.

  •  After more than 20 years of unrelenting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ratcityreprobate

    propaganda, I'll take 47%.

  •  If after six months Iran is more or less adhering (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, oblomov

    to the program and Congress decides "more or less" is insufficient the US and Israel will be going it alone in tightening sanctions. The EU, China and Russia will continue to ease sanctions and where will we be then? Unless Iran blows it big time the sanctions regime will unravel.

    •  Or, if certain interests CLAIM Iran has... (3+ / 0-)

      ...violated the agreement. As we can see in today's Los Angeles Times, there is a continuing disagreement over exactly what the interim pact does and does not allow.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:43:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Los Angeles Times running a story... (0+ / 0-)

        on the "Iran Deal" that is based on a report from David Albright of ISIS web-site fame, is the equivalent of running a story on "Climate Change" based on a report by Rush Limbaugh.

        David Albright is an unqualified hack. In the global community of academics on Nuclear non-proliferation and International Arms Control law he is an embarrassment to USA.

        His ISIS web-sites, here and here appear to be an AIPAC propaganda outlet thinly disguised as a "think tank".

        If the Los Angeles Times would like a list of names they should be quoting when writing about Iran then they might like to start by reading "The Iran Nuclear Dispute - A New Approach" by Eric A. Brill and using the list of acedemics that he thanks...

        Professor Hooshang Ahmirahmadi (Rutgers University)
        Reza Aslan (Aslan Media)
        Professor Abbas Barzegar (Emory University)
        Professor Francis Boyle (University of Illinois, College of Law)
        Professor Noam Chomsky (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
        Reza Esfandiari (London, England)
        Arnold R. Evans (Middle East Reality)
        Jeremy Hammond (Foreign Policy Journal)
        Peter Jenkins (United Kingdom Permanent Representative to International Atomic Energy Agency, 2001-2006)
        Patrick Johansson (Umea University, Umea, Sweden)
        Professor Daniel Joyner (University of Alabama, School of Law)
        Flynt Leverett (New American Foundation, Yale University and RaceForIran.com)
        Scott Lucas (EA World View)
        Hillary Mann Leverett (Yale University and RaceForIran.com)
        Professor Mohammad Marandi (University of Tehran)
        Robert Naiman (Just Foreign Policy)
        David Peterson (Chicago, Illinois)
        Clay Ramsay (WorldPublicOpinion.org)
        Cyrus Safdari (Iran Affairs)
        Professor Muhammad Sahimi (Universityof Southern California and PBS Frontline Tehran Bureau) Nima Shirazi (Wide Asleep In America)
        Alan Smith (Bromley, England)

        For Albright in his true colors, this blog by Professor Daniel Joyner (University of Alabama, School of Law) at Arms Control Law contains comments provided by David Albright.

    •  My feeling will be that as the time to sign (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WattleBreakfast

      a more permanent deal approaches, or at the latest as the 2016 US election approaches, there will be an incident in the Middle East or elsewhere designed to discredit Iran and either kill the nuclear rapprochement, throw the US election to the RepubLikudniks, or both.

      My fave scenario is for something ugly to happen along oil-rich Azerbaijan's border with Iran, to which Israel has unfettered access, but there are any number of other potential false-flag opportunities.

      Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car, and his hat is made in China. © 2009 All Rights Reserved

      by oblomov on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 12:16:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sounds like Iraq before the war (0+ / 0-)

      Seriously, if you are looking for a rational cause for that war that is about the closest that you can come.   The UN sanctions were probably going to end, meaning that all of this Iraqi oil was going to hit the market.   Oil prices were already depressed (remember that Haliburton was losing money like mad) so this would have been unpleasant for the Texans and Saudis, to say the least...

  •  Really? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    auron renouille, PorridgeGun
    Poll: 60% of Americans approve of interim nuclear pact with Iran, but only 47% think it will work
    How the fuck would they know?  They should play the lottery if they know the future.

    If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

    by stewarjt on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:06:28 PM PST

    •  That's why I'm not sure that this poll means much. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      I support the deal, and I have no fracking clue if it'll work.  It probably will, so long as the hardliners are restrained by improving conditions in the country.  But there's a lot of ways for things to get ugly, too.

      "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

      by auron renouille on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:15:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow... How Many People (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, happymisanthropy

    actually took part in this polling? 1,000?

    THIS issue is like-- nowhere on the list of concerns of the people in our nation.

    But since the topic is Iran... WHY does the U.S., Israel, and The Kingdom not want Iran to be a major economic power in the ME region?

    I wonder why that is?

    "It is essential that there should be organization of Labor. Capital organizes & therefore Labor must organize" Theodore Roosevelt

    by Superpole on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:06:38 PM PST

    •  The American people want to give diplomacy... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ratcityreprobate

      a chance. That fact bears repeating given the maneuvering of politicians from both parties to sneak us into another military conflict.

      •  "Sneak us into military conflict" (0+ / 0-)

        Nope.

        Sorry, I just don't buy this. the population of Iran is I believe 80 million people. the population of Israel? 8 million, I believe.

        WHO is the bigger market?

        how many of Iran's population under the age of 30? how many of those people want Western goods? blue jeans? fast food? pretty much ALL of them.

        Iran is a gigantic market.. IF they obtain full electrical power from nuke power plants.

        "It is essential that there should be organization of Labor. Capital organizes & therefore Labor must organize" Theodore Roosevelt

        by Superpole on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:39:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Obvious (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler, Superpole

      Israel does not like competitors or anybody who can provide a check on their behavior.   (Note that Israel and Iran were buddies when Iraq was still a going concern, and I mean after the revolution...)   The Israeli RWrs owe their existence to enemies, and after we squashed Iraq they needed somebody else.

      The war industry in the US is politically powerful, and it likes war.    The oil industry is powerful and it likes high oil prices.   The irrational industry likes to believe that a conflict in the Middle East will lead to the return of Jesus.  

      The Brits still believe that Iraq is theirs to rule.

      The ones who care a lot are the Saudis, and they have more influence in the congress than people realize.

      •  BEENGO! (0+ / 0-)

        Soo this is in fact wayyyy more about economics in the region and who is going to dominate the economics-- than it's about "nuclear weapons".

        you summed the situation well.

        "all war is about real estate" -- and the commodities under the surface of the real estate.

        "It is essential that there should be organization of Labor. Capital organizes & therefore Labor must organize" Theodore Roosevelt

        by Superpole on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:32:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yes. But speaking of geopolitics: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dclawyer06, dizzydean

    What percent of those polled can find their ass with both hands?


    “The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had.” ― Eric Schmidt

    by Pluto on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:12:57 PM PST

  •  Typo in the last paragraph. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto

    I don't think that there is any such thing as an "Iranian uranium mind" except in that upcoming Hollywood sci-fi blockbuster "The Ayatollah with the Atomic Brain".

    You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

    by MikePhoenix on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:15:35 PM PST

  •  There's a partisan component--Rs less likely (0+ / 0-)

    to think it will work than Dems.  According to Pew from December, only 14% of Republicans approve of the agreement, but 50% of Dems and 29% of independents (for a total of 32% approving).  

    To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

    by dizzydean on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:18:44 PM PST

  •  OT: Allow me to mention how much I hate DEAD (5+ / 0-)

    …articles by my favorite authors on the Front Page.

    By DEAD I mean dead -- no longer interactive. No longer able to elicit conversations by rec'ing the Commentariat and drawing them back into a discussion.

    If Daily Kos is technologically unable to reset comment expirations on FP writer's excellent work, and instead use the FP as a dead article dumpster -- how about doing it after midnight?

    /rant


    “The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had.” ― Eric Schmidt

    by Pluto on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:24:01 PM PST

    •  one can certainly understand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto

      that when they're short of original material, they'd recycle old articles to fill space on the FP. But it is a bit annoying.

      BTW, what are your thoughts on the matter, besides questioning people's ability to find their own asses?

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:29:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I expressed my thoughts waaay up above (0+ / 0-)

        …by the head of the fish, which is already stinking.


        “The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had.” ― Eric Schmidt

        by Pluto on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:33:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Because 99% of people would like peaceful solution (0+ / 0-)

    Because %47 are blinded by hope

    Because 13% are slowly catching on that Iran will gladly lie to your face to get what they want

    Because 40% Think there is no hope of Iran ever being honorable in their negotiations.

    For fucks sake the Iranian government plagiarizes The Onion and calls it fact.

    http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/...

    •  Sure glad WE never lie (3+ / 0-)
      We know where they [the WMDs] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

      If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

      by Major Kong on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:51:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did I say we dont? Does it matter? (0+ / 0-)

        Or do you just like to complain about the U.S? I'm guessing the later.

        In order for an agreement to be of any value, both sides must have at least some confidence that the other side would abide by the agreement.

        At best what you say would mean that neither side can be trusted.

        Which world further support my thesis that the agreement would have no value.

        •  It depends on what our goal is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy

          If our goal is to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, then we will probably abide by any agreement reached.

          If our goal is regime-change, and it most likely is, then we'll just keep moving the goalpost so that they can never meet our demands.

          Then we'll be "forced" to take military action, which is what we wanted to do in the first place.

          That's exactly what we did with Iraq. The Iraq invasion was a done deal as of fall 2002 and probably as early as spring 2002. Anything that was said after that was purely window dressing.

          Once the machinery gets put into motion it doesn't stop.

          If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

          by Major Kong on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 07:21:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So we are 1 for 2. or 0/2 (0+ / 0-)

            Iraq did not really want to actively develop  a nuclear weapon, but we thought they did and maybe went to war over it.

            North Korea did really want nuclear weapons, and we did not go to war over it.

            So which is Iran? Because historically we have a 50/50 shot here.

            Honestly IMHO If its 1% Iran has nuclear ambition, it is 100% worth taking action to prevent a nuclear Iran.

            Do we want the nation who's government plagiarizes the Onion and calls it fact, having a nuclear weapon?

            Iran should never be let near that level of technology, due to incompetence ,malice or BOTH.

            If they develop nukes we could loose millions, in seconds. Due to malice or incompetence.

            •  the onion? (2+ / 0-)

              I don't want to start another fucking war because idiots like you think that plagiarizing the onion is a sign of great danger.

            •  I suspect what they want is (0+ / 0-)

              what's called a "breakout capability". I think they want the ability to put a bomb(s) together in a fairly short time if needed without going all the way (which would be provocative).

              That would put them in the same league as Japan or South Korea.

              Keep in mind they'd also need the means to deliver it. We're not certain that North Korea is even at that level.

              It's one thing to build a crude nuclear device, it's quite another to build one small enough to put on a missile (and a missile big enough to carry it).

              While I'd prefer they not have a nuclear capability, I'd also rather not go to war over it. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

              It would have to be a much larger operation than you think. We're not talking about a couple of B-2 sorties. It would require an air campaign roughly the size and duration (and expense) of Desert Storm.

              If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

              by Major Kong on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 04:30:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Breakout capability (0+ / 0-)

                is in reality no less "provocative" than full fledged weapons. Politically it is different.  But it is not much less a threat to American lives.

                "Keep in mind they'd also need the means to deliver it. We're not certain that North Korea is even at that level."

                missiles are complicated. Mounting it on a back of a semi truck or cargo ship is not.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                "Coalition:
                190 killed by enemy action, 44 killed by friendly fire, 248 killed by in-theater accidents"

                At a 1% chance of saving a nuclear incident on American soil, that still saves thousands of lives.  

                "It would have to be a much larger operation than you think. We're not talking about a couple of B-2 sorties. It would require an air campaign roughly the size and duration (and expense) of Desert Storm."

                I am no expert, but I see no reason why this can not be done entirely by missiles

                •  Because you're no expert (0+ / 0-)

                  Anything capable of penetrating a hardened underground bunker is delivered by aircraft.

                  By the time you target their air defenses, command-control plus their ability to retaliate (very important) the target list very quickly goes into the thousands.

                  So you want us to spend a fuckton of money and kill a whole bunch of people on the chance that Iran might, and I repeat, might build a bomb some day. Brilliant!

                  Too bad Liz Cheney dropped out of the running, she probably could have used you on her campaign.

                  You can still apply to the American Enterprise Institute or one of the other neoconservative think-tanks. I hear they're hiring.

                  The rest of your post is straight out of Tom Clancy so I'm not even going to go there.

                  By the way, I'm a veteran of Desert Storm and some of those  casualties you so casually disregard were my friends.

                  If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

                  by Major Kong on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 05:04:12 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Is it? Even if it means having to reinstate the (0+ / 0-)

              draft (as well as the massive crackdowns on draft protesters/resisters that would be required) in order to get the 6-7 million troops necessary to occupy Iran?  Not to mention energy prices going up by 3-5 times overnight.  Or perhaps we would just nuke Tehran and other major Iranian cities in an effort to break their will to continue fighting thus resulting in 30-50 million dead Iranians.

              You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

              by Throw The Bums Out on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 04:49:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Made up numbers (0+ / 0-)
                mention energy prices going up by 3-5 times overnight.
                Iran has little impact on energy prices any more. Period. We basically removed them from the world markets and various sources of energy FELL to historic lows  
                6-7 million troops
                Even if we wanted to occupy Iran that would be completely unnecessary.

                But assuming that is right. We have zero need to occupy Iran. Bomb the piss out of their facilities, destroy their research reactors  and take key leaders and they would be set back 50 years minimum.

                Or perhaps we would just nuke Tehran and other major Iranian cities in an effort to break their will to continue fighting thus resulting in 30-50 million dead Iranians.
                Completely made up and uniformed numbers... You seem to have a habit of that.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                ~100k per nuke.  So say most 1 or 2 million it we went all out.

                Either way Id gladly trade the lives of every last Iranian for a single American's life.

    •  So what do the Iranians want? (2+ / 0-)

      Are they going to build a nuclear arsenal that will challenge the United States, Russia, and China without anybody knowing?    If not, what would be the point of creating an atomic bomb?

      Iran can already wipe out Israel using their massive arsenal of conventional rockets -- if they were suicidal and wanted to have every person in their country killed.   How would a nuclear bomb help Iran?  

      On the other hand, Iran would like to have an energy source that wasn't dependent upon their neighbors, for obvious reasons when those neighbors are Saudis.  

      (Sheez, you would think it was Iranians flying those jets into the World Trade Center.)

      •  Valid question (0+ / 0-)

        The real question is what does the Iranian regime get.

        1) They get to reinforce a dogmatic enemy  in the U.S./western world. This narrative helps them control their population.

        2) They may get bribes to stop the process.

        3)  Political power if they do get them.

        4) It is a deterrent to international intervention. Iran would be able to commit wholesale genocide of its dissidents and we would do nothing.

        5) They will get bribes to play nice if they get them.

        It really is a win win situation for Iran's government.

        "Iran can already wipe out Israel using their massive arsenal of conventional rockets "
        They cant. I just flatly disagree with that. With a Nuke they could more damage.
        "On the other hand, Iran would like to have an energy source that wasn't dependent upon their neighbors, for obvious reasons when those neighbors are Saudis.  "
        The research they are doing has nothing to do with power generation. You know why we know this? We did the same research in the 1940's so we do know 100% what the road goes to.
        "(Sheez, you would think it was Iranians flying those jets into the World Trade Center.)"
        This is NOT a situation where the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
  •  I have to wonder if Americans (0+ / 0-)

    even know why Iran had a problem with the US in the first place.

    Ted Cruz might know about Ike and Kermit working with the British to over throw a dem eclected gov. but he will never spend time to explain it..

    MB, I know about Eisenhower and the Roosevelt dealing with concerns dealing with Iran/ME. Could you point me to a book to expand my knowledge?  

  •  The poll is kind of where I'm at also. I want to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    red rabbit

    "give peace a chance", but I'm not optimistic it will work.  

    I'd go with negotiations even if I was sure that there was only a 10% or 20% chance negotiating would work.  (Of course, I have no more idea of the future than anyone else.)  That's because the alternatives are far worse, but they won't get much worse if we wait six months or a year.  Frankly, I doubt that there's any action we can take besides negotiation which won't make the situation worse.

    Also, IMO nuclear weapons aren't as big a threat to Israel as many think.  Israel is very small, and any bomb would kill at least as many Palestinians as Jews, and render much of the country uninhabitable by anyone.  I can't imagine that would be applauded by most Arabs, and, BTW, Iranians consider themselves Persians, not Arabs, so killing large numbers of Arabs would inflame those tensions.

    If Iran does get get nuclear weapons I think it will be more to intimidate their Arab neighbors.

    Finally, Iran does need to produce electricity using nuclear materials.  All of the Mideast countries are using an increasingly large part of their oil production for domestic consumption.  I've heard industry experts who think that in 5-10 years many of these countries will greatly reduce their exports due to domestic demand, which will be catastrophic because most of their economies are dependent upon oil revenue.

    •  Peace is the only option... (0+ / 0-)

      Iran is not Iraq.   It has a reasonably modern army and more importantly the ability to shut off all oil shipping traffic in the Middle East, along with the ability to wreck the Saudi's refineries.   They also have the experience of Iraq to go by, where it became clear that past a certain point, appeasing the West doesn't work.    

      "Peace doesn't mean you have to like the bastards" although in fact the few Iranians I have known have been quite nice, cultured, and reasonable people.

  •  As I've said before... (0+ / 0-)

    As I've said before, I support preventing Iran from making a nuclear weapon being a goal of the U.S. government, and I think it's naive to assume that the Iranians are telling the truth when they say that they want nuclear power for peaceful purposes.  That said, I don't support a war with Iran; that would only make the situation worse.  I think Obama is pursuing the right course with a combination of tough sanctions and negotiation, and I'm relieved that there are signs that it is working, regardless of what the poll says.  

    "Optimism is better than despair." --Jack Layton, the late Canadian MP, liberal, and Christian.

    by lungfish on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 07:06:59 PM PST

    •  Why wouldn't they want nuclear power (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      red rabbit, truong son traveler

      The only thing they have to export is oil, and the less they burn the more they can export.

      They wanted nuclear power back when the Shah was still in charge.

      That doesn't mean they don't want a nuclear weapons capability, but they're two separate issues.

      If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

      by Major Kong on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 07:23:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why do you think it is naive? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler

      Other than that they are Muslim, what makes you think that they have any interest in or benefit from a nuclear weapons program?  

      Have you looked at any evidence, or is it Iraq all over again when we all "just knew" what Saddam was thinking.

  •  Let's not forget that Iran's nuclear program ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    red rabbit, swarf

    was started with the help of the Eisenhower administration in 1957 as part of Atoms for Peace. In 1967 the U.S.-supplied a 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor, and in 1970 the Shah and the U.S. approved plans to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations by 2000.
    The Iranian Revolution in 1979 drastically changed those plans, and today, Russia is building Iran's nuclear facilities, and capturing the profits. The U.S. companies that lost these contracts, along with other western nuclear construction entities, are angry at losing those lucrative deals.
    Iran is interested in diversifying its source of electrical energy production. It is building wind, solar, and nuclear generation capacity so that more of its oil and gas can be used as an export to bring in capital for internal consumption.
    Iranian nuclear ambitions can not be viewed solely as a recent homegrown military adventure.
    Throw in the Israeli/Arab political conflict, and you have a real mess on your hands.  


    I avoid slippery slopes and camel noses; the seemingly innocuous is a doorway to the undesirable.

    by glb3 on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 07:16:56 PM PST

    •  What better business plan can the Neo Cons ... (0+ / 0-)

      come up with than to have Israel, or the U.S., bomb the Russian built Nuclear Facilities, so that Western companies can get those contracts back; all done under the premise of, Iran is building a nuclear weapon to lobe at Israel.


      I avoid slippery slopes and camel noses; the seemingly innocuous is a doorway to the undesirable.

      by glb3 on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 10:25:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm supremely confident it will work (0+ / 0-)

    And I'll be interested to see if these same skeptics will give Obama credit for it, because I saw polls late last year where the public pretty much said Obama deserves NO credit for Jobs, Housing, etc. A significant number of people think the President of the United States has no influence over both. Polling was conducted at the height of website glitch-gazi, though.

  •  I really don't understand the concern. (0+ / 0-)

    There are already at least 9 nuclear powers: USA, Russia, UK, France, China, Pakistan, North Korea, India and Israel. If we add one more to the mix, does that impel us to go to war and spend another few thousand American lives, plus a trillion or two more in treasure? If Iran manages to build one or two nuclear weapons, does that threaten Israel, who reportedly has about 80 warheads?

    Iran has nothing to gain by spending gazillions in order to join the nuclear club. Unless we are convinced that all of Iran is just batshit crazy, there is no credible threat from Iran.

    I will grant that there is a remote possibility that the Iranian leaders are all totally insane. After all, we already know that the leadership of North Korea is insane. Yet we live with that threat, and even though they have publicly threatened the US mainland with nuclear missiles, we don't seriously contemplate going to war with them.

    The cold hard fact is that we have no choice but to live with the potential of nuclear war. We can hardly decide to wage preemptive war against every other nuclear power. Iran is the very least of our worries on the nuclear front. If they build a nuclear device, it will just be one more among many hundreds of others.

    I favor diplomacy over preemptive war.

    Republicans proved in October that they are UNFIT TO GOVERN. Don't let the voter forget it. (-7.25, -6.21)

    by Tim DeLaney on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:25:56 PM PST

  •  Are these sound poling questions to run together? (0+ / 0-)

    What percentage of US residents trust US utility companies to operate nuclear power generation, and if operating such plants, trust that the nuclear waste will be disposed of responsibly? And is Obama policy for the disposal of nuclear waste sound policy?

    Sometimes the question shapes the answers when you poll. I do not like Obamacare--I want universal health. So, it is not entirely accurate to lump me with Tea Partiers by not liking Obamacare.

    I would not want Iran to invest heavily in nuclear facilities, but not because Iran lacks sovereignty to support power generation or to develop weapons to defend itself; it is a bad idea until we figure out what to do with the waste.

    For these questions on Iran, garbage in:garbage out.

  •  First I will state that what the U.S. thinks (0+ / 0-)

    should be irrelevant to Iran's energy future. We should stay the hell out. We have ZERO rights to say a damn thing to Iran after installing the syphilitic Shah of Iran in power to suppress Iran's people.  Iran is a sovereign nation and has a right to do what it wants within it's own borders. The U.S. is not the worlds cop.

    Secondly, Iran's energy policy is to build at least 19 nuclear power plants, basically the exact same number promoted by the Shah prior to 1979.

    Thirdly, Iran would be foolish to bank on the international community on it's energy sovereignty...who does that? Look at the sanctions now...whose to say the US wouldn't push some bogus excuse to do the same again except this time with nuclear tech and fuel that could shutdown their plants? If I were Iran I'd sign whatever deal it took to get my economy going and develop my own fuel cycle for nuclear energy that includes closing the fuel cycle as *guaranteed under the NPT!

    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

    by davidwalters on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 01:33:58 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site