Woah. Iran. Woah.

[Tuggan]

Never thought i'd see a deal with Iran in my lifetime.

Suck a cock Ganzo.

[Ganzo]

Why, cause your Obama once again made concessions to radical islamists?

[brinstar]

you're right ganzo, we should've just let them continue working toward becoming a nuclear state

[Tikker]

.

[Ganzo]

Why, cause your Obama once again made concessions to radical islamists?

better than the jews

I know, I know. It's the short skirt that is responsible for the rape, the gun that is responsible for the murder, the Zionism that is responsible for the radical islamist terrorism.

I follow the modern western logic, i know how things work.

[Zanchief]

Why, cause your Obama once again made concessions to radical islamists?

better than the jews

I know, I know. It's the short skirt that is responsible for the rape

Haha this is a pretty clever analogy.

[Lyion]

Why, cause your Obama once again made concessions to radical islamists?

better than the jews

Yes, because those dastardly Israeli's and their democracy are clearly at the same level of danger as the numerous Sharia Dictatorships and Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Qaeda. Buy kosher or you never know what they'll do. Especially during Thanskgivukkah.

[Arlos]

Fareed Zakaria's take on this. Rather good article.

By Fareed Zakaria

If you’re trying to decide what to think about the deal struck between the major powers and Iran yesterday in Geneva, here’s a suggestion – imagine what would have happened if there had been no deal.

In fact, one doesn’t have to use much imagination. In 2003, Iran approached the United States with an offer to talk about its nuclear program. The George W. Bush administration rejected the offer because it believed that the Iranian regime was weak, had been battered by sanctions, and would either capitulate or collapse if Washington just stayed tough.

So there was no deal. What was the result? Iran had 164 centrifuges operating in 2003; today it has 19,000 centrifuges. Had the Geneva talks with Iran broken down, Iran would have continued expanding its nuclear program. Yes they are now under tough sanctions, but they were under sanctions then as well.

And yet, the number of centrifuges grew exponentially (Despite all the sanctions and sabotage, keep in mind, the costs of a nuclear program are small for an oil rich country like Iran.)

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been opposed to a deal. But is it in Israel’s interest that Iran’s program keep growing in size and scope? That’s a strategy that assumes that either Iran is heading for collapse, or that a military strike will take place that would permanently destroy Iran’s entire nuclear program. This seems more like wishful thinking than tough strategizing.

The agreement that the major powers have gotten in Geneva essentially freezes Iran’s program for six months – and rolls back some key aspects of it – while a permanent deal is negotiated. In return, Iran gets about $7 billion of sanctions relief, a fraction of what is in place against it. The main sanctions – against its oil and banking sectors – stay fully in place.

This is a sensible deal – signed off on by France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China – but it is just an interim deal and not a historic rapprochement. And that’s why so much of the opposition to it is misplaced.

Washington has many points of disagreement with Tehran, from its opposition to Israel and its support of Hezbollah to its funding of Iraq militias. This is not like the opening to China – it’s more like an arms control deal with the Soviet Union, with two wary adversaries trying to find some common ground.

Many countries in the Middle East – from Israel to Saudi Arabia – have legitimate concerns about Iran. But many of these countries have also gotten used to having a permanent enemy against whom they could rail, focusing domestic attention, driving ideological and sectarian divides, and garnering support.

The Middle East is undergoing so much change. Perhaps this is one more change. And perhaps Iran will come in from the Cold. For now, this deal is just one step, not a seismic shift. But it is still a step forward.

Thoughts?

-Arlos

[Menelvir]

If you're an industrialized nation, and at least part your drive to become stronger can be vigorously fueled by surges in religious fervor and hatred of those you deem your enemies, then it may well not matter what sanctions other nations take against you in terms of what you get done (as the article demonstrates).

It's probably easier from a political point of view to convince yourself and the people you represent and lead that "everyone else" is out to get you -- the suffering you bear now (sanctions) will be worth it, because you'll get that brass ring in the afterlife -- and the infidel will eventually pay in spades when the edge of your sword splits the atom.

To me, it somewhat resembles a really long, drawn-out game of chess.