Iran nuclear deal: Good or bad for Israel?

[kentuck]

I can remember Netanyahu standing up before the UN with his primitive drawing of a bomb, trying to explain how close Iran was to completion of a nuclear bomb.

He said that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. More or less, he said the same thing when John Boehner invited him to speak before the US Congress.

But once an agreement was reached to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, Netanyahu was against it. It was the worst thing that has ever happened.

Republicans in the US House and Senate parroted the comments of the Israeli leader. Would they prefer an Iran with nuclear weapons?

Or would they prefer going to war against Iran to destroy their nuclear capabilities? Better yet, would they prefer that the US bomb Iran while they sat back and preached about Iran if they get a nuclear weapon?

Does this make sense to any rational person in this world??

[ladjf]

1. It's good for their security but bad for their continued military funds

from the U.S., which, in my opinion is what's driving Netanyahu.

[ladjf]

15. My thought was that the U.S. has a record of sending lots of aid to Israel so that

they can protect themselves. If Iran ceases to be a nuclear threat due to the treaty, America might cut back on the aid funds.

[6chars]

16. Ah. Thanks for explaining.

[ladjf]

17. Thanks for asking. I"m guilty of being too brief in most of my

comments. Just hate to bore people with too many words.

[geek tragedy]

2. Good if one only looks at the nukes. Bad for them because it helps

Iran increase its non-nuclear power and influence.

The Israelis aren't complaining about the nukes, they're really upset because the sanctions are being lifted.

the Israelis would and will oppose any deal that lifts sanctions on Iran. They should be ignored.

[kentuck]

4. That makes sense.

They do not want a stronger Iran. Also, it is reported that Iran has the fourth largest oil reserves in the world.

[kentuck]

12. More than likely, the US would be affected by oil prices more than anything else.

If gas goes down to $1.00 per gallon, that would be good for American consumers - bad for big oil companies.

[6chars]

14. that does make sense

bad for the environment, though.

[TwilightGardener]

3. The best part of the deal, IF there's strict enforcement and inspection, is that Iran won't be able

to surprise everyone with a nuclear warhead for at least ten years or more. The worst part, as far as Israel goes, is that they may eventually still join the nuke club in ten years or more. Plus a potentially burgeoning economy in Iran is probably going to create regional turmoil. I don't see a better way, though, than this deal.

[Johonny]

5. Bad in that by removing themselves from the talks and deal they have no standing

in the world on the agreement. Netanyahu called foul every step of the way and the world ignored him and worked on the agreement anyways. Unless Iran bombs Israel tomorrow to justify Netanyahu's worse trumped up fears... what else did he do but reduce Israel's standing in the world arena? It seems like he was more unbending and irrational then Iran. How is that for voluntary reducing your status in the middle east. It seems crazy to me. Instead of a leader he chose isolation-a dangerous path for his country.

[MADem]

6. Probably good...in the long haul.

When I lived in Iran there were many (many being a relative word, mind you) Jewish Persians, and active synogogues in the country. Today, most have fled. People who were not Muslim were regarded as "People of the Book" and given their propers. No one was rude. No one did any of that "Marg bar Yisrael, Marg Bar Amrika" shit. Everyone got along. Even policy disagreements--and they existed back then, particularly with regard to Israel and Yassir Arafat--were discussed intelligently and maturely. I'm not talking just about those on the "Shah crew" -- I'm talking, too, about imams at the mosque in Qom. They found a way to disagree without all the creepy scary hyperbole. That kind of unneeded drama makes a bad situation worse.

I am hoping that the younger generation, when exposed to more foreign influences without fear of getting slapped by enforcers of the ulema, will dial it all back down to a dull roar, and allow conversations to take place in a more reasonable fashion. Podium Pounding Khomeinis and Khameinis do invite Bellowing Bloviating Bibis--and vice versa. Everyone needs to just Calm The Fuck Down. IMO, anyway. If everyone does that, then people like Bibi, screaming and wailing, start to look like nutcases and jerks.

Also, with regard to Persian Jews, I think if the country ever got to a point where it was a representative democracy that restored religious freedoms, that many of the scattered would return home, at least on a part time basis (commuting between Teheran and "TeherAngeles" in many cases). Persians are some of the most nationalistic people I know--in a generally positive way, mind you. They are proud of their history, their heritage, their land, their customs and traditions, their food, music, holidays, etc. If the leadership became less dominated by authoritarian assholes, and more reflective of the actual attitudes of the people, Iran would be a great place to live.

Israel would lose a HUGE chunk of their (Persian Jewish) population, I think, if Iran returned to sanity.

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. What's good or bad for Israel is not my concern. n/t

[oberliner]

8. Why not? Aren't they human beings?

Do you only care about people who live in particular countries?

[Comrade Grumpy]

18. I'm a US citizen, not an Israeli. Israel's concerns aren't my concerns...

...any more than India's or Ireland's.

[Comrade Grumpy]

19. Nah, it's worth pointing out that not everybody gives a hoot what Israel thinks.

[craigmatic]

20. It's bad for Israel because their government and politics are run on war and fear.