Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Help with Iran nuclear deal please

ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:54:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What does Iran want? It wants its economic sanctions lifted so that they can grow and prosper and be taken seriously by other countries. But what the world wants in exchange for Iran's goals is for Iran to prove that it will renounce its advocacy of terrorism and ultimately become an acceptable nation state. We wish for Iran to become peaceful with its neighbors and others abroad.

So, why are we making a deal with Iran over their nuclear development? If we are worried that Iran will go back on its word, why are we making a deal with them that could result in Iran developing weaponry and finally causing threat to the West? If the U.S et al. are worried that Iran lies and ends up developing nukes (as the WSJ noted in an article discussing improvements to the "Bunker Buster" 30,000 lb bomb meant to penetrate Iran's nuclear facility built inside their mountain installation) the U.S should find other means to have Iran prove itself. If Iran wants to prove itself it should have no problem accepting conditions whereby Iran stops support of terrorist cells, stops threatening Israel, etc. These conditions would be much more direct and central to achieving the conflict's resolution. A nuclear deal in this sense seems so arbitrary, much more like an indirect and unnecessary path.

So, DDO, why is nuclear development the chosen path for diplomacy?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:40:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:54:01 AM, ben2974 wrote:
What does Iran want? It wants its economic sanctions lifted so that they can grow and prosper and be taken seriously by other countries. But what the world wants in exchange for Iran's goals is for Iran to prove that it will renounce its advocacy of terrorism and ultimately become an acceptable nation state. We wish for Iran to become peaceful with its neighbors and others abroad.

So, why are we making a deal with Iran over their nuclear development? If we are worried that Iran will go back on its word, why are we making a deal with them that could result in Iran developing weaponry and finally causing threat to the West? If the U.S et al. are worried that Iran lies and ends up developing nukes (as the WSJ noted in an article discussing improvements to the "Bunker Buster" 30,000 lb bomb meant to penetrate Iran's nuclear facility built inside their mountain installation) the U.S should find other means to have Iran prove itself. If Iran wants to prove itself it should have no problem accepting conditions whereby Iran stops support of terrorist cells, stops threatening Israel, etc. These conditions would be much more direct and central to achieving the conflict's resolution. A nuclear deal in this sense seems so arbitrary, much more like an indirect and unnecessary path.


So, DDO, why is nuclear development the chosen path for diplomacy?

Iran wants to bring parity to negotiations in the Middle East. They don't plan to use the nukes, which is painfully obvious to anyone who understands even a tenth of Middle Eastern politics. They want to stand at the negotiation table with a huge stick resting menacingly on their shoulder, which is pretty much what nukes are when it comes to international diplomacy. If they become nuclear, expect Israel to stop playing coy, and to immediately downsize their expectations for a two-state solution. Our tepid support of Iran's nuclear program is essentially a knife in the back to Israel, which they've more than earned by sowing chaos and discontent in the region through continued settlement building in the West Bank and obstinacy at the negotiating table. In the short term it may intensify conflict in the region, but in the long term it will finally lead to some closure when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may also result in a nuclear Middle East down the road, which would, in my opinion, bring more stability to the region by giving the native countries more elbow room at the negotiating table. All in all, I'm hopeful that it's the beginning to an actual stabilization of the Middle East as our hegemony in the region wanes.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:23:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:40:13 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:54:01 AM, ben2974 wrote:
What does Iran want? It wants its economic sanctions lifted so that they can grow and prosper and be taken seriously by other countries. But what the world wants in exchange for Iran's goals is for Iran to prove that it will renounce its advocacy of terrorism and ultimately become an acceptable nation state. We wish for Iran to become peaceful with its neighbors and others abroad.

So, why are we making a deal with Iran over their nuclear development? If we are worried that Iran will go back on its word, why are we making a deal with them that could result in Iran developing weaponry and finally causing threat to the West? If the U.S et al. are worried that Iran lies and ends up developing nukes (as the WSJ noted in an article discussing improvements to the "Bunker Buster" 30,000 lb bomb meant to penetrate Iran's nuclear facility built inside their mountain installation) the U.S should find other means to have Iran prove itself. If Iran wants to prove itself it should have no problem accepting conditions whereby Iran stops support of terrorist cells, stops threatening Israel, etc. These conditions would be much more direct and central to achieving the conflict's resolution. A nuclear deal in this sense seems so arbitrary, much more like an indirect and unnecessary path.


So, DDO, why is nuclear development the chosen path for diplomacy?

Iran wants to bring parity to negotiations in the Middle East. They don't plan to use the nukes, which is painfully obvious to anyone who understands even a tenth of Middle Eastern politics. They want to stand at the negotiation table with a huge stick resting menacingly on their shoulder, which is pretty much what nukes are when it comes to international diplomacy. If they become nuclear, expect Israel to stop playing coy, and to immediately downsize their expectations for a two-state solution. Our tepid support of Iran's nuclear program is essentially a knife in the back to Israel, which they've more than earned by sowing chaos and discontent in the region through continued settlement building in the West Bank and obstinacy at the negotiating table. In the short term it may intensify conflict in the region, but in the long term it will finally lead to some closure when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may also result in a nuclear Middle East down the road, which would, in my opinion, bring more stability to the region by giving the native countries more elbow room at the negotiating table. All in all, I'm hopeful that it's the beginning to an actual stabilization of the Middle East as our hegemony in the region wanes.

North Korea has nukes, right? Their nukes haven't led to anything fruitful on their end. They still can't make demands. They still can't feed their country. They are basically still the same they've always been. I don't see how Iran possessing nukes (which, by the way, Iran is saying they don't plan to use their nuclear facilities for weapons. Hmm, is that a lie?) will help them at the meeting tables. Also, how is "diplomatic parity" something that Americans would bargain for? Who in their right mind would want to give the opportunity to a supposed enemy to become stronger to such degree? Economic strength is one thing, but nuclear capabilities is another. If you want your enemy to prove that it can work within a framework, the enemy should prove itself step-by-step. Growing its economy, revamping their international political mindset, and being more transparent are all ways to gain power. Getting nukes should be their last milestone, really. Paving the way for Iran to access nukes at the start of a track towards peace is nuts.

Also, your explicit berating of Israel and its role in the peace process is indicative of your benign support for countries and affiliated organizations that have no better track records for peace, if any at all. Do you believe that if suddenly Israel's enemies get more power that they will accept Israel and its puny demands for independence/statehood/security?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:34:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 1:23:55 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:40:13 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:54:01 AM, ben2974 wrote:
What does Iran want? It wants its economic sanctions lifted so that they can grow and prosper and be taken seriously by other countries. But what the world wants in exchange for Iran's goals is for Iran to prove that it will renounce its advocacy of terrorism and ultimately become an acceptable nation state. We wish for Iran to become peaceful with its neighbors and others abroad.

So, why are we making a deal with Iran over their nuclear development? If we are worried that Iran will go back on its word, why are we making a deal with them that could result in Iran developing weaponry and finally causing threat to the West? If the U.S et al. are worried that Iran lies and ends up developing nukes (as the WSJ noted in an article discussing improvements to the "Bunker Buster" 30,000 lb bomb meant to penetrate Iran's nuclear facility built inside their mountain installation) the U.S should find other means to have Iran prove itself. If Iran wants to prove itself it should have no problem accepting conditions whereby Iran stops support of terrorist cells, stops threatening Israel, etc. These conditions would be much more direct and central to achieving the conflict's resolution. A nuclear deal in this sense seems so arbitrary, much more like an indirect and unnecessary path.


So, DDO, why is nuclear development the chosen path for diplomacy?

Iran wants to bring parity to negotiations in the Middle East. They don't plan to use the nukes, which is painfully obvious to anyone who understands even a tenth of Middle Eastern politics. They want to stand at the negotiation table with a huge stick resting menacingly on their shoulder, which is pretty much what nukes are when it comes to international diplomacy. If they become nuclear, expect Israel to stop playing coy, and to immediately downsize their expectations for a two-state solution. Our tepid support of Iran's nuclear program is essentially a knife in the back to Israel, which they've more than earned by sowing chaos and discontent in the region through continued settlement building in the West Bank and obstinacy at the negotiating table. In the short term it may intensify conflict in the region, but in the long term it will finally lead to some closure when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may also result in a nuclear Middle East down the road, which would, in my opinion, bring more stability to the region by giving the native countries more elbow room at the negotiating table. All in all, I'm hopeful that it's the beginning to an actual stabilization of the Middle East as our hegemony in the region wanes.

North Korea has nukes, right? Their nukes haven't led to anything fruitful on their end. They still can't make demands. They still can't feed their country. They are basically still the same they've always been. I don't see how Iran possessing nukes (which, by the way, Iran is saying they don't plan to use their nuclear facilities for weapons. Hmm, is that a lie?) will help them at the meeting tables.

North Korea is diplomatically isolated to a degree which Iran is not.

Also, how is "diplomatic parity" something that Americans would bargain for? Who in their right mind would want to give the opportunity to a supposed enemy to become stronger to such degree? Economic strength is one thing, but nuclear capabilities is another. If you want your enemy to prove that it can work within a framework, the enemy should prove itself step-by-step. Growing its economy, revamping their international political mindset, and being more transparent are all ways to gain power. Getting nukes should be their last milestone, really. Paving the way for Iran to access nukes at the start of a track towards peace is nuts.

Iran is Israel's enemy. The whole point of this exercise is to smooth things over so that they don't end up being ours as well. We're essentially fully abandoning the self-fulfilling 'Israel is our only ally in the Middle East' paradigm.

Also, your explicit berating of Israel and its role in the peace process is indicative of your benign support for countries and affiliated organizations that have no better track records for peace, if any at all. Do you believe that if suddenly Israel's enemies get more power that they will accept Israel and its puny demands for independence/statehood/security?

Lol, Israel isn't some cringing victim in this conflict. If you want my more detailed opinions on Israel's state and history, I presented them in this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Israel is in a strong negotiating position which allows them to stall any real two-state solution indefinitely. By undermining their position we can bring negotiations to a point where the two-state solution can finally become a reality without being interrupted by Israeli politics or Iranian-backed saboteurs. We need to bring both Iran and Israel to the negotiating table in a state of relative parity, and one being a nuclear power while the other is not is NOT a state of parity.

Besides, once they are both nuclear nations and the conflict has been resolved, MAD will stop any possibility of 'wiping Israel off the map'.

I see this entire deal as a way for us to finally take the peace process into our own hands by crafting a situation in which a deal can be reached instead of wringing our hands in the background. It's a brilliant move overall.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:59:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 1:34:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 1:23:55 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:40:13 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:54:01 AM, ben2974 wrote:
What does Iran want? It wants its economic sanctions lifted so that they can grow and prosper and be taken seriously by other countries. But what the world wants in exchange for Iran's goals is for Iran to prove that it will renounce its advocacy of terrorism and ultimately become an acceptable nation state. We wish for Iran to become peaceful with its neighbors and others abroad.

So, why are we making a deal with Iran over their nuclear development? If we are worried that Iran will go back on its word, why are we making a deal with them that could result in Iran developing weaponry and finally causing threat to the West? If the U.S et al. are worried that Iran lies and ends up developing nukes (as the WSJ noted in an article discussing improvements to the "Bunker Buster" 30,000 lb bomb meant to penetrate Iran's nuclear facility built inside their mountain installation) the U.S should find other means to have Iran prove itself. If Iran wants to prove itself it should have no problem accepting conditions whereby Iran stops support of terrorist cells, stops threatening Israel, etc. These conditions would be much more direct and central to achieving the conflict's resolution. A nuclear deal in this sense seems so arbitrary, much more like an indirect and unnecessary path.


So, DDO, why is nuclear development the chosen path for diplomacy?

Iran wants to bring parity to negotiations in the Middle East. They don't plan to use the nukes, which is painfully obvious to anyone who understands even a tenth of Middle Eastern politics. They want to stand at the negotiation table with a huge stick resting menacingly on their shoulder, which is pretty much what nukes are when it comes to international diplomacy. If they become nuclear, expect Israel to stop playing coy, and to immediately downsize their expectations for a two-state solution. Our tepid support of Iran's nuclear program is essentially a knife in the back to Israel, which they've more than earned by sowing chaos and discontent in the region through continued settlement building in the West Bank and obstinacy at the negotiating table. In the short term it may intensify conflict in the region, but in the long term it will finally lead to some closure when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may also result in a nuclear Middle East down the road, which would, in my opinion, bring more stability to the region by giving the native countries more elbow room at the negotiating table. All in all, I'm hopeful that it's the beginning to an actual stabilization of the Middle East as our hegemony in the region wanes.

North Korea has nukes, right? Their nukes haven't led to anything fruitful on their end. They still can't make demands. They still can't feed their country. They are basically still the same they've always been. I don't see how Iran possessing nukes (which, by the way, Iran is saying they don't plan to use their nuclear facilities for weapons. Hmm, is that a lie?) will help them at the meeting tables.

North Korea is diplomatically isolated to a degree which Iran is not.

Also, how is "diplomatic parity" something that Americans would bargain for? Who in their right mind would want to give the opportunity to a supposed enemy to become stronger to such degree? Economic strength is one thing, but nuclear capabilities is another. If you want your enemy to prove that it can work within a framework, the enemy should prove itself step-by-step. Growing its economy, revamping their international political mindset, and being more transparent are all ways to gain power. Getting nukes should be their last milestone, really. Paving the way for Iran to access nukes at the start of a track towards peace is nuts.

Iran is Israel's enemy. The whole point of this exercise is to smooth things over so that they don't end up being ours as well. We're essentially fully abandoning the self-fulfilling 'Israel is our only ally in the Middle East' paradigm.

An implicit condition of having an ally is that you back that person up when that person needs help/is in trouble. Someone who threatens your friend is no friend of yours. I'd hope not. You don't take lightly explicit claims to destroy your friend. Also, since when is Iran, a country responsible for supporting multiple terrorist organizations, neutral to us?

Also, your explicit berating of Israel and its role in the peace process is indicative of your benign support for countries and affiliated organizations that have no better track records for peace, if any at all. Do you believe that if suddenly Israel's enemies get more power that they will accept Israel and its puny demands for independence/statehood/security?

Lol, Israel isn't some cringing victim in this conflict. If you want my more detailed opinions on Israel's state and history, I presented them in this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Israel is in a strong negotiating position which allows them to stall any real two-state solution indefinitely. By undermining their position we can bring negotiations to a point where the two-state solution can finally become a reality without being interrupted by Israeli politics or Iranian-backed saboteurs. We need to bring both Iran and Israel to the negotiating table in a state of relative parity, and one being a nuclear power while the other is not is NOT a state of parity.

Besides, once they are both nuclear nations and the conflict has been resolved, MAD will stop any possibility of 'wiping Israel off the map'.
If mutually assured destruction is factored into negotiations, then what exactly has Iran achieved in terms of parity? If Iran really wasn't crazy, they wouldn't ever use a nuke, as you claim. So how will them having nukes at all discourage Israel from keeping to their agenda? IF your argument is that it's simply knowing that Iran can nuke you, then that is reason enough to think twice about letting a terrorist country make nukes. Iran with nukes is still a weak country. What they need more than anything is an economy that can grow. We can remove Iran's sanctions on other conditions. That's my point with this thread.

I see this entire deal as a way for us to finally take the peace process into our own hands by crafting a situation in which a deal can be reached instead of wringing our hands in the background. It's a brilliant move overall.

I think deals can be made too. But does it have to be like this? That's my point, again.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 2:45:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 1:59:24 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 1:34:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 1:23:55 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:40:13 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Iran wants to bring parity to negotiations in the Middle East. They don't plan to use the nukes, which is painfully obvious to anyone who understands even a tenth of Middle Eastern politics. They want to stand at the negotiation table with a huge stick resting menacingly on their shoulder, which is pretty much what nukes are when it comes to international diplomacy. If they become nuclear, expect Israel to stop playing coy, and to immediately downsize their expectations for a two-state solution. Our tepid support of Iran's nuclear program is essentially a knife in the back to Israel, which they've more than earned by sowing chaos and discontent in the region through continued settlement building in the West Bank and obstinacy at the negotiating table. In the short term it may intensify conflict in the region, but in the long term it will finally lead to some closure when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may also result in a nuclear Middle East down the road, which would, in my opinion, bring more stability to the region by giving the native countries more elbow room at the negotiating table. All in all, I'm hopeful that it's the beginning to an actual stabilization of the Middle East as our hegemony in the region wanes.

North Korea has nukes, right? Their nukes haven't led to anything fruitful on their end. They still can't make demands. They still can't feed their country. They are basically still the same they've always been. I don't see how Iran possessing nukes (which, by the way, Iran is saying they don't plan to use their nuclear facilities for weapons. Hmm, is that a lie?) will help them at the meeting tables.

North Korea is diplomatically isolated to a degree which Iran is not.

Also, how is "diplomatic parity" something that Americans would bargain for? Who in their right mind would want to give the opportunity to a supposed enemy to become stronger to such degree? Economic strength is one thing, but nuclear capabilities is another. If you want your enemy to prove that it can work within a framework, the enemy should prove itself step-by-step. Growing its economy, revamping their international political mindset, and being more transparent are all ways to gain power. Getting nukes should be their last milestone, really. Paving the way for Iran to access nukes at the start of a track towards peace is nuts.

Iran is Israel's enemy. The whole point of this exercise is to smooth things over so that they don't end up being ours as well. We're essentially fully abandoning the self-fulfilling 'Israel is our only ally in the Middle East' paradigm.

An implicit condition of having an ally is that you back that person up when that person needs help/is in trouble. Someone who threatens your friend is no friend of yours. I'd hope not. You don't take lightly explicit claims to destroy your friend. Also, since when is Iran, a country responsible for supporting multiple terrorist organizations, neutral to us?

Being an ally also means being cooperative and receptive on the other end as well. A huge amount of nations have signaled to Israel that they MUST stop building settlements in the West Bank, including America. They have brushed that aside and continued. If they are unwilling to honor that request, which has huge ramifications for the peace process and diplomacy in the Middle East at large, then I would consider downgrading their ally status. I don't consider Israel a friend at all, I think that they are using us and taking us for suckers. This is the repayment for their hubris.

Iran is hostile to us for many reasons, including our support of Israel and our ugly history when it comes to their internal affairs. However, that stance has been softening, and trying to bridge the gap at this point makes much more sense then exacerbating their isolation and hostility. Iran also supports those terrorist groups because of their opposition to the situation of Israel. Resolve the situation in a satisfactory way, and the incentive to fund these groups vanishes. In fact, as soon as Iran can sit down at the negotiating table with some real heft the suppression of those groups becomes in their best interest, because it would interrupt the peace process.

Also, your explicit berating of Israel and its role in the peace process is indicative of your benign support for countries and affiliated organizations that have no better track records for peace, if any at all. Do you believe that if suddenly Israel's enemies get more power that they will accept Israel and its puny demands for independence/statehood/security?

Lol, Israel isn't some cringing victim in this conflict. If you want my more detailed opinions on Israel's state and history, I presented them in this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Israel is in a strong negotiating position which allows them to stall any real two-state solution indefinitely. By undermining their position we can bring negotiations to a point where the two-state solution can finally become a reality without being interrupted by Israeli politics or Iranian-backed saboteurs. We need to bring both Iran and Israel to the negotiating table in a state of relative parity, and one being a nuclear power while the other is not is NOT a state of parity.

Besides, once they are both nuclear nations and the conflict has been resolved, MAD will stop any possibility of 'wiping Israel off the map'.
If mutually assured destruction is factored into negotiations, then what exactly has Iran achieved in terms of parity? If Iran really wasn't crazy, they wouldn't ever use a nuke, as you claim. So how will them having nukes at all discourage Israel from keeping to their agenda? IF your argument is that it's simply knowing that Iran can nuke you, then that is reason enough to think twice about letting a terrorist country make nukes. Iran with nukes is still a weak country. What they need more than anything is an economy that can grow. We can remove Iran's sanctions on other conditions. That's my point with this thread.

MAD is a paradox, but it works. You don't engage in total war with a nuclear nation, out of self-interest. Because of this, negotiations are very skewed in favor of peace because the cost of a breakdown into hostilities is so much higher. There's the real threat of nukes being used, but that's why no rational actor would allow things to degrade to that level. And states are all rational actors when it comes to their own self-interest.

I see this entire deal as a way for us to finally take the peace process into our own hands by crafting a situation in which a deal can be reached instead of wringing our hands in the background. It's a brilliant move overall.

I think deals can be made too. But does it have to be like this? That's my point, again.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 3:06:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Great, I spent 15 minutes typing up a rebuttal to Skeps, switched pages to double-check a source, and came back only to have the tab reload and wipe everything I typed. I blame the NSA.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:52:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Being an ally also means being cooperative and receptive on the other end as well. A huge amount of nations have signaled to Israel that they MUST stop building settlements in the West Bank, including America. They have brushed that aside and continued. If they are unwilling to honor that request, which has huge ramifications for the peace process and diplomacy in the Middle East at large, then I would consider downgrading their ally status. I don't consider Israel a friend at all, I think that they are using us and taking us for suckers. This is the repayment for their hubris.

Fair enough. But do we know how Arabs would react to an Israeli policy aimed at removing settlements? Arab leaders may take advantage of a shrinking Israel; Israel knows that Arabs want to minimize Israel's presence. We know that many Arab countries don't like the idea of a Jewish state. Why do you think Israel decided to build settlements in the first place? Because they want to conquer and because they wish to eliminate Arabs? No, I don't think so. It sounds more likely to be a long-term defensive strategy to extend Israel's influence and national security in the face consistent threats abroad. Nonetheless, I understand that settlements are a product of a failure by the Israeli government to recognize the possibility of a lasting peace. I don't like the settlements, but if If this is the case, Israel is not the only one to blame for settlement building.

Iran is hostile to us for many reasons, including our support of Israel and our ugly history when it comes to their internal affairs. However, that stance has been softening, and trying to bridge the gap at this point makes much more sense then exacerbating their isolation and hostility. Iran also supports those terrorist groups because of their opposition to the situation of Israel. Resolve the situation in a satisfactory way, and the incentive to fund these groups vanishes. In fact, as soon as Iran can sit down at the negotiating table with some real heft the suppression of those groups becomes in their best interest, because it would interrupt the peace process.

So you think the advent of modern global Islamic terrorism is due to Israel being a meanie and creating settlements? Therefore, if Israel stops building settlements, they'll stop terrorizing Israelis and Jews across the world? Sure. Why is allowing Iran to obtain nuclear capabilities the way to "satisfactorily resolve" the situation? This here is my problem and why I created this thread in the first place. If Iran wants to gain power and be recognized, they should no longer have any hidden agendas. They should find transparency easy to commit to and accept a deal that DOESN'T involve the enrichment of their nuclear program. If they care for economic growth, nuclear energy isn't required. The very fact that Iran absolutely insists on developing a nuclear program screams deception.

MAD is a paradox, but it works. You don't engage in total war with a nuclear nation, out of self-interest. Because of this, negotiations are very skewed in favor of peace because the cost of a breakdown into hostilities is so much higher. There's the real threat of nukes being used, but that's why no rational actor would allow things to degrade to that level. And states are all rational actors when it comes to their own self-interest.

I think WMDs are overrated. Has any 1st world country with nuclear capabilities threatened their 2nd or 3rd tier adversaries with nuclear strikes over their interests? Hypothetical: do you think that the USA would have intervened in the Ukraine-Russia conflict (boots on the ground and/or use of nukes) if Russia didn't possess nukes? I don't think so.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 6:06:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 5:52:05 PM, ben2974 wrote:
Being an ally also means being cooperative and receptive on the other end as well. A huge amount of nations have signaled to Israel that they MUST stop building settlements in the West Bank, including America. They have brushed that aside and continued. If they are unwilling to honor that request, which has huge ramifications for the peace process and diplomacy in the Middle East at large, then I would consider downgrading their ally status. I don't consider Israel a friend at all, I think that they are using us and taking us for suckers. This is the repayment for their hubris.

Fair enough. But do we know how Arabs would react to an Israeli policy aimed at removing settlements? Arab leaders may take advantage of a shrinking Israel; Israel knows that Arabs want to minimize Israel's presence. We know that many Arab countries don't like the idea of a Jewish state. Why do you think Israel decided to build settlements in the first place? Because they want to conquer and because they wish to eliminate Arabs? No, I don't think so. It sounds more likely to be a long-term defensive strategy to extend Israel's influence and national security in the face consistent threats abroad. Nonetheless, I understand that settlements are a product of a failure by the Israeli government to recognize the possibility of a lasting peace. I don't like the settlements, but if If this is the case, Israel is not the only one to blame for settlement building.

I think that the settlements exist because Israel has a legitimate population problem, and would rather expand into territory over which it holds sway than to curtail Jewish immigration. I don't think that the big evil Jews are twirling their curly sideburns and giggling maniacally as they watch Palestinian villages be bulldozed, I think that they're legitimately concerned with the welfare of their own people first. They just need to be reminded that sometimes, you can't always get what you want, especially when it screws up the entire region in which you want to live.

Iran is hostile to us for many reasons, including our support of Israel and our ugly history when it comes to their internal affairs. However, that stance has been softening, and trying to bridge the gap at this point makes much more sense then exacerbating their isolation and hostility. Iran also supports those terrorist groups because of their opposition to the situation of Israel. Resolve the situation in a satisfactory way, and the incentive to fund these groups vanishes. In fact, as soon as Iran can sit down at the negotiating table with some real heft the suppression of those groups becomes in their best interest, because it would interrupt the peace process.

So you think the advent of modern global Islamic terrorism is due to Israel being a meanie and creating settlements? Therefore, if Israel stops building settlements, they'll stop terrorizing Israelis and Jews across the world? Sure. Why is allowing Iran to obtain nuclear capabilities the way to "satisfactorily resolve" the situation? This here is my problem and why I created this thread in the first place. If Iran wants to gain power and be recognized, they should no longer have any hidden agendas. They should find transparency easy to commit to and accept a deal that DOESN'T involve the enrichment of their nuclear program. If they care for economic growth, nuclear energy isn't required. The very fact that Iran absolutely insists on developing a nuclear program screams deception.

Terrorism exists because the people who use it are deprived of real agency. It's a means of waging asymmetrical warfare on a psychological level, and extreme Zionist forces within Israel resorted to it during the formative years of the state. Restore parity, and there's no need for terrorism. I think that it has to do largely with suppressive Western policy in the Middle East, of which Israel is one component. And of course they're being deceptive. International diplomacy is always deceptive, we just like to pretend that it isn't for political reasons. We are being deceptive by pretending that this is all about nuclear power for Iran, and Israel is being deceptive by pretending that Iran is going to launch an ICBM at Israel the second the last centrifuge run spins down.

MAD is a paradox, but it works. You don't engage in total war with a nuclear nation, out of self-interest. Because of this, negotiations are very skewed in favor of peace because the cost of a breakdown into hostilities is so much higher. There's the real threat of nukes being used, but that's why no rational actor would allow things to degrade to that level. And states are all rational actors when it comes to their own self-interest.

I think WMDs are overrated. Has any 1st world country with nuclear capabilities threatened their 2nd or 3rd tier adversaries with nuclear strikes over their interests? Hypothetical: do you think that the USA would have intervened in the Ukraine-Russia conflict (boots on the ground and/or use of nukes) if Russia didn't possess nukes? I don't think so.

Nukes basically mean that there are two tiers in diplomacy, one which cannot attack the other, and others who have no real recourse when attacked. There's a reason for our not having a true, all-out war between nuclear nations for close to the last century. If neither the US nor Russia possessed nukes, the Cold War likely would have evolved into WWIII and we wouldn't even be having this discussion over the Ukraine.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 7:33:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 6:06:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:52:05 PM, ben2974 wrote:
Being an ally also means being cooperative and receptive on the other end as well. A huge amount of nations have signaled to Israel that they MUST stop building settlements in the West Bank, including America. They have brushed that aside and continued. If they are unwilling to honor that request, which has huge ramifications for the peace process and diplomacy in the Middle East at large, then I would consider downgrading their ally status. I don't consider Israel a friend at all, I think that they are using us and taking us for suckers. This is the repayment for their hubris.

Fair enough. But do we know how Arabs would react to an Israeli policy aimed at removing settlements? Arab leaders may take advantage of a shrinking Israel; Israel knows that Arabs want to minimize Israel's presence. We know that many Arab countries don't like the idea of a Jewish state. Why do you think Israel decided to build settlements in the first place? Because they want to conquer and because they wish to eliminate Arabs? No, I don't think so. It sounds more likely to be a long-term defensive strategy to extend Israel's influence and national security in the face consistent threats abroad. Nonetheless, I understand that settlements are a product of a failure by the Israeli government to recognize the possibility of a lasting peace. I don't like the settlements, but if If this is the case, Israel is not the only one to blame for settlement building.

I think that the settlements exist because Israel has a legitimate population problem, and would rather expand into territory over which it holds sway than to curtail Jewish immigration. I don't think that the big evil Jews are twirling their curly sideburns and giggling maniacally as they watch Palestinian villages be bulldozed, I think that they're legitimately concerned with the welfare of their own people first. They just need to be reminded that sometimes, you can't always get what you want, especially when it screws up the entire region in which you want to live.

Fair.

Iran is hostile to us for many reasons, including our support of Israel and our ugly history when it comes to their internal affairs. However, that stance has been softening, and trying to bridge the gap at this point makes much more sense then exacerbating their isolation and hostility. Iran also supports those terrorist groups because of their opposition to the situation of Israel. Resolve the situation in a satisfactory way, and the incentive to fund these groups vanishes. In fact, as soon as Iran can sit down at the negotiating table with some real heft the suppression of those groups becomes in their best interest, because it would interrupt the peace process.

We all know Iran is a culprit when it comes to terrorism. Attacks on Israel and Jews can increase if Iran gets stronger. They won't have to resort to terrorism because they can just wage wars. They'll be a Putin of the middle east! Though, perhaps Iran won't get rid of clandestine operations to inflict damage to their enemies. Honestly, a more powerful Iran can choose to do more, not less, and in any fashion it wishes (be it terroristic or militaristic). I'll concede that I don't know the many yet specific grievances Iran holds against Israel and her allies so I can't genuinely claim that Iran would choose to act this way.


So you think the advent of modern global Islamic terrorism is due to Israel being a meanie and creating settlements? Therefore, if Israel stops building settlements, they'll stop terrorizing Israelis and Jews across the world? Sure. Why is allowing Iran to obtain nuclear capabilities the way to "satisfactorily resolve" the situation? This here is my problem and why I created this thread in the first place. If Iran wants to gain power and be recognized, they should no longer have any hidden agendas. They should find transparency easy to commit to and accept a deal that DOESN'T involve the enrichment of their nuclear program. If they care for economic growth, nuclear energy isn't required. The very fact that Iran absolutely insists on developing a nuclear program screams deception.

Terrorism exists because the people who use it are deprived of real agency. It's a means of waging asymmetrical warfare on a psychological level, and extreme Zionist forces within Israel resorted to it during the formative years of the state. Restore parity, and there's no need for terrorism. I think that it has to do largely with suppressive Western policy in the Middle East, of which Israel is one component. And of course they're being deceptive. International diplomacy is always deceptive, we just like to pretend that it isn't for political reasons. We are being deceptive by pretending that this is all about nuclear power for Iran, and Israel is being deceptive by pretending that Iran is going to launch an ICBM at Israel the second the last centrifuge run spins down.

MAD is a paradox, but it works. You don't engage in total war with a nuclear nation, out of self-interest. Because of this, negotiations are very skewed in favor of peace because the cost of a breakdown into hostilities is so much higher. There's the real threat of nukes being used, but that's why no rational actor would allow things to degrade to that level. And states are all rational actors when it comes to their own self-interest.

I think WMDs are overrated. Has any 1st world country with nuclear capabilities threatened their 2nd or 3rd tier adversaries with nuclear strikes over their interests? Hypothetical: do you think that the USA would have intervened in the Ukraine-Russia conflict (boots on the ground and/or use of nukes) if Russia didn't possess nukes? I don't think so.

Nukes basically mean that there are two tiers in diplomacy, one which cannot attack the other, and others who have no real recourse when attacked. There's a reason for our not having a true, all-out war between nuclear nations for close to the last century. If neither the US nor Russia possessed nukes, the Cold War likely would have evolved into WWIII and we wouldn't even be having this discussion over the Ukraine.

Hope that Iran isn't obsessed in fulfilling their blood-filled dreams.

I don't think my main question has ever been addressed. Why can't there be (or why isn't there) a deal that does not involve Iranian nuclear development. There are surely other paths that could lead to win-win situations for the actors involved!
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 7:34:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 3:06:46 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Great, I spent 15 minutes typing up a rebuttal to Skeps, switched pages to double-check a source, and came back only to have the tab reload and wipe everything I typed. I blame the NSA.

This thread could use some more ideas. Post!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 7:39:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 7:33:03 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 6:06:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:52:05 PM, ben2974 wrote:
Being an ally also means being cooperative and receptive on the other end as well. A huge amount of nations have signaled to Israel that they MUST stop building settlements in the West Bank, including America. They have brushed that aside and continued. If they are unwilling to honor that request, which has huge ramifications for the peace process and diplomacy in the Middle East at large, then I would consider downgrading their ally status. I don't consider Israel a friend at all, I think that they are using us and taking us for suckers. This is the repayment for their hubris.

Fair enough. But do we know how Arabs would react to an Israeli policy aimed at removing settlements? Arab leaders may take advantage of a shrinking Israel; Israel knows that Arabs want to minimize Israel's presence. We know that many Arab countries don't like the idea of a Jewish state. Why do you think Israel decided to build settlements in the first place? Because they want to conquer and because they wish to eliminate Arabs? No, I don't think so. It sounds more likely to be a long-term defensive strategy to extend Israel's influence and national security in the face consistent threats abroad. Nonetheless, I understand that settlements are a product of a failure by the Israeli government to recognize the possibility of a lasting peace. I don't like the settlements, but if If this is the case, Israel is not the only one to blame for settlement building.

I think that the settlements exist because Israel has a legitimate population problem, and would rather expand into territory over which it holds sway than to curtail Jewish immigration. I don't think that the big evil Jews are twirling their curly sideburns and giggling maniacally as they watch Palestinian villages be bulldozed, I think that they're legitimately concerned with the welfare of their own people first. They just need to be reminded that sometimes, you can't always get what you want, especially when it screws up the entire region in which you want to live.

Fair.

Iran is hostile to us for many reasons, including our support of Israel and our ugly history when it comes to their internal affairs. However, that stance has been softening, and trying to bridge the gap at this point makes much more sense then exacerbating their isolation and hostility. Iran also supports those terrorist groups because of their opposition to the situation of Israel. Resolve the situation in a satisfactory way, and the incentive to fund these groups vanishes. In fact, as soon as Iran can sit down at the negotiating table with some real heft the suppression of those groups becomes in their best interest, because it would interrupt the peace process.

We all know Iran is a culprit when it comes to terrorism. Attacks on Israel and Jews can increase if Iran gets stronger. They won't have to resort to terrorism because they can just wage wars. They'll be a Putin of the middle east! Though, perhaps Iran won't get rid of clandestine operations to inflict damage to their enemies. Honestly, a more powerful Iran can choose to do more, not less, and in any fashion it wishes (be it terroristic or militaristic). I'll concede that I don't know the many yet specific grievances Iran holds against Israel and her allies so I can't genuinely claim that Iran would choose to act this way.


So you think the advent of modern global Islamic terrorism is due to Israel being a meanie and creating settlements? Therefore, if Israel stops building settlements, they'll stop terrorizing Israelis and Jews across the world? Sure. Why is allowing Iran to obtain nuclear capabilities the way to "satisfactorily resolve" the situation? This here is my problem and why I created this thread in the first place. If Iran wants to gain power and be recognized, they should no longer have any hidden agendas. They should find transparency easy to commit to and accept a deal that DOESN'T involve the enrichment of their nuclear program. If they care for economic growth, nuclear energy isn't required. The very fact that Iran absolutely insists on developing a nuclear program screams deception.

Terrorism exists because the people who use it are deprived of real agency. It's a means of waging asymmetrical warfare on a psychological level, and extreme Zionist forces within Israel resorted to it during the formative years of the state. Restore parity, and there's no need for terrorism. I think that it has to do largely with suppressive Western policy in the Middle East, of which Israel is one component. And of course they're being deceptive. International diplomacy is always deceptive, we just like to pretend that it isn't for political reasons. We are being deceptive by pretending that this is all about nuclear power for Iran, and Israel is being deceptive by pretending that Iran is going to launch an ICBM at Israel the second the last centrifuge run spins down.

MAD is a paradox, but it works. You don't engage in total war with a nuclear nation, out of self-interest. Because of this, negotiations are very skewed in favor of peace because the cost of a breakdown into hostilities is so much higher. There's the real threat of nukes being used, but that's why no rational actor would allow things to degrade to that level. And states are all rational actors when it comes to their own self-interest.

I think WMDs are overrated. Has any 1st world country with nuclear capabilities threatened their 2nd or 3rd tier adversaries with nuclear strikes over their interests? Hypothetical: do you think that the USA would have intervened in the Ukraine-Russia conflict (boots on the ground and/or use of nukes) if Russia didn't possess nukes? I don't think so.

Nukes basically mean that there are two tiers in diplomacy, one which cannot attack the other, and others who have no real recourse when attacked. There's a reason for our not having a true, all-out war between nuclear nations for close to the last century. If neither the US nor Russia possessed nukes, the Cold War likely would have evolved into WWIII and we wouldn't even be having this discussion over the Ukraine.

Hope that Iran isn't obsessed in fulfilling their blood-filled dreams.

I don't think my main question has ever been addressed. Why can't there be (or why isn't there) a deal that does not involve Iranian nuclear development. There are surely other paths that could lead to win-win situations for the actors involved!

Yeah, there are. All that has to happen is for Israel to sit down and seriously negotiate a two-state solution. This will involve the relocation of a lot of settlements, or land exchanges. If they do this, Iran doesn't have to go nuclear. It's their own obstinance which has made this a necessity. Israel has made it abundantly clear that they will refuse to make concessions until they are forced to by circumstances, and so circumstances are being arranged in a way which will force them to make those concessions. Not everyone in Israel feels this way. A lot on the left in Israel were incensed by the recent Likud victory which will mean more of these sorts of policy. But until Israelis vote into power, and keep in power, a government which is willing to make the necessary concessions, they will continue to lose face on the international stage, and their influence will be steadily chipped away until they relent.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 3:17:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:54:01 AM, ben2974 wrote:
What does Iran want? It wants its economic sanctions lifted so that they can grow and prosper and be taken seriously by other countries. But what the world wants in exchange for Iran's goals is for Iran to prove that it will renounce its advocacy of terrorism and ultimately become an acceptable nation state. We wish for Iran to become peaceful with its neighbors and others abroad.

So, why are we making a deal with Iran over their nuclear development? If we are worried that Iran will go back on its word, why are we making a deal with them that could result in Iran developing weaponry and finally causing threat to the West? If the U.S et al. are worried that Iran lies and ends up developing nukes (as the WSJ noted in an article discussing improvements to the "Bunker Buster" 30,000 lb bomb meant to penetrate Iran's nuclear facility built inside their mountain installation) the U.S should find other means to have Iran prove itself. If Iran wants to prove itself it should have no problem accepting conditions whereby Iran stops support of terrorist cells, stops threatening Israel, etc. These conditions would be much more direct and central to achieving the conflict's resolution. A nuclear deal in this sense seems so arbitrary, much more like an indirect and unnecessary path.


So, DDO, why is nuclear development the chosen path for diplomacy?

If you recall back in the Bush days, Russia proposed to provide Iran with nuclear fuel for energy plants as a method to ensure they could develop power plants. They did not accept the proposal because they did not want to be dependent upon another country for the power source.

That is why you will see the current agreement allows them to have uranium that is purified to a percent which would be usable in a nuke energy plant, yet have monitoring to validate they are not expanding their allowable centrifuges to get weapons quality uranium. They also are not allowed to have the type of reactor which creates plutonium.

Iran is trying to expand their nuke plants for energy. You can't rule that out as a driver of what they were not willing to give up.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 11:07:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 3:17:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:54:01 AM, ben2974 wrote:
What does Iran want? It wants its economic sanctions lifted so that they can grow and prosper and be taken seriously by other countries. But what the world wants in exchange for Iran's goals is for Iran to prove that it will renounce its advocacy of terrorism and ultimately become an acceptable nation state. We wish for Iran to become peaceful with its neighbors and others abroad.

So, why are we making a deal with Iran over their nuclear development? If we are worried that Iran will go back on its word, why are we making a deal with them that could result in Iran developing weaponry and finally causing threat to the West? If the U.S et al. are worried that Iran lies and ends up developing nukes (as the WSJ noted in an article discussing improvements to the "Bunker Buster" 30,000 lb bomb meant to penetrate Iran's nuclear facility built inside their mountain installation) the U.S should find other means to have Iran prove itself. If Iran wants to prove itself it should have no problem accepting conditions whereby Iran stops support of terrorist cells, stops threatening Israel, etc. These conditions would be much more direct and central to achieving the conflict's resolution. A nuclear deal in this sense seems so arbitrary, much more like an indirect and unnecessary path.


So, DDO, why is nuclear development the chosen path for diplomacy?

If you recall back in the Bush days, Russia proposed to provide Iran with nuclear fuel for energy plants as a method to ensure they could develop power plants. They did not accept the proposal because they did not want to be dependent upon another country for the power source.

That is why you will see the current agreement allows them to have uranium that is purified to a percent which would be usable in a nuke energy plant, yet have monitoring to validate they are not expanding their allowable centrifuges to get weapons quality uranium. They also are not allowed to have the type of reactor which creates plutonium.

Iran is trying to expand their nuke plants for energy. You can't rule that out as a driver of what they were not willing to give up.

Not sure I understand your post. Who cares if Iran wants nuclear energy. It can be taken to the next level and be used in harmful ways. Countries don't need nuclear energy for development. If Iran cares about lifting its sanctions and proving to the world that it can play by the rules, it should accept terms unrelated to nuclear energy. That is, they should accept being barred from accessing nuclear energy and negotiate on terms purely related to their economics and political transparency. Worry about nuclear energy later.

By the way, please excuse my ignorance in advance. I might not know/understand the whole situation, so call it out if need be.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 7:55:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 11:07:39 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 4/6/2015 3:17:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:54:01 AM, ben2974 wrote:
What does Iran want? It wants its economic sanctions lifted so that they can grow and prosper and be taken seriously by other countries. But what the world wants in exchange for Iran's goals is for Iran to prove that it will renounce its advocacy of terrorism and ultimately become an acceptable nation state. We wish for Iran to become peaceful with its neighbors and others abroad.

So, why are we making a deal with Iran over their nuclear development? If we are worried that Iran will go back on its word, why are we making a deal with them that could result in Iran developing weaponry and finally causing threat to the West? If the U.S et al. are worried that Iran lies and ends up developing nukes (as the WSJ noted in an article discussing improvements to the "Bunker Buster" 30,000 lb bomb meant to penetrate Iran's nuclear facility built inside their mountain installation) the U.S should find other means to have Iran prove itself. If Iran wants to prove itself it should have no problem accepting conditions whereby Iran stops support of terrorist cells, stops threatening Israel, etc. These conditions would be much more direct and central to achieving the conflict's resolution. A nuclear deal in this sense seems so arbitrary, much more like an indirect and unnecessary path.


So, DDO, why is nuclear development the chosen path for diplomacy?

If you recall back in the Bush days, Russia proposed to provide Iran with nuclear fuel for energy plants as a method to ensure they could develop power plants. They did not accept the proposal because they did not want to be dependent upon another country for the power source.

That is why you will see the current agreement allows them to have uranium that is purified to a percent which would be usable in a nuke energy plant, yet have monitoring to validate they are not expanding their allowable centrifuges to get weapons quality uranium. They also are not allowed to have the type of reactor which creates plutonium.

Iran is trying to expand their nuke plants for energy. You can't rule that out as a driver of what they were not willing to give up.


Not sure I understand your post. Who cares if Iran wants nuclear energy. It can be taken to the next level and be used in harmful ways. Countries don't need nuclear energy for development. If Iran cares about lifting its sanctions and proving to the world that it can play by the rules, it should accept terms unrelated to nuclear energy. That is, they should accept being barred from accessing nuclear energy and negotiate on terms purely related to their economics and political transparency. Worry about nuclear energy later.

By the way, please excuse my ignorance in advance. I might not know/understand the whole situation, so call it out if need be.

It is impossible to seperate out nuclear energy from aspirations of developing nuclear weapons. The most difficult thing about nuke weapons is purifying the uranium to weapons grade. The process of purifying uranium is the same whether one is purifying it for an energy plant or nuclear weapon. The only difference is when you stop.

The agreement allows up just below 4% purity so it can still be used for nuclear plants but not weapons. Since it is less purity less centrifuges are needed thus the agreement to cut back on number of centrifuges.

The other area is that one style of nuclear energy plants creates plutonium as a by product. That can also be used for weapons. The agreement does not allow that style of nuclear plant.

The short synopsis is that Israel does not want to allow Iran even a nuclear energy industry because it is the "pathway" to nuclear weapons. There however is not any precedence to disallow nuclear energy industry of a country if they are meeting their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran stepped out of those obligations when they added more centrifuges and had a secret laboratory discovered, so I believe it to be fair game to discuss their reliability and trustworthiness. However not allowing a country a nuclear energy industry if they are in line with the NNPT would be new territory to the point that Russia and China would not support us on the Security Council to go that far.