Iran Nuclear Deal - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By mdinh1
#14595244
Hi,

I was talking to a friend about the Iran nuclear deal, and, as a libertarian, I've been largely in support of it. The main argument I have a hard time addressing because I don't have the most knowledge about it is that this deal's bad because "Iran is one of the largest sponsors of terrorism." What's the verity of this claim?

Also, he gave me this article (http://www.adl.org/israel-international ... tters.html) which I found especially troubling because, while it's a pro-Isreal sight, it seems to straight up deny all of the research I've done on the topic so far. For instance, it says that the IAEA suggests that Iran has been diverting resources to creating a weapon. This is curious, because with all the research that I've done, all the nuclear experts and the IAEA seem to be suggesting that there's no indication of Iran even attempting to build a nuke since over a decade ago. Thoughts?
#14595248
There is no evidence that Iran is developing the means to produce nuclear weapons. Despite US warnings to Israel, it's likely that Israel would attack Iranian nuclear sites as it did with Iraq. If Iran does eventually build nuclear weapons, it won't be hard to understand as Iran has had its national sovereignty and economic rights trampled on as long as anyone can remember. A Western-directed coup overthrew a progressive reformer, elected president Mossadegh, and instituted a US-controlled puppet regime. The Iranian Revolution itself wasn't so much about installing elements of Islamic theocracy as it was a reaction to the West.

Iran is no more a "state sponsor of terror", itself a completely meaningless term in modern politics, than the US and any other influential country. Iran supports Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. These organizations formed within war-torn areas and their crimes are far less serious than that of the CIA's history of abhorrent crimes across the globe. If Iran is a state sponsor of terror for supporting their allies, what does that make the US which currently supports Islamist rebels in Syria, supported the Indonesian right-wing death squads in the early 1960s which killed perhaps up to a million people, the right-wing Nicaraguan death squads, countless dictators, anti-democratic coups, human experimentation on American citizens (the Tuskegee Experiment, radioactive experiments on pregnant women, etc), the embargo against Iraq that led to the deaths of about a million people, etc?

As Israel not only has developed nuclear weapons in violation of the same international laws they are whining about with Iran, engages in an illegal embargo and essentially a siege of Gaza (as well as largely preventing people from leaving), and is generally committed to ethnic cleansing, I would be very skeptical of pro-Israeli sites claiming bullshit stuff about Iran. If I were you, I would also try to be nonplussed about people who imply that Iran will nuke the world as soon as they build nukes, because they're Iranians and stuff. Iran isn't saintly or evil, it's just another country with national interests. All of this propaganda about Iran has so much to do with a good/bad binary way of looking at things that is, frankly, pretty unhealthy from a mental health perspective.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14595255
This deal is better than no deal. It's that damned simple.
User avatar
By quetzalcoatl
#14595273
If the deal is rejected, what are the alternatives? The sanction regime will fall apart overnight, and the US and Israel will have zero leverage over Iran. Any military intervention in Iran would set back reform there for another generation. This deal, whatever its limitations, is better than any alternative.
By mdinh1
#14595489
Bulaba Jones wrote:There is no evidence that Iran is developing the means to produce nuclear weapons. Despite US warnings to Israel, it's likely that Israel would attack Iranian nuclear sites as it did with Iraq. If Iran does eventually build nuclear weapons, it won't be hard to understand as Iran has had its national sovereignty and economic rights trampled on as long as anyone can remember. A Western-directed coup overthrew a progressive reformer, elected president Mossadegh, and instituted a US-controlled puppet regime. The Iranian Revolution itself wasn't so much about installing elements of Islamic theocracy as it was a reaction to the West.



Thanks for the response! This is super useful. I'm having trouble with the the following issues at the moment. Everyone continuously cites the Fordow facility as evidence that Iran is not trustworthy and will break the agreement because they've been hiding operations from the IAEA repeatedly and will continue to do so in the future. Another problem is that no one seems to think that Iran is a rational actor that's just acting in its self interest. When I point out that Iran stands to benefit economically only if it abides by the deal, opponents of the deal quickly point out the cases where Iranian officials said they want to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth etc etc. Where do I even start to convince people that Iran is a rational actor?
User avatar
By Bosnjak
#14646877
The deal was just negotiated because the USA needs the Iranian Oil wich is an huge Surplus on the market, to harm Russia with Saudi-Arabia as Ally is the Oil price down like 1990 as the Sowiet Union broke together...

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]