We’re Screwed: Iran Deal Edition

So I wrote last night how we should handle Iran like a whinny four year old. Only trouble is, the idiots running the planet today don’t know the rule. Never. Ever. Give. In. To. Nagging.

Perhaps when I start to understand what’s happened here, I’ll write more. For now this video and song popped into my head.

About Brian of London

Brian of London is not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy. Since making aliyah in 2009, Brian has blogged at Israellycool. Brian's interests include electric cars, world peace and an end to world hunger. Besides blogging here, Brian of London now writes at the Times of Israel. Brian of London also hosted Shire Network News

Facebook Comments

  • Jim_from_Iowa

    I think we can all agree that the more certain path to a nuclear-free Iran is the overthrow of this repugnant theocratic state and have the Iranian people restore a more pro-Western, pro-Israel government there. The question I have for those who oppose engaging this regime through peaceful negotiations, how will a military strike by Israel on Iran serve the long-term interests of Israel and the West? I would suggest looking to Israel’s military and intelligence community for guidance, rather than the current political class who have a certain constituency, not entirely rational in outlook on this issue, with whom they have to curry favor. It may be fun to step on a bug. But it’s no fun cleaning up the mess on the sole of your shoe.

    • J B

      Well that’s just brilliant Jim. Gee, I bet Israel’s leadership never figured that out.
      It could be that there’s abundant evidence that Iran theocratic regime is pursuing nuclear weapons and is ideologically happy to use them against Israel, for a start, and/or use them as a cozy nuclear umbrella while throwing their conventional military weight around the Middle East and beyond. Maybe, just maybe, that’s the reason Israel feels compelled to squash their nuclear efforts by military means if necessary.
      Your long-term dreams won’t help us in Israel very much if, in the meantime, Iran’s theocracy completes the race to nuclear missiles and starts using them.
      The Iranian people rose up against the regime and lost years ago. They may try again, and hopefully they’ll do better next time. Maybe the next time the international community will actually support them too. Either way, meanwhile, the nation of Iran is doing a very good job of getting very dangerous.
      The drug-addled thug holding a gun to your head in the alley could best be “fixed” through years of therapy and rehabilitation, yes, but in the meantime you’re in mortal peril. Do you put down your gun and risk letting him blow your brains out now, in exchange for a slim chance he’ll get better down the road while you bleed in the gutter?
      It’s easy to say “take the harder road for the greater good” when you’re not the one risking your life, isn’t it? (And yet, if Iran got “the bomb” and became an even more powerful terrorist state than it is today, with ICBMs to boot, your life in the US would be in danger too, whether or not you realize it.)

    • cba

      It’s not that a military strike serves this purpose, but rather that loosening sanctions in return for minimal (and easily reversible) concessions from Iran does not serve this purpose.

      Furthermore, loosening the sanctions a this time makes the chances of a military strike much higher.

    • J B

      Wishful thinking of your sort is not a “rational” outlook on this issue either.

      Somehow, having people like you with your heads in the clouds eventually write out “whoops, my bad” on the Internet the day after Iran tests a nuclear weapon in Israel’s air space is not a very satisfying outcome to this scenario.

      • Jim_from_Iowa

        My point, again, is for Israelis to listen to the rational, professional people in their own country on what action to take with Iran, not the irrational, politically-motivated ones. I agree with those who think Iran has been trying to develop nuclear weapons for some time now. A military strike by Israel on Iran will make that eventuality much more likely, not less.

        • J B

          You don’t sound very wise when the thrust of your argument is “those who express ideas I don’t like are “irrational and politically motivated” while those who agree with me are “rational and professional””.
          As for the rest of the argument, have you examined any history of negotiating with dictatorships? How often have they lived up to their agreements unless forced to do so, literally, with force? Iran already has a rap sheet a mile long of murdering Israelis and Americans and others. What piece of paper is going to make them stop trying to develop the means to checkmate Israel and the West militarily once and for all? Please explain this to me.
          If you support this “deal” you are basically saying, “the best way to stop an unrepentant convicted serial killer is by asking him to pinkie-swear to stop murdering people in exchange for letting him go free and handing him $100,000 in cash. Trying to stop him by force only makes it more likely he’ll kill again.” That makes no sense to me – do you care to explain the logic here?
          Again, wishful thinking that gambles with the lives of millions of people who aren’t you doesn’t exactly earn you respect in my eyes, especially since I’m one of those people with whose life you’re gambling.

          • cba

            What J B said…

          • Jim_from_Iowa

            Explain to me how a military strike will get the desired outcome. Senior military officials and intelligence officials from Israel have said this publicly and repeatedly. I’m for actions that will actually benefit Israel, not some feel-good chest pumping reflexive action. Listen to those whose job is to know what it takes to get the job done, the military professionals. That’s not wishful thinking, it’s a rational approach the problem solving.

            • cba

              Jim, you are missing the point spectacularly.

              I’m pretty sure nobody here wants a military strike.

              We’re seriously POd because the P5+1 has now made the military option far more likely.

              What we wanted was an agreement that involves destroying Iran’s 20% enriched uranium and its centrifuges and the Arak site before sanctions were lifted.

              You know, a non-military way of making it less likely that Iran could get the bomb any time soon.

              I don’t know any Israeli who wants to put our pilots at risk (not to mention hurting the human shields that I’m sure are being rushed into place as we speak). We’re just not too keen on being vaporized.

              I know, pretty intransigent of us–not being prepared to die for the sake of Peace in Our Time Episode II.

            • J B

              It’s simple Jim. A military strike destroys Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It’s crude, but it is the best that can be done.
              The plan you’re supporting is, “do nothing, and remove the obstacles that have been put in place until now so the Iranians can move forward to having nuclear weapons with ease”.
              Do you not understand that if Iran is allowed to make or obtain nuclear weapons, the -guaranteed- result is WAR, and a war where the “good guys” are facing a theologically apocalyptic maniac with nuclear weapons! The Iranians aren’t pursuing these weapons because they look cool in a display case.
              We only have three outcomes here:
              1) Press the Iranians hard, and consistently, with every non-military means we have, while keeping the threat of a military confrontation in the background to give those means leverage, and keep doing it until the Iranian resolve crumbles and they decide that the push toward nuclear weapons is not worth the cost.
              2) Take out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure by military action.
              3) Face a war of aggression launched by Iran -after- they have nuclear missiles.

              The international community just crossed out option number 1 in that list.
              Which of the remaining two do you prefer? I know my preference.

            • J B

              And don’t tell me that the “experts” are saying that a military strike is bad. Of course it’s bad and undesirable. The question becomes which of those three options is most desirable after the world takes away the only non-military option that had any chance of success.
              Singing kumbaya isn’t on the list. You and I both wish it somehow was, but it’s really not.
              Think man.

            • J B

              Do you consider all self-defense against violent, aggressive threats to innocent lives to be mere “feel-good chest pumping reflexive action”, or is that only true for some people?
              If you see a maniac with a bloody machete with a trail of bodies behind him come running after you while shouting “destroy all Jims”, do you:
              A) Try to stop him by whatever means are at hand, or
              B) You throw up your hands and say, “Clearly I need to take on faith that you have only legitimate intentions here; I won’t risk escalating things by fighting you. Why, things could get violent!”

              • Jim_from_Iowa

                Why are you arguing with me? You should be arguing with the IDF and Mossad senior leadership, past and present. There is a strong consensus among them that an Israeli strike on Iran is ill-considered and will in all likelihood be ineffective. Don’t make this about me. I’m just pointing out facts in a sober, rational manner; what some key Israelis have been saying for some time now.

                • J B

                  Maybe I will argue with those people. Meanwhile, I’m arguing with you because you came to this Website and started pooh-poohing the idea of military self-defense as an absurd idea when a piece of paper signed by liars and murders will obviously solve the problem.
                  Can you make ANY logical argument in defense of your ideas, or can you only point to a few irrational, politically-motivated left-wingers who are eyeing a transition into politics. (See what I did there?)
                  I am frankly disgusted with the arrogance of your position, while you sit there stroking your beard and smoking your pipe and humming kumbaya while me and my people are left to die in a (mushroom-shaped) fire. Thanks.

                  • Jim_from_Iowa

                    Oh, come on JB. I am as opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons as you are. The current Iranian regime is extremely hostile to Israel and I would never want them armed with nuclear weapons to blackmail, or heaven forbid, actually attack Israel. So calm down. I am not your enemy. I am your friend who wants to see sane, rational measures taken by the U.S. and Israel to protect innocent Isreali and yes, American lives as well. Engagement and not military action seems the most productive course of action.

                    • cba

                      I am not your enemy. I am your friend who wants to see sane, rational measures taken by the U.S. and Israel to protect innocent Isreali and yes, American lives as well./blockquote>
                      Fair enough.

                      Could you give an example or two of some of these “sane, rational measures”?

  • E Pluribus Wombat

    Liberals and Obamacrats believe you can be a little bit Jew hating genocidally nuclear armed. And that’s ok. Just a partial holocaust and of course no response by the surviving Jews if there are any.

  • cba

    OK, because of the threading it’s impossible to read my latest reply to Jim, so I’m repeating it here even though it messes up the threading.

    I am not your enemy. I am your friend who wants to see sane, rational measures taken by the U.S. and Israel to protect innocent Isreali and yes, American lives as well.

    Fair enough. Can you give one or two examples of “sane, rational measures” you would like taken?

    • Jim_from_Iowa

      You won’t like this because I suspect you agree with Netanyahu that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel as a nuclear-armed country. But the secret talks the US has been having with Iran the past year is one such measure. It has resulted in the agreement just announced, albeit limited in scope and duration. I also agree with Netanyahu that Israel has the right to take it’s self defense into it’s own hands and not be dependent on any other country, including the United States. I just hope he follows the advice of the IDF and Mossad and doesn’t do anything stupid. Unilateral bombing of Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities will not make Israel safer or Iran nuclear-free. Just my opinion. The world will continue to be a dangerous place no matter what we do.

      • Istra Belagena

        “The world will continue to be a dangerous place no matter what we do.”

        Finally a bit of truth after all the rationalistic Pollyana nonsense. But if so then why say anything at all, Jimster? What a waste.

      • J B

        Jim, I doubt there’s any value of continuing this “dialog” with you, but I’ll ask two final questions:
        1) On what grounds do you so calmly dismiss the assertion that a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel?
        2) Can you explain in what effective way signing pieces of paper with a regime of liars and murders safeguards Israel’s security, especially when the “deal” being signed rewards Iran by removing all obstacles to their pursuit of nuclear weapons?

        • Jim_from_Iowa

          You want guarantees that everything will be perfectly fine if we go the route I propose. I can’t give those to you. I believe Iran has lied for decades about developing nuclear weapons, why would we be assured that they would live up to any agreement they sign? But I look at the solution you have chosen, a military one, and see that as far worse. More people dead, Israel more endangered and isolated, Americans at risk in the world from Iranian retaliation from an Israeli strike. I see my way as being the better of two bad options, that’s all.

          • J B

            You aren’t proposing anything that cannot legitimately be boiled down to pinkie-swears and crossing our fingers.
            There is no shortage of evidence in history that this does not work to stop aggression, especially when that aggression comes from regimes like the one Iran has right now.
            I’ll just be glad you aren’t my Prime Minister, and I’ll be sad that your kind of thinking is the most charitable interpretation of what the international community is thinking – to our great peril.

  • Curt F

    Can I jump into the dialogue? How can rational and pragmatic solutions can be applied to a rogue nation (Iran)??
    The U S & the West had Iran on the ropes, reeling. And now we hand them a fresh 12 rounds of fight.
    Not unlike a few years back, when the streets were in full revolution mode in Iran. President O refused to get involved at any level and the theocrats brutally stole back their country.

    The progressive-let’s-hand-Israel-their-assess-suck-up-to-muslim-idealogues elites are jumping for joy, they finally have a real live parchment of peace to hang from their flagpole.

    A shameful day for America and an even more dangerous world for the Israelis to live in.

Israellycool is testing Sovevos. Click for more info.