The best single article on why the Iran nuke deal is a bad one

The Obama administration agues that the breakout time for Iran to develop a bomb, if they choose to do so, will extended from 2-3 months to about a year as a result of the current deal. This is patently false. This article in the New York Times (!) today suggests that the increase in the breakout time that will result from the deal is from two months to three months, or a net gain of one month. For this, Iran will have sanctions eliminated, and $150 billion released. Does this sound like a fair exchange?

Alan J. Kuperman writes in “The Iran Deal’s Fatal Flaw”…

  • G

    My guess is that Iran probably has already one or two completed nukes. They may not have a nuclear arsenal, even a nuke arsenal as small as the Americans had in May of 1945 (4 bombs). But they probably have a couple already completed.
    The word of this probably sent quietly through back door channels.

    We haven’t hear about it yet and won’t hear about it until they test one. The pakis had the bomb for years and the public never heard about it until they lit one off.

    • Petey

      I wonder where they’ll test it – not necessarily in Iran proper. Against ISIS, perhaps? And if all goes well, next stop (presumably) Israel.

      • Hard Little Machine

        The Hiroshima bomb was so crude it was never tested before it was used. The Trinity test that preceded it was the “Fat Man” weapon which was far more complex. The Hiroshima bomb was designed as a plan B in case Trinity did not work.

    • Hard Little Machine

      Yes the odds are they have a ‘gadget’ eg, a working model science experiment that’s not deployable as a weapon. The next logical step is to make it deployable – weaponize the weapon as it were. America’s first H-Bomb was such a gadget – a massive 67 ton device the size of a building. It took less than 2 years to weaponize it to the point where it could be deployed on a huge B-36 bomber. And then it remains to be seen what ‘deployable’ means. Pakistan’s leader once quipped “We can deliver it on an oxcart if we have to”. So anything that can fit in a tractor trailer truck or a container ship is in theory, deployable. There aren’t that many plausible targets in that scenario – Israel, Saudi Arabia or a US asset somewhere in the Mideast, possibly an aircraft carrier.

  • Sharkibark

    What I don’t understand is who is advising the President on this and to what end? If a NYT reporter can research this information and connect the dots, surely the most powerful man on the planet has a couple of people he can ask about this??? Oh wait… I just answered my own question….

    • Hard Little Machine

      The short answer is that famous duo Walt and Mearsheimer. Those two old Jew haters are acolytes of the ‘neo-realist’ school of geo politics founded by the late Dr Ken Waltz. And Waltz promoted an ANTI non proliferation strategy. The neo-realists believe, or say they believe that the world is a better safer place when EVERYONE has atomic weapons. They believe everyone is entirely rational and motivated solely by self preservation. Some would even go so far as to endorse non state actors to get The Bomb. This is actually what they believe. So when we say “Obama probably wants Iran to get nuclear weapons” there’s a very high probability that that’s factually accurate.

  • Maurixio Garcia Sanchez

    Obama gave the key of destruction of this world to Iran.

  • Way too much vergabe on how and when Iran gets the bomb.

    What a pile of lies.

    The Obama legacy will be a ME nuclear exchange. (If we are lucky it will only bet there.)

    Thank a democrat for electing the Islamic Manchurian Candidate.