Hacker News Reader

Comment by adrr | Hacker News Reader

JCPOA failing means no IAEA inspections. I don’t understand Israel’s rational around stopping the IAEA inspections if they don’t want Iran as a nuclear power.

View on HN

Israel is not against a nuclear agreement in principal. They want to make sure it has enough teeth that it can and will be enforced and that it doesn’t expire like the current one does.

This is the same reason most of the gulf states are against the nuclear deal in its current form.

Do you have a source where I could read more about Israel’s goals with the JCPOA? Even with the sun setting, the idea seems to be to keep reimplementing a new agreement under threat of future sanctions, just like you refi a TLB, and the Israelis should understand this.

If Israel cared about the risk of Iran becoming a nuclear power, then the JCPOA would have been gold for them. No, I think nuclear weapons are just a great excuse to isolate Iran from the international community and destroy its economy. If you have a quarrel with your neighbour, do you prefer him to be rich and respected or poor and ignored?

Proof is, again, that the strongest campaigner against keeping Iran's nuclear research under strict checks has always been Israel.

No IAEA inspections means Bibi can once again entertain the UN with cartoon bombs without getting any serious headwind.

Throw in IAEA inspections and that whole rhetoric out of Israel becomes much less believable and might even reflect badly on Israel itself when the IAEA inspections show them to be not true.

If there are no inspections Israel can make up whatever story it wants and act accordingly, as there won't be any neutral party to contradict it and Israel figures it has more diplomatic allies than Iran.

I have no idea if this is what's happening; it's just a possible strategic rationale.

Iran has military ties and grants aid to Hezbollah and Bashar Al Asad the Syrian dictator (both are neighboring enemies of Israel), has missiles that could potentially threaten Israel, and has publicly threatened death and hellfire upon Israel.

I am certain that nuclear weapons or not, Israel considers Iran enemy #1 and a real threat to be dealt with. A stronger Iran (via sanctions relief) is not in their interest.

I did some digging and it seems both countries have been threatening each other for decades. Israel has repeatedly blocked their nuclear program and has threatened offensive action if it continues. Not just recently but even in an article from 2006.

It seems both sides are throwing threats around and it seems unfair to only mention Iran’s threats.

https://m.dw.com/en/israel-threatens-iran-over-nuclear-resea...

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-israel-iran-iran-nuclea...

The discussion is about Israel’s rationale - not whether or not Iran’s aggression is justified.

"it seems unfair to only mention Iran’s threats"

If that's unfair, then it is also unfair to leave out the fact that the Iranian government has murdered innocent US citizens and funded organizations that seek to murder large numbers of innocent US civilians. We should also mention the two countries differing views on religious freedom and women's rights, or even their differing views on the others right to exist.

Israel is built on the suffering of the Palestinians, taking their land and homes by force in the 1940's, but why didn't Iran take those displaced people in if they were so concerned about them? Or any other of the loudly protesting states that surround Israel? The answer is that the Mullahs only really care about holding on to the power they have, and just like the elite in the US like to use racism to distract from wealth inequality, so too do the Mullahs use Israel to distract Iranians from the fact that Iranian government isn't actually very good at its job of providing a peaceful, prosperous life of freedom for it's citizens.

It seems a real pity that such a wonderful people like the Persians must live under a feudal, fundamentalist religious dictatorship in the 21st century. That must really suck.

My guess is that if there is ever going to be an Islamic Reformation, it will happen in the US or Iran, and it will make the Arab Spring look like a blip on the radar, and it will be wonderful.

I'm really glad you mentioned innocent US citizens. Have you heard of Rachel Corrie murdered by the IDF?

No, but I'm talking about the official position of the Iranian government is to destroy America and kill Americans. This equivocating about Israel vs. Iran's moral status, from the American point of view, is rather sickening.

But then again, in 2016 we recently proved that 40% of Americans have a good chance of walking out of Star Wars believing that Darth Vader was the good guy. So what do I know?

Darth Vader is leading an imperial army fighting terrorists. I guess some might find some similarities in the real world. Not to mention the politics remind me of something..

Indeed. Darth Vader stands for purity, civilization, order. He's a go-getter: he's got a job to do, he does it and doesn't let anything stand in his way. By contrast the rebellion is all about chaos. Indeed, if only the rebels would stop their vain attempt to overthrow the just and good Empire, then all could enjoy peace!

Too many drugs..

The exact nature of her death and the culpability of the bulldozer operator are disputed, with fellow ISM protestors saying that the Israeli soldier operating the bulldozer deliberately ran over Corrie, and Israeli eyewitnesses saying that it was an accident since the bulldozer operator could not see her.*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie

Taking the names/policies/abuses of given countries out of the equation I would hardly consider it "threatening each other" where:

Country 1: Has actually threatened multiple times of wiping Country 2 off the map, all the while developing advanced military capabilities and sometimes unveiling them with writings on them of wiping Country 1 off.

Country 2: Has been threatening (and delivering) consequences to Country 1 over nuclear research and other offensive activities they have undertaken.

One of the big regrets of the arms control community, was that the JCPOA did not contain any limitations on missile development.

With the current arms race with drones, missiles, hypersonic missiles, etc... I think Israel is worried that Iran will begin handing these weapons out to their proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and escalate the war.

Iran's drone strike against Saudi Arabia's top oil refinery really highlighted that.

I think ensuring that no deal is better than the current format of the JCPOA. At least in the current situation, they can strike at Iran's weapons program to slow it down, and that there are no major inflows of money.

Personally, I think they'd be open to a new JCPOA that includes broader weapons controls.

They obviously don’t believe that IAEA inspections are very effective. Considering that Israel has made nukes of their own... they would know.

They did so without IAEA inspectors monitoring them and significant help from the west. UK provided samples of plutonium and highly enriched lithium for nuclear weapons.

I am not aware of any countries that have developed nukes while under NPT with active inspections. North Korea kicked out their inspectors and it took them 3 years after that to get a bomb.

"I don’t understand Israel’s rational "

It's simple - in their estimation, the net totality of the inspections + enforcement policy has value.

IaEA weren't allowed to inspect military sites, sampling done by Iranians then sent to IaEA. It was a joke of an agreement.

Has any country developed nuclear weapons with inspectors present?

How would we know if inspectors don’t?

The inspectors are not present

Monitoring some military sites wasn't part of it, unlike their nuclear facilities which were monitored 24/7 by IAEA. However, the IAEA inspectors could still request access to military locations. So it was kind of on-demand, but Iran had the right to refuse.

I'm not an expert, but most of the experts said it was the most comprehensive inspections regime on their supply chain, and any location in Iran except a few military sites which they could still request access.

The goal was to start cooperation and also the idea was to help an already weakened political party in Iran which is in favor of partnership with the west to gain more success, popularity, and public support, so over time the more conservative and anti-west parties and figures would lose their power and influence.

But we just gave their conservative parties the easiest propaganda excuse ("They don't honor their own agreement.").

Iran is actually quite reactive if you read their history. Iran is the devil we made, so everyone can make money out of it. Can you even count how much worth of arms sells are going to the Middle East every year? Not to mention oil market is on the table too. And those that are making big money will lobby everywhere to make sure that Iran remains "the threat". Peace with Iran isn't financially clever.

Let’s not forget that Iran had and possibly still have undeclared nuclear facilities

https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-u-n-inspectors-find-radioa...

Do you think any country would just allow foreign inspectors unfettered access to all of their most restricted sites, a lot of them with a military function?

Heck, the US doesn't even allow ICC inspectors into the country to interview possible witnesses to war crimes [0] or UN inspectors into domestic prisons [1]. Do you think the US would let any supranational organization just freely tour its military bases and nuclear facilities?

Yet when Iran wants that same respect for it's sovereignty, then that's somehow made out as some kind of evidence for their allegedly evil and sinister intentions.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-icc-idUSKCN1QW1ZH

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rights-un-usa-torture-idU...

What's even more strange is that at one stage even some high ranking members of the Israeli military saw the benefits of the nuclear deal.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-militar...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com