Iran nuclear agreement pact thingy

[DaZahroJaam.]

I have a question. Or rather, I am confused. Wars are not declared by agreeable terms. The usage of nuclear weapons during one is clearly inhuman as well. So why do people make such huge deals over these agreements and what would be the consequences of not honouring one of these agreements??
I would not necessarily expect someone to be honest about their promise of not using one of these weapons against me if they wanted to just because they were made to come in to an agreement about it.. The timing is not even right for Iran to be genuinely signing this pact. They are in a very vulnerable position at the moment.
Why is this such a big deal??

[KGODB]

I have a question. Or rather, I am confused. Wars are not declared by agreeable terms. The usage of nuclear weapons during one is clearly inhuman as well. So why do people make such huge deals over these agreements and what would be the consequences of not honouring one of these agreements??
I would not necessarily expect someone to be honest about their promise of not using one of these weapons against me if they wanted to just because they were made to come in to an agreement about it.. The timing is not even right for Iran to be genuinely signing this pact. They are in a very vulnerable position at the moment.
Why is this such a big deal??

Nuclear weapons are not meant to be used. They are a defense mechanism, one of last resort only. It is essentially protection against an existential threat, but many countries like Pakistan and Israel use it not just as protection against the physical existential threat of the PEOPLE but rather the REGIME. Its insurance, plain and simple.

The reason for agreements of regulation is that nuclear weapons are an X FACTOR, a wild card if you will. Countries are concerned about its spread. They are concerned about its production.

What agreements do is create some formality and structure to its development and possession. It provides for some stability to this inherently wild card possession.

Stability and order allows for common understanding, and predictability upon which states can conduct relations and create policies.

[DaZahroJaam.]

So having access to this stuff is like emotionally blackmailing someone?? You don't necessarily want to be using it but you want everyone knowing that you possess this weapon??
So if a country is genuinely concerned and wants to secure its self, would it not secretly not keep and produce these weapons?? What happens when they go against this promise??
Or is this just a formality of passing on false hope to each other?? Giving an incorrect impression to potential aggressors out there.. I don't get it. Why are people taking these pacts seriously?? Who is held accountable for this insurance policy once someone breaches the agreement??

[KGODB]

So having access to this stuff is like emotionally blackmailing someone?? You don't necessarily want to be using it but you want everyone knowing that you possess this weapon??

It is a form of black mail. Its saying, I have the means to either defend myself, or destroy everything I can on my way out. Its a means of keeping aggressors at bay. Its offensive use is fairly limited.

So if a country is genuinely concerned and wants to secure its self, would it not secretly not keep and produce these weapons??

On one hand you want people to know, but only once you've built it, because people finding out while youre building it can lead to actions taken against you to prevent its production (see the airstrikes on Iraqs nuclear reactor in 1981). Or you can, like essentially Iran did, not necessarily build a nuclear weapons program, but at least have the capabilities in place that you can take that step fairly quickly should you decide to do so

What happens when they go against this promise?? Or is this just a formality of passing on false hope to each other??

Im not sure I understand this question.

Giving an incorrect impression to potential aggressors out there.. I don't get it. Why are people taking these pacts seriously?? Who is held accountable for this insurance policy once someone breaches the agreement??

People take these pacts seriously because it offers SOME degree of stability, and frankly, comfort. People also take it serious, and this speaks to your question of accountability, because there are means to enforce these deals. Iran was placed under significant sanctions and abided by their agreements because they stood to benefit.

[Insight]

[QUOTE]

[/COLOR]
[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] It is a form of black mail. Its saying, I have the means to either defend myself, or destroy everything I can on my way out. Its a means of keeping aggressors at bay. Its offensive use is fairly limited.



On one hand you want people to know, but only once you've built it, because people finding out while youre building it can lead to actions taken against you to prevent its production (see the airstrikes on Iraqs nuclear reactor in 1981). Or you can, like essentially Iran did, not necessarily build a nuclear weapons program, but at least have the capabilities in place that you can take that step fairly quickly should you decide to do so

I do not believe Iran purposely stalled its nuclear program just to have the capability. I think they simply lacked expertise to finish it. It does not take decades to become a nuclear power especially for an oil producing country.

People take these pacts seriously because it offers SOME degree of stability, and frankly, comfort. People also take it serious, and this speaks to your question of accountability, because there are means to enforce these deals. Iran was placed under significant sanctions and abided by their agreements because they stood to benefit.

The deal is superficial and gave the US a face saving way out of the issue, or at least the temporary allusion of it.

Read James Baker and Z. Brzezinski's WH policy paper in which they imply that Israel is a liability for the US, and that US should ally with Iran.

The great historical paradox is that Israeli influence in Washington has not been blunted, and the life of this executive deal (not international treaty) only lasts for as long as Republicans do not have majorities in both the Senate and Congress which is unlikely.

[KGODB]

[QUOTE=Insight;781657]

I do not believe Iran purposely stalled its nuclear program just to have the capability. I think they simply lacked expertise to finish it. It does not take decades to become a nuclear power especially for an oil producing country.

The deal is superficial and gave the US a face saving way out of the issue, or at least the temporary allusion of it.

Read James Baker and Z. Brzezinski's WH policy paper in which they imply that Israel is a liability for the US, and that US should ally with Iran.

The great historical paradox is that Israeli influence in Washington has not been blunted, and the life of this executive deal (not international treaty) only lasts for as long as Republicans do not have majorities in both the Senate and Congress which is unlikely.

1-I would disagree but I am open to any evidence to show otherwise

2-Its superficiality doesn't take away from the fact that it benefits all parties to adhere to it

[DaZahroJaam.]

[QUOTE=KGODB;782378]

1-I would disagree but I am open to any evidence to show otherwise

2-Its superficiality doesn't take away from the fact that it benefits all parties to adhere to it

but if people were in the habit of playing fair or keeping their promises, there wouldn't be a need for this contract in the first place.

[KGODB]

[QUOTE=DaZahroJaam.;782385]

but if people were in the habit of playing fair or keeping their promises, there wouldn't be a need for this contract in the first place.

But its precisely because people are not in the habit of playing fair or keeping their promises, that such a contract is required. it formalizes the obligations on both sides, and presumably lays out what the implications are of non compliance

[DaZahroJaam.]

So what are the formal consequences of breaching this contract??

[KGODB]

So what are the formal consequences of breaching this contract??

I haven't read the details of the deal thoroughly, I must admit. However, I would presume that sanctions would be back on the table if there was Iranian non-compliance. Iranian responses to Western non-compliance (failure to remove sanctions for example) are more limited, but presumably they may disavow any authorization for inspections and go back to enriching uranium, building facilities etc

ie. back to status quo pre agreement

[Insight]

[QUOTE=KGODB;782378]

1-I would disagree but I am open to any evidence to show otherwise

2-Its superficiality doesn't take away from the fact that it benefits all parties to adhere to it

Iran ruled out inspections of military sites, and the nuclear sites are also military sites. US complied.

The whole deal is a joke, and is actually one that is quite humiliating for the US and entire Western order. It is nothing short of surrender! Iran clearly came out as a victor, and US along with Europe, as the losers. My language may sound childish, but it is true!!

Let us just focus on the fact that the whole deal will be policed and enforced by Iran. Iran gets to self inspect, and also gets to choose nuclear sites for IAEA to inspect. For example, lets say periodical inspection request by IAEA has been made, Iran gets to tell them, hey go to this nuclear site (that we just cleaned up), IAEA checks and says everything is OK. There will never be any inspections of military sites, and there is the catch since many of the Iran's top nuclear sites also serve as IRGC military sites. It is worth noting that Iran gets to screen out and select those IAEA inspectors who go their cherry picked site to do their "inspecting."

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/fpi-bulletin-iranian-self-inspection-plan-leaves-verification-regime-tatters

The IAEA, Iran, and the Side Deals

The side deal on Parchin effectively leaves an already weak verification regime in tatters, and undercuts the rationale for the agreement as a whole. If international inspectors cannot personally inspect a core site of Iran’s weaponization efforts, and if the second deal remains hidden from public scrutiny, the United States cannot verify that Iran has abandoned its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

[Insight]

Lets say IAEA wants to see Fordow or Parchin, Iran can say NO, and send them to Dessert so and so nuclear site which probably doesn't even work, and says go there.

It is a laugh. Just follow how Iran man handled the US on the world stage. They got them to succumb to every of their demands, self inspections being the biggest laugh ever.

Comparable to telling the fox to guard the hen house.

[DaZahroJaam.]

sounds like a grand waste of time.