Tuesday, 14 July 2015

My take on Iran nuke deal? Historic or Disaster?


“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this.” – President Barack Obama, May 21, 2015 via Jeff Goldberg of The Atlantic

Earlier this morning after marathons of negotiations and endless extensions of deadlines there finally was an agreement between Iran and the world powers in Vienna in regards to its's nuclear proliferation. You can read the full text of the deal here nicely given to us by Max Fisher.

I'll quickly summarise the terms of the deal (though I will advise to read the full text if you have time and a whisky bottle)

- 12 month breakout for 10 years

- US, EU, UN sanctions to be lifted

- 2/3 of centrifuges to be disabled

- Slash existing stockpile

-"Broader access" to UN inspectors

 - Arak reactor to be redesigned to "support peaceful nuclear research" which will be monitored by IAEA

- Must disclose past activities

- Ban on arms sales to Iran to expire in 5 years

-  Ban on sales of ballistic missiles to end in 8 years

-  Monitoring of mines & factories

 The announcement of this deal has broadly produced two reactions on the twitterspehere. The people who are generally right leaning claim this deal is a disaster and shows the appeasement of Obama to the Iranians and will gurantee Iran will be a nuclear state which will be a serious security threat to Israel and The Middle East generally. Commentary Magazine lead with Iran Deal: The Right to Despair. Daniel Pipes called this deal a catastrophe.

The other reaction comes from more liberal minded people which says that this deal is "historic", gurantees peace in our time, stops Iran from getting a nuke and is a better alternative to war which is what those bloodthirsty neocons want and quite possibly may lead to the liberalisation of Iran. Slate published an article which effectively makes this argument.

The caricatures of parts of these two positions comes from Ben Shapiro of Brietbat.com and Murtaza Hussain of The Intercept.

My view is that this deal is not quite Munich 1938 nor is it 1989 when the Berlin Wall was torn down and Obama is not Neville Chamberlain. It is neither historic nor a massive disaster. I do think that this deal will postpone Iran getting nuclear weapons capability in the forseeable future because the deal means Iran will agree to destroy over two-thirds of the 19,000 centrifuges it installed and redesign the Arak reactor to produce  less than 1 kilogram of Plutonium a year for peaceful nuclear research and it extends Iran’s breakout time for a nuclear weapon. Of course this all depends on Iran holding to this agreement but this is some positives coming out of the deal.

However there are problems with this deal.

Firstly there is the ending of the arms embargo after 5 years and sales of Ballistic missiles after 8 years and the sanctions relief which will give them around $100 billion. I'm sure they'll use some of that money to help their battered economy which will help the population who are going to hold them to account on that front since they can't use the sanctions card anymore. In addition the population will see this deal as the regime retreating because they have negotiated with "The Great Satan" (something Khomenism defines itself against) so the regime will have to somehow reconcile this in their propaganda. The regime in response has stepped up executions and persecution in the last few months to show the population that they are not weak.

But is there any doubt that they will use a good proportion of that money to strenghten support for Assad which effectively means Syria (what's left of it) is officiallly Iran's lapdog and the ultimate betrayal of Syrians and the moderate rebels who have greatly suffered as a result of Iran's support for Assad.

Also lets not forget it might increase support for it's proxy militias in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon and The Houthis in Yemen. Who knows Hamas might get some of the loose change. In other words expect Iran's imperial ambitions (or "resistance" according to Chomsky) to increase in the coming years.

Then there is taking Qasem Soleimani and The Quds Force off the sanctions list which I feel is a bad concession as General Qasem is directly responsible for the deaths of Americans and other innocent civillians and still causes mischief in the region today (on a shoestring budget I might add). This I think will be a hard sell to Congress.

Secondly is to with the idea of "snapback" sanctions if Iran was to violate the terms of the deal. When allegations of violations come up the powers have to agree that a violation has taken place and there is no gurantee they will all agree to sanction Iran again especially Russia and China who may have future business intrests in Iran and combine that with the fact that effective sanctions take time for them to fully come into force and take its deabilitating effect.

Thirdly is the effect of this deal will have in terms of the broader chaos in the Middle East as it will alienate the already paranoid Sunni states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, The Gulf monarchies and possibly Turkey who will view the implication of this deal as The United States appointing Iran as the de facto regional chief of the Middle East.This may well lead them to eventually develop nuclear programs of their own ( or in Saudi's case buy them off the shelf from Pakistan) which will create a scenario that we've never seen in a very sensitive part of the world and Israel will then have to rethink its very sensible nuclear policy.

This would also be exploited by ISIS to fit into their narrative that there is a Zionist-Crusader-Rafidah alliance to destroy Islam and will furhter entrench themselves and seek to consolidate support amongst the Sunni tribes of which they rule over in their totalitarian theocracy and then seek to further expand this caliphate they've created.

Also this deal will have to be approved by the US Congress and the Iranian parliament which may be difficult especially for Obama as he is going to have to sell this bill to a congress that is already quite hostile to him and "will skim throught this deal with a fine toothcomb" (to use the words of Chuck Schumer) and will latch on to any holes to find any excuse to oppose this deal. Obama however has set up his stall on this potential obstacle by saying he will "veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.” So expect a fight in Congress over this but I think about in the end the deal will just about pass.

Congress will find ample evidence to back up their case. For example the arms embargo, the fact that very little of Iran's nuclear infrastructure will be dismantled, the very likely possibility that Iran will use the windfall they will get to fund their proxies in Hezbollah in Lebanon and to their crackpot militias in Iraq, taking Qasem Soleimani and Quds Force off the sanctions list, whether the inspection regime is tight etc.

Then there is Israel.

As expected the Israelis were not happy with this deal. Prime Minister Benjamin Nethanyahu called this deal a "historic mistake". He also says that "Israel is not bound by this deal with Iran because Iran continues to seek our destruction. We will always defend ourselves."Israel has legitimate reasons to be unhappy about this deal because Iran is a threat to Israel via it's proxies in Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria and Hamas in Gaza.

However I think Israel's argument in defense of its position on Iran has been poor because they've made it an issue only of Israel and even a pet obsession of Nethanyahu by constantly referring to comments by Ahmadinajad and Rafshanjani about wiping Israel off the map with a bomb and committing another Holocaust and making primitive cartoons equating Iran to ISIS

The problem Israel and its defenders face is that it has to convince alot of people (many of whom are quite hostile to Israel) to see it's point of view but it's not going to achieve this by hyperbole, hysterical talk and playing the "doomsday" card or to put it more accuarately the "Holocaust card" rather than convincing people through reason.

Let me be clear the toxic anti semitism Iran preaches is very worrying and it is a threat to Jew's globally through its sponsorship of international terrorism and it fully intends to continue this policy.

But to compare Iran to Nazi Germany as Danny Ayalon did above is misleading and quite primitive as it shows they do not understand the threat Iran poses or how you're going to deal with it because comparing anything to the Nazis now means you're under the realm of Godwin's law and any legitimate Nazi anologies will face diminishing returns. Also it leaves you open to accusations of sensationalism and scaremongering which will then lead to people not taking you seriously which will dangerous for Israel especially at a time  when it now must be sober and calculated in coming up with cohesive policy to counter Iran other than hawkish dick measuring rhetoric.

Even though there is alot to be worried about this deal the only grain of hope I can find from this is the effect it will have on the population. It will show that the regime has cowered to some degree to The United States or "The Great Satan" something the mullahs have always politically defined themselves against in every way eversince the 1979 Islamic "revolution" (more like counter-revolution but that story will be for another day).

So for them to actually negotiate with the west will show them as being weak which is why alot of the population is happy about this deal because the implication of this deal is that the regime wants a closer relationship with The West which was a necessity because the sanctions battered the economy and they had to do something about it. The people will embrace this closer relationship with the West as it will mean an improvement in the economy which will improve the lives of ordinary Iranians.

But more significantly it will entice their ambitions of making their soceity more open, more modern and improveent in human rights -especially for its ethnic and religious minorities-which may lead in the long run lead to a political and social crisis in Iran as the people will have higher expectations of their government and the government will have respond in a way that does not contradict "Islamic values" and their totalitarian interpretation of Velayat e Faqih. The regime has already tried to counter balance this new sense of hope by ramping up the number of executions in the last few months in order to mantain control over the populace.

Alot of the deal's defenders repeat the claim as made above that the deal will ultimately lead to the liberalisation of Iran and lessen the Islamist terror the regime inflicts on the population. I hope they are right but I'm very skeptical of that, I think it will lead to the regime being more oppressive to show people that nothing dramatic is changing and Iran will remain "Islamic". There is a battle in Iran between the mostly secular youth of Iran and the theocratic mullahs and it will inevitably lead the abolishment of that theocracy when that revolution will occur I don't know, I just hope it will occur before Iran has the chance to develop nuclear capability.

To Conclude. Is this deal "Historic" and will it gurantee "peace in our time"? No because to put it simply this deal does not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapon's capability it merely delays it and puts a few speed bumps along the way or as Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal puts it. "It just kicks the can down the road for the next guy to deal with". My fear about this deal is that it's not a Munich 38 but that its more like the Agreed Framework of 1994 which according to Bill Clinton (every liberal's hero) was meant to stop North Korea from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. Look how well that turned out. North Korea broke the agreement in 2002 and now has a stockpile of nuclear weapons that has destabalised East Asia and has made it untouchable and kept it in the news. I fear Iran will do the same lying and cheating and the "snap back" sanctions mechanism won't work thanks to Russia and China.

Let us also not forget the windfall it will inevitably use to fund and support it's terrorist proxies to solidify its regional hold in the Middle East. Which will mean more work for bigtime Iranian mischief maker Qasem Soleimani.

Is the deal a "Disaster"? Yes and No. The sanctions relief will result in an empowered Iran to cause even more chaos when it was aleady doing so on a shoestring budget, this will alienate America's traditional Sunni allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia who may eventually decide to start their own nuclear program which will be a disaster for the Middle East and solidify their alliance of convinience with Israel.

It also reveals a part of a broader strategy on Obama's part to lessen American hegemony in the Middle East, appoint Iran as the regional strong man and contract out the fight against ISIS to the Iranians and not to moderate Sunnis which will be disastorous. There is evidence that this is beginning to happen such as Ameica giving air support to Iranian proxy militias in Iraq as they fought to took back Tikrit from ISIS and reported support for US designated terrorist group Kaitab Hezbollah as they fought to take back Amerli from ISIS in September 2014.

This counter terrorism policy will be counter productive if carried on because the atrocities these crackpot militias commit against Sunnis such as burning villages , lynchings and other abuses. This will enforce the paranoia amongst Sunnis especially those of military age that if these Shia militias take back territory from ISIS that Sunnis are effectively fair game then they will look to ISIS for protection and support from the "crusader-rafidah" conspiracy against Islam.

In the end history will judge whether this deal was "Historic" or a "Disaster".

Thursday, 9 July 2015

The Serena-Sharapova "rivalry"

I'm not a tennis nut, I don't watch it much aside from Wimbledon but I know enough about it to know the big names and I know the rules of it. I used to play it as hobby when I was younger but I went off it.

Anyways, in the lead up to the Semi-Final of Wimbledon (Women's singles) between heavyweights Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova there has been alot of hype over their "rivalry". For example The Telegraph titled their preview to the match as "Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams have a rivalry built on antipathy, mistrust and malice". The Guardian had "Serena Williams v Maria Sharapova a rivalry that threatens to catch fire" as their title. The Australian used the words "arch rivals" to describe them.

If you looked at the stats you would come to conclusion that if this is a rivalry then it is the most lopsided rivalry there is in sport. Before today Williams has a 17-2 record over Sharapova, she has beaten Sharapova 16 consecutive times (some of those matches have been quite brutal for Mighty Maria) and she last lost to Sharapova in 2004.

Last I checked The act of rivaling is to compete for superiority in a given field. Therefore, it suggests some comparability of skill between the rivals. When it comes to US tennis star Serena Williams and Russian Maria Sharapova, no such rivalry exists-no matter how many times their relationship is described as such in the media.

When the two "rivals" actually turned our for their semi final encounter at Wimbledon today: surprise, surprise, Serena emerged as the victor (yet again). 

Maybe this rivalry talk emerges from that fateful match in 2004, when then-17-year-old Sharapova shocked the world by beating Williams in the final at Wimbledon. It was obviously a spectacular performance by the youthful Sharapova. But it was also 11 bloody years ago! Williams’s record of performance since has been undeniably superior and dominant.

In the decade since, Serena has won 16 out 17 matches against her younger opponent-five of them Grand Slams. In a Wimbledon rematch in 2010 Williams carried the match easily: 7-6, 6-4. They’ve met 12 times between 2010 and now, and in those years, Sharapova has only won a single set-including during the Olympics final at Wimbledon in 2012, in which Williams utterly trounced her once more (6-0, 6-1). That 2012 Olympics Final is what I call the definition of a "beat down".

Alot of the hype around these two is based around the fact that they apparently have a beef with each other  and glib talk of ex-lovers.  Indeed, publicly they come off as practically friendly. “I love playing Maria,” Williams has said. “I think she brings out the best in me. I think I bring out the best in her.” At the end of the day whatever fury may exist between Williams and Sharapova it did not emerge on the tennis court.

Why the lopsidedness in this "rivalry" then? Serena just has the upper hand over Maria. It really is as simple as that. 17 consecutive victories can no longer be explained away as an anomaly. In Bryan Graham's analysis Williams "has mastered an oppressive, pugilistic style that Sharapova has neither the nerve, nor tactical versatility to match".

Watching the match myself it seemed that Serena made mince meat out of her Maria it was like watching one of those scenes from a National Geographic show of a lion running down an antelope: There was the swipe of a giant paw and a cloud of dust as the poor creature got taken down and gutted. The rather modest score of 6-2 6-4 did not reveal the ocean of difference between them. The sprayed and erratic shots of Sharapova and the forcible power of Williams.

The fact Williams seemingly barely broke a sweat in crushing Sharapova is scary when you think about it because Sharapova is no slouch, she is regarded one of the best players of her generation along with Williams and has a reputation of being a battler and a fighter, however the fact that Serena dominates Maria whenever they play is astonishing. Serena hasn't just gotten the better of her biggest rival; she's beaten her more often than she has beaten anyone else, and she has done it without mercy and has resulted in a few trouncings and steamrollings.

One of those trouncings came in the 2007 Australian Open final when Serena steamrolled Maria 6-1, 6-2. Another one came in the 2012 Olympics Women's Singles Gold Final which was just an absolute destruction of Maria, as someone once said "From the director of the Desolation of Smaug comes the Decimation of Maria". It wasn't a case of Maria had a bad game it was just that Serena was just too good and she demolished Maria in under 63 minutes and in devastating style. Her one-sided victory was laced with such devastating power and vicious accuracy that for large parts of the contest Sharapova looked like a bewildered onlooker. At least the pain was over quickly for poor Maria. At one point in the first set Serena had more aces than Maria had points!

I understand why there is this rivalry hype because these two ladies are icons of Tennis and regarded as the best players of their generation plus the sponsorships both women get as a result of their stardom, so whenever they play it will generate quite alot of hype. However when the stats clearly show Serena has 17 consecutive victories over Maria since 2004 and consistently trounces and demolishes Maria its time you stop calling that a rivalry. Its plain and simple domination.

On a side note you have to feel abit sorry for Maria maybe one of these days she will get this monkey off her back and actually score a victory over Serena but she has drastically improve her game and especially her serves. Also I predict Serena will win Wimbledon and get her "Serena Slam" and make history.

Bye Now