Iran going nuclear is third or fourth on the list of dangerous consequences of this deal.
First is the $150B+ in assets that will be freed, which will no doubt be spent heavily on conventional weapons and conitnued sponsoring of terrorist organizations in the region. Frankly, I don't believe the Iranian people have the stomach to demand those funds be used to build non-military infrastructure or develop social programs, let alone the stomach to act on those demands when Khamenei says, "No."
As of now, best guess for Iranian expenditure on their military puts it somewhere around $8 billion to $14 billion. For comparison, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States spend about
$72 billion (numbers from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). Iran has a long way to go before it equals the Saudis and the Gulf States.
Additionally, the two largest recipients of Iranian aid in the region are Iraq and Syria -both of whom are nominally secular governments fighting
against a radical, barbaric, Islamist state. Relations with Hezbollah have soured due to Hezbollah's increasingly frosty relations with the Syrian government. As far as Yemen goes, the county is sufficiently fallen apart it really isn't clear if there is a state there any more.
Rather, it is more likely the released assets will go toward re-establishing food subsidies (food prices in Iran are rising fast enough it is starting to become a major issue) and kick start its decrepit economy. Iran's population is on average young and nominally westernized (socially at least). The government has no desire to have a large number of well educated people with no jobs capable of protesting the government.
Second is the threat of Iran going nuclear, which will push neighboring Arab states to go nuclear themselves, probably before Iran achieves it, assuming they even abide by Obama's empty promises of verification.
Getting nuclear weapons is a very expensive proposition. FWIW, the Manhattan project cost about as much as the US's
entire small arms production in the war or the amount the UK spent on Bomber Command. While things have gotten cheaper, instructions from transitioning from civilian and scientific reactors to getting working, useable nuclear weapons and delivery systems is challenging at best.
It took India almost 30 years to get a useable nuclear weapon, and that was without crippling sanctions on nuclear technology and with unintended Canadian assistance.
Third is the threat of any Arab nation's nukes falling into the hands of religious extremists. The Iranian government may only want nukes as a status symbol, but the likelihood that fringe elements actively willing to use a nuke will obtain one is greatly increased.
Since Iran lacks nuclear weapons, we have no idea what their control method will be, but it is likely they will follow the Pakistani method of splitting the nuclear weapon and its delivery method into basic parts (warhead, detonator, missile, engine, guidance system) and spreading them around the country to secured positions.
Obama's claims of negotiating from a "position of strength and principle," when the deal violates several of Obama's stated principles and demonstrates a complete willingness to cave into Tehran, would make for some great punchlines, but Hollywood is very effective at blacklisting anyone critical of the administration.
Could you demonstrate how the deal showed 'caving to Tehran'? The talks managed to avert what really looked like was going to escalate into a war back into 2013, and we got something demonstrating an international consensus. Plus, it gets Iran invested in the international community. Pariah states aren't responsive to international pressure because the international community has no levers to push on. Given the issues going on in the Middle East -notably ISIS, a group Iran staunchly opposes- getting one of the regions half-decent democracies* working with the international community can't be that bad of a thing.
*Remember the protests back in 2009 (I think it was)? Those were because Iranians felt the government had rigged the election, demonstrating that they believed it was at least somewhat a free and fair election.
I can only wonder at what sort of positive engagement with the West we can expect as a result, from a people who openly despise our stance on social issues such as the legalization of same-sex marriage. I'm sure in their arrogance they believe Hollywood will conquer all, even though that's a top target for anti-American hatred.
Yes, because opinions on same-sex marriage it totally a reason to avoid having functioning diplomatic relations with a county.
Saudi Arabia
prevents women from driving and beheads people and every US President I can think of since Saudi Arabia found oil has considered them a valuable ally in the region. The Egyptian government just had a military coup and is busy rounding up journalists and handing out mass death sentences, yet we still cooperate with them.
It's not as though Iran promised to cease sponsoring terrorists groups, or even to soften its official stance against America or Israel.
And what is that stance? Rouhani can't be a huge fan of America and Israel -too much lingering distrust- but so what?
It hasn't even been a week since their leaders proudly marched in Quds Day celebrations. They openly profess their continued hatred for the West, especially America and Israel, and continue to claim the agreement does nothing to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.
Source please, for the developing nuclear weapons.
FWIW, the Mossad has said that they do not believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
BBC said:
Bottom line: though Iran at this stage is not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons, it is working to close gaps in areas that appear legitimate such as enrichment, reactors, which will reduce the time required to produce weapons from the time the instruction is actually given
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31596640
It prohibits nukes in statement only. They have plenty of time to hide any illicit refinement or research before inspectors are allowed in, given the required 24 day notice of inspection. They've just been given a sizeable cash infusion for the procurement of conventional weapons, including missiles capable of delivering warheads. They openly state that their intentions have not changed one bit. They've repeatedly undermined past verification efforts.
UN Sanctions on the import of ballistic missile technology remains in place for another 8 or 10 years (I forgot which).
Only a fool would think this deal is anything but an invitation for more conflict in the region, with a potential to grow into a major regional, and from there global, conflict. And with China laying claim to the South China Sea, and from there the rest of the South Pacific, it's entirely possible the the US will be unable to deploy forces in a timely manner if necessary.
America possesses enough enough nukes to vaporize the planet several times over, more aircraft carriers than the next six countries
combined (and that is assuming India's jury-rigged ex-Soviet carrier; the bucket of bolts that is the
Kuznetsov; and the soon to be 60 year old
Sao Paolo in the Brazilian navy are in any way vaguely comparable to a supercarrier), allies around the world -which becomes even greater when thinking about push-comes-to-shove allies*- and a defense budget that nobody else in the world comes near to matching, and you are
afraid we can't project power if we really needed to?
*Take the South China Sea for example. Excepting Japan, the Philippines, and Australia, our relations with the other countries are mediocre at best. However, all of those countries would prefer to work with a status-quo maintaining America half a world away than a revanchist, frisky China breathing down their necks.
Unrelated, but Robert Fisk is as interesting as always:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...man-in-the-gulf-it-could-happen-10154920.html
