Chamberlain bloodied his illustrious career by solidifying an agreement with a devil. Stalin, bloodied anyone who ever brought up the fact he too was double crossed by that same devil and it killed tens of millions. Marshall negotiated a settlement after the devil was dead that has given us for the most part, global peace now for exactly 70 years.
Everything you hear on television and the Rick Jensen show right now, is opinions being expressed by whoever has one of the three views above. If you are a trustworthy person, with a solid character, you support the future trusting and are for this agreement. If you are a untrustworthy person, with a criminal record a mile long but just haven’t been caught yet, you support a distrusting future, and want to see this good smashed before it gets born.
When you make a deal with a devil, you never know whether he will abrogate or not… Marriages (the same) run about 50-50. So one has a 50-50 chance with a diplomatic partner as well.
But, diplomatic agreements usually have a success rate in the high 90th percentile… They beat the odds and so the obvious next question is … why?
Diplomatic negotiations are not rushed into like marriages. For the most part that alone explains the disparity… If marriages were negotiated like the Iran Nuclear Deal, there would probably be 50% less marriages in America today… “Oh, no, baby… I ain’t givin’ up that!!!!” Instead diplomatic negotiations put everything on the table and are handled by the oldest and wisest who have seen everything before and therefor put it on the table.
No successful marriage is one party gets all.. Those quickly head for divorce. Instead, successful marriages are options where the other party says, “I can live without that. so sure, I’ll agree to it in order if I can get this out of you instead….”
That is how things work… In marriage, and around the table… In fact it is rare to get an agreement at all. which explains why so many marriages go forward on faith instead of solid “pre-nupts”… (especially among Republicans who always seem to be way too-in-a- hurry to get hitched.)
The idea that one side will negotiate everything away when they don’t have to, is purely ridiculous. Like a smitten male giving total power of attorney to his spouse if she agrees to marry him… I don’t think to my knowledge, that that has ever happened… If so, the poor fool was too embarrassed at his stupidity to ever mention it again….
So…. when approaching an agreement, one must treat it as a very good start, if not a fait accompli.…
But that is not what you hear if you listen to US corporate controlled US media. That is exactly what you do hear if you listen to unbiased, uncensored, and unmanipulated global media. This agreement gives both sides what they want…
Sanctions removed for the Iranians… No nuclear bomb for the US and Europe.
If you listen to Iran, their hard liners are NOT arguing over the stoppage of Iranians from building the bomb. They are arguing whether or not they can trust the US to lift and keep the sanctions lifted, if they go forward and dismantle their system… And since we change presidential parties every 8 years and have the next change less than 2 years away, they have a valid point….
They also have clear concerns as does the entire rest of the world alerted to our spying capabilities, of the US planting evidence, or lying about readings to make an innocent Iran look guilty. Considering what the US did to Iran in ’49, they have legitimate reason to worry so. Considering how we invaded their neighbor over a chocolate -vanilla yellow cake and two trailers parked on an Iraqi base somewhere, then found we were absolutely wrong …. Is very ripe on their memory. Considering how it quickly became transparent that our sole reason for invading their neighbor was to get hands on their oil, they are rather wary of trusting anything the US says it will do…
In fact considering that one of the parties in this agreement was the United States, a nation which since 2000 (fifteen years) has had the insane sector of its citizenry running the Legislative branch for 11 of those 15 years. they certainly have a lot to mistrust from a nation who imposes draconian laws on their poor to fund their municipalities, and ignores grand theft on a national scale to those earning billions….
Why would anyone trust the United States? What are they, ….. crazy?
But they did. They did because the agreement is solid enough to keep the US held in checks and balances, and if the US reneges on its part of this agreement, they can quickly restart their nuclear program and create the only safety any nation truly has… their own atomic weapons….
And the US said, “ok, yeah, if it stops nuclear weapons from expanding to more nations, we can work to make this deal solid…”
So what are the arguments here made by Republicans against it?
Number 1 (which they won’t tell you) Your side gets a point for being successful. We’re in competition, we can’t let you get that point… (gamemanship)….
Number 2 (which they also keep silent) AIPAC gave us lots of money to block this in Congress… Lots of money.
Number 3 Israel is against it, and we hear of Israel in our Christmas songs (” Oh Come, Oh Come, Emanuel”). and on TV so being for Israel has to be good ’cause Christmas and TV are good… (Anyone know where Israel is, anyway? It’s in Greece, right?) We got to support ‘dem Israelis… ‘Cause that’s where our grease comes from)..
Number 4 We can say no and renegotiate a better deal… let’s analyze this… Says who, the Iranians? No, not hardly, they have their own contingents trying to blow up this agreement as well. This is a one shot deal… Has anyone ever been turned down for marriage and gone back and given the store away? Maybe, but I have never heard of anyone being rejected and coming back to say… ok, I’ll do everything you want… just marry me… They usually break the engagement, and relationship and hook up quickly with someone else… Isn’t that the way it’s played? This idea that you can reject a deal and they will come back and take a worse situation, comes from fairy land… Perhaps there is too much LSD in Congress’s water?
Number 5 All the Koch think tanks, including the Institute for Science and International Security say this agreement is porous. Other think tanks outside the beltway and the Pentagon suppliers’ influence and money, discount this… It pays to see who funds and supports a think tank before you take their view verbatim…
To readily understand, flip the polarization… Imagine Iran was accusing us of the same items… “That nuclear reactor you were building for 7 years between 95 and the Christiana Mall”… We’d say.. “that was a flyover ramp, joining Rt 1 to I 95.”… (Pretty obvious now, but some of those abutments could have very well been a tunnel entrances when seen from space 5 years ago by someone intent on proving we were untrustworthy..) Or they’d say… “we need to tour your NSA building and Area 51, or we won’t agree to this deal”.. We’d say.. “no, the deal is off . We aren’t letting Iran’s agents into the NSA building or into our most secretive experimental air bases… ”
Number 6 This agreement can’t be verified if we are not allowed into their equivalent of the NSA and Area 51… therefore until they allow us, we need to vote it down… Well, this was said in the purest form of isolation one can image… For example, let us flip the scenario again: how could they see into each bank’s board of directors to know if they will keep up or drop sanctions on their own by going rogue? They can’t … But they can monitor when the money starts flowing… they know what is being held from them and if they have access they will know it.. In the same way, if we monitor what goes in and what come out, we can do the math and know whether they are cheating or not.. In fact this agreement was hammered out that way as would the US and Soviets have done so, saying since we can’t check your most secret bases, what methods are acceptable to both of us to verify both are following the agreements? A way was found… If the US and Soviet Union can verify each others’ most sensitive informations without compromising other security measures, then it stands that the US and Iran can certainly do the same. Especially when those measurements are very accurate.
Number 7 Giving 24 days notice of inspection allows for cheating… Well… perhaps.. But so does an errant wife stopping by Wawa to empty trash out of her car before pulling into her driveway to greet her husband… Even in prison one can find ways to cheat. That is not a problem. The problem is making sure what you want happens. That is no bomb available to Iran or terrorists. Again, the US would never agree to Iran, or North Korea, or Russia, or China, or Central African Republic (right Chris?) into our secret bases with no notice… “Sure, we are conducting our most secret test of new rocket technology, come on in! Here, sit in our visitors chair as we launch it now…” never happen here; only idiot Republicans could think it would happen there… (Gosh, where were they when they passed out brains?)