The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[Mr. Orange]

This is the big, completely predictable reason I didn't like the Iran deal. The whole idea that we'd still be able to sanction Iran for non-nuke related misconduct was a lie from the start.

Obama held hostage: How Iran’s using the nuke deal as license to go wild

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were convinced their one-sided nuclear deal would lead to better relations with Iran, but it’s already doing the reverse.

Tehran has taken two more Americans hostage just this month — and followed up with a massive cyberattack on the US government, especially the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs.
The kicker: Iran is holding the nuke deal hostage — threatening to junk it if Obama tries to punish the country for its fresh outrages.

Wake up and smell the coffee, guys.

When they seized one of the new hostages, the Iranians also grabbed his computer and forced him to unlock it. That allowed the Revolutionary Guard to launch what The Wall Street Journal reports is a massive cyberattack.

And, of course, the new hostages — charged with spying, natch — join three other American citizens already held.

Tehran has also cracked down on Iranians advocating better ties with Washington, while dialing up the anti-American propaganda. There’s legal action, too, including a new ban on the import of any US-made consumer goods. They even shut down a KFC in Tehran.
(So much for the dreams of new openings in Iran for American businesses.)

In case there was any doubt, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reiterated his commitment to “Death to America” (while telling Americans not to take it personally).

Vintage Iran, in other words. Little different from the days of the 1979 Islamic Revolution that culminated in the taking of 52 American hostages and holding them in captivity for 444 gut-wrenching days.

Back then, the Jimmy Carter administration found itself unable or unwilling to respond forcefully. Likewise, Team Obama today.

Some in Congress want new sanctions targeted at, for example, the Guard officials behind the cyberattacks. But Obama and Kerry are instead lifting all US sanctions as part of the nuke deal.

And, again, Tehran says it will tear up the pact if Washington retaliates for the latest provocations.

Mind you, Iran has yet to see the vast bulk of the hundreds of billions of dollars it’s to receive under the deal — but it’s still threatening to renege. How much worse will it get once the first $100 billion or so has cleared?

This is the time to see if the Iranians mean it: Hit them with new sanctions before handing over that cash, and see if they pull out. Better to know now, at the lowest cost.

The president won’t do it, of course: He sees the nuke deal as key to his legacy, right up there with ObamaCare. Iran’s leaders know it — and they’re going to use this hostage ruthlessly

http://nypost.com/2015/11/07/obama-held-hostage-how-irans-using-the-nuke-deal-as-license-to-go-wild/

Just a reminder for everyone reading. Here is an actual news article on the Iran nuclear deal. Not a New York Post opinion article.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...s-you-should-know-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal

Is the deal perfect? Of course not. Is it better than what we had? Yes. This buys us 10-15 years to figure something else out. Remember the most important part of the deal is keeping Iran from enriching uranium to weapons grade levels. That it should achieve for the next decade. Better relations is certainly important, but secondary.

Happy reading.

 

[Jordan]

Have you given any thought to renaming your blog, "Just Jking"?

Unfortunately neither of them are mind. Jadaliyya is an online, peer-reviewed e-zine (taken from the Arabic word جدل meaning dialectic). The other one is a student blog at George Mason. Due to the authoritarian nature of the student blog I think I have a better chance at renaming Jadaliyya.

With that said, mission received, thank you sir.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Just a reminder for everyone reading. Here is an actual news article on the Iran nuclear deal. Not a New York Post opinion article.

What about the facts contained in that NYP article you so casually dismiss? Here they are again since you clearly missed them the first time around

Tehran has taken two more Americans hostage just this month — and followed up with a massive cyberattack on the US government, especially the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs.

True, or not?

The kicker: Iran is holding the nuke deal hostage — threatening to junk it if Obama tries to punish the country for its fresh outrages.

True, or not?

When they seized one of the new hostages, the Iranians also grabbed his computer and forced him to unlock it. That allowed the Revolutionary Guard to launch what The Wall Street Journal reports is a massive cyberattack.

True, or not?

And, of course, the new hostages — charged with spying, natch — join three other American citizens already held.

True, or not?

Tehran has also cracked down on Iranians advocating better ties with Washington, while dialing up the anti-American propaganda. There’s legal action, too, including a new ban on the import of any US-made consumer goods.

True, or not?

In case there was any doubt, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reiterated his commitment to “Death to America” (while telling Americans not to take it personally).

True, or not?

And, again, Tehran says it will tear up the pact if Washington retaliates for the latest provocations.

True, or not?

You can also read the WSJ article for yourself, and then maybe try this U.S. News article, which contains links to every factual allegation, as well as to Khameini's statement that the imposition of any sanctions, for any reason, would constitute a breach of the nuclear deal.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...enegotiates-the-nuclear-deal-on-its-own-terms

But the Supreme Leader has ruled out any detente with the West beyond the nuclear deal, and he said Iran would stop implementing it if the six powers - the United States, Britain, France, Germany China and Russia - imposed any new sanctions.

“Any comments suggesting the sanctions structure will remain in place or (new) sanctions will be imposed, at any level and under any pretext, would be (considered by Iran) a violation of the deal,” Khamenei said in the letter published on his website.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0SF18720151021

The truly obscene part of this is that the Iranian position makes a fuck of a lot more sense than does ours. What sense does it make that we have to lift nuclear-related sanctions if we could just reimpose them through the back door as sanctions for non-nuclear misdeeds? The Iranians are right - sanctions cannot reasonably be distinguished based on the claimed reason for their imposition. Either they are all gone, and none can be reimposed, or not. Otherwise, we could do a complete end-run around our obligations, which is nonsensical.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

DP

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Just a reminder for everyone reading. Here is an actual news article on the Iran nuclear deal. Not a New York Post opinion article.

Not a single word in that NPR article addressed the issue of the Iranians using the nuke deal to get immunity from sanctions for all the other shitty things they do.

Iran now has a green light to do everything they want, including taking more hostages, financing terrorism, cyber attacks against us, etc., without fear of us reimposing sanctions. With the right to build a bomb in ten years. Sooner if they're smart. And with the benefit of an extra $100 billion plus in cash.

 

[Jordan]

This was written ages ago by a colleague. I don't necessarily agree. Ultimately, Iran having a nuclear weapon lets them do more to destabilize the region (not with the weapon, but, with the status it brings). With that said, I think the argument regarding stabilization to the region has credence.

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/4772/so-what-if-iran-has-the-bomb

 

[Sebastian]

Good article on the collapse of these nations as well as the notion that they were doomed to failure. Thanks, Sykes-Picot!

Iraq, Syria and Libya no Longer Exist

"In the West, we have a pretty good idea of what countries are. They are areas of land where nations or peoples live, and roughly correspond to states which cover the world map. And all of the world except Antarctica is covered by some state or another, because humans live permanently everywhere except Antarctica. The world map is thus made of countries and states.

Except that it is not. Neither states nor countries are natural things that simply exist wherever people exist. In fact, having an entire world covered in states and countries is a very recent phenomenon indeed. It has only become the norm with the completion of the West’s colonial designs on the rest of the world by the late 19th Century. Up to that point, the majority of inner Africa was stateless tribal lands. The same was true of the large part of the North American continent and the Amazon. As indeed it was of much of Siberia and Central Asia.

We associate stateless territories with wilderness and backwardness. And this is a very strong instinct going back to the empires of Antiquity. The lands north of the Rhine, beyond the Roman Empire were the stateless lands of the Barbarians. Just like the lands north of the Danube were the lands of the barbarians for the Greeks. Or the lands north of the Oxus river or the Caucasus Mountains for the Persians.

For most of the time for which states have existed, the majority of the world was in fact not covered by states. And that is true for countries as well, even if for different reasons. For most of history, for as long as we have recorded history, most of the planet has not in fact been covered by patches of land which could be said to be properly inhabited in their majority by an overwhelmingly dominant nation or ethnic people. Quite the contrary: except in isolated states which lock their borders as a matter of policy and where such policy has been in effect for long enough that the population has coagulated into a single national identity, most areas of the world are in fact highly mixed and diverse. Most states are not national in character. They are multi-ethnic or imperial. And have been for most of history. The nation-state as a concept has only been invented during WW1, hoped to be a remedy to European countries chronic tendency to go to war with each other, after the Great War had ended..."

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2015/11/08/Iraq-Syria-and-Libya-no-longer-exist.html

 

[Mr. Orange]

Not a single word in that NPR article addressed the issue of the Iranians using the nuke deal to get immunity from sanctions for all the other shitty things they do.

Iran now has a green light to do everything they want, including taking more hostages, financing terrorism, cyber attacks against us, etc., without fear of us reimposing sanctions. With the right to build a bomb in ten years. Sooner if they're smart. And with the benefit of an extra $100 billion plus in cash.

Correct. It was a news article on the deal for other's benefit to read. Not an opinion article.

I suppose anything is possible but overall, the international community applauded the nuclear deal. Like I said, it buys the world 10-15 years to figure out the next move. Tricky situation. The good news is that in July Iran could attempt to create weapons grade uranium and today they can't. That is good and there is no other way to see it.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Correct. It was a news article on the deal for other's benefit to read. Not an opinion article.

But none of the "news" addressed the factual concerns about limitations on Iran's non-nuclear activities. That's a factual issue, not just opinion. And you completely ignored (again) all the facts from that other article. Pretending that legitimate criticisms/concerns don't exist doesn't make them go away.

And frankly, the NPR article is just a very cursory summary of points in favor of the deal. It doesn't really address any of the fact-based criticisms of the deal. It was even written before the revelations that the IAEA would not even be collecting its own samples, and before the whole issue of the side-deals was revealed. It's the Cliff Notes version of a real argument.

I suppose anything is possible but overall, the international community applauded the nuclear deal. Like I said, it buys the world 10-15 years to figure out the next move. Tricky situation. The good news is that in July Iran could attempt to create weapons grade uranium and today they can't. That is good and there is no other way to see it.

Of course there is. According to the Administration, Iran was only 2-3 months away from a breakout to have enough nuke material. So why the fuck would they just give up when they were so close?

Here's an idea. Sanctions take time to have a significant effect. Iran had been under them for a long time and so they were hurting. If they would have broken out now, and triggered a second round of heavier sanctions, that might be crippling to their already-strapped economy.

So, they agree to this deal, which for them is a pressure-release valve to dig out from under the effect of the sanctions. They'll get that huge pile of over $100B, plus get to sell all their oil. In other words, they are resetting to a healthy economy that will enable them to resist much more easily any economic sanctions that are re-imposed when the inevitable breach occur. And that's only if the U.N. has the guts to re-impose sanctions at all.

Just as important is that they are now inviting in all sorts of other countries to invest in Iran, which is a strategic move intended to make those nations much less willing to impose additional sanctions.

So, let's imagine that after they've gotten their $100B, and after a couple years of selling oil, resetting their economy, and attracting investment, they decide to breach, most likely by getting more squirrely about letting the IAEA in. First, they have to get caught, which they'll of course deny for as long as they can, so there's that delay. Then there will be negotiations, reciprocal claims from Iran that the U.N. and IAEA have breached, or are being unreasonable, etc. The shit will drag on like it always has in the past, because nobody really wants to believe that the deal has fallen apart, because that's admitting failure. And as soon as the West hints at re-imposing any sanctions at all to discipline Iran for non-compliance, Iran will say that would be considered a complete breach so they'll go full bore. Good chance that intimidates other nations from re-imposing sanctions, or, at the least, further delays their implementation.

And on top of that, there will be the additional self-interests of all those nations who will by then have billions of dollars in invested in Iran. Those nations will turn a deliberate blind eye to Iranian misconduct as long as possible so as not to jeopardize their investment. In fact, they may well rationalize the whole thing with "well, they're going to get the bomb eventually anyway, so what's the point?

That's really all we got in exchange for giving them carte blanche on terrorism and all the other shitty things they do. It's a great deal if you're more concerned about the national interests of Iran than of the U.S., or if you're one of the politicians invested in being able to claim that you got "a deal signed". Otherwise, it sucks.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The nation-state as a concept has only been invented during WW1, hoped to be a remedy to European countries chronic tendency to go to war with each other, after the Great War had ended..."

Good article, though that's an overstatement. Europe developed that concept long before WWI, as did some nations outside Europe, including not just the U.S. and Canada, but also some South American and Asian nations, including Japan.

 

[Mr. Orange]

But none of the "news" addressed the factual concerns about limitations on Iran's non-nuclear activities. That's a factual issue, not just opinion. And you completely ignored (again) all the facts from that other article. Pretending that legitimate criticisms/concerns don't exist doesn't make them go away.

And frankly, the NPR article is just a very cursory summary of points in favor of the deal. It doesn't really address any of the fact-based criticisms of the deal. It was even written before the revelations that the IAEA would not even be collecting its own samples, and before the whole issue of the side-deals was revealed. It's the Cliff Notes version of a real argument.



Of course there is. According to the Administration, Iran was only 2-3 months away from a breakout to have enough nuke material. So why the fuck would they just give up when they were so close?

Here's an idea. Sanctions take time to have a significant effect. Iran had been under them for a long time and so they were hurting. If they would have broken out now, and triggered a second round of heavier sanctions, that might be crippling to their already-strapped economy.

So, they agree to this deal, which for them is a pressure-release valve to dig out from under the effect of the sanctions. They'll get that huge pile of over $100B, plus get to sell all their oil. In other words, they are resetting to a healthy economy that will enable them to resist much more easily any economic sanctions that are re-imposed when the inevitable breach occur. And that's only if the U.N. has the guts to re-impose sanctions at all.

Just as important is that they are now inviting in all sorts of other countries to invest in Iran, which is a strategic move intended to make those nations much less willing to impose additional sanctions.

So, let's imagine that after they've gotten their $100B, and after a couple years of selling oil, resetting their economy, and attracting investment, they decide to breach, most likely by getting more squirrely about letting the IAEA in. First, they have to get caught, which they'll of course deny for as long as they can, so there's that delay. Then there will be negotiations, reciprocal claims from Iran that the U.N. and IAEA have breached, or are being unreasonable, etc. The shit will drag on like it always has in the past, because nobody really wants to believe that the deal has fallen apart, because that's admitting failure. And as soon as the West hints at re-imposing any sanctions at all to discipline Iran for non-compliance, Iran will say that would be considered a complete breach so they'll go full bore. Good chance that intimidates other nations from re-imposing sanctions, or, at the least, further delays their implementation.

And on top of that, there will be the additional self-interests of all those nations who will by then have billions of dollars in invested in Iran. Those nations will turn a deliberate blind eye to Iranian misconduct as long as possible so as not to jeopardize their investment. In fact, they may well rationalize the whole thing with "well, they're going to get the bomb eventually anyway, so what's the point?

That's really all we got in exchange for giving them carte blanche on terrorism and all the other shitty things they do. It's a great deal if you're more concerned about the national interests of Iran than of the U.S., or if you're one of the politicians invested in being able to claim that you got "a deal signed". Otherwise, it sucks.

I linked the article just so others could review facts and make their own opinions. I am of the belief that we will need 5-10 years to let this play out. Jumping to conclusions now seems irresponsible. I am happy that Iran will not be enriching uranium to weapons grade for the next decade plus. I do hope we are already working on a solution for after those ten years though. Let's hope we figure something out. I agree with you that it isn't a perfect deal. But no deal with two sides compromising is ever perfect, now is it? Whether we like all aspects of this deal or not, it's the one we have.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I am of the belief that we will need 5-10 years to let this play out. Jumping to conclusions now seems irresponsible. I am happy that Iran will not be enriching uranium to weapons grade for the next decade plus.

You just jumped to the conclusion that Iran will actually abide by this thing for 10 years. I'd be shocked if, internally, that was ever their intent.

 

[Mr. Orange]

You just jumped to the conclusion that Iran will actually abide by this thing for 10 years. I'd be shocked if, internally, that was ever their intent.

How is thinking that a country will abide by the deal they signed at all jumping to a conclusion, compared to your assumption that they break it? You are giving me a good laugh today.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

How is thinking that a country will abide by the deal they signed at all jumping to a conclusion, compared to your assumption that they break it?

Uh, do you even know how those sanctions even came to be in the first place?

 

[Jordan]

Good article, though that's an overstatement. Europe developed that concept long before WWI, as did some nations outside Europe, including not just the U.S. and Canada, but also some South American and Asian nations, including Japan.

Yeah, I agree with this. I'd say the Treaty of Westphalia was really the birth of the modern nation-state.

But, really interesting article @King Stannis. I'm of the opinion that the "Arab Spring" was really an attempt at overturning of the colonial order instituted in the post-WWI system. Unfortunately, the groups that took over are the same (Egypt, Syria, and Bahrain) or worse (Libya, Mali, and Yemen) as their predecessors. Some of the African countries (Morocco, Jordan, and Tunisia), though, look like successful change has been implemented. Hopefully that is a good sign for the future.