Thread by @sfrantzman

Thread: The theory behind the Iran deal rests on two foundations.

1. We need a deal or there will be war: "Best chance to stop an Iranian bomb without another war in the Middle East."

2. If there isn't a deal, Iran will build a nuclear bomb. "Will block all of Iran's pathways"

These two foundations can be found in historic statements; obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/foreign…

Here is a question. If there isn't a deal...why would there be war? Who would wage that war? The US doesn't want a war. Iran doesn't want a war. Israel doesn't want a war. So since no one wants a war, why would there be "war."

Iran doesn't fight conventional wars. It arms proxies abroad and does little asymmetric attacks. It can't afford a real war. So why would it risk a war? Who would even be involved in this imaginary "war"? Isn't the "war" talk just fearmongering.

How does a "deal" prevent a bomb, a bomb that Iran says it does't even want. All the years before the 2015 deal didn't result in an Iranian bomb. Iran is always a few months away supposedly from enough enriched uranium....but it never builds a bomb. So...

How come only Iran needs a "deal" to stop it making a bomb. No other country in the world needs such a deal. Other countries go along just fine without the need for using uranium enrichment as leverage over relations.

Isn't it more likely that this is all just smoke and mirrors. Iran won't build a bomb. There won't be war. If countries just say "Iran, you're going to be treated like the other 200 countries in the world...you don't need a deal. Thank you."

Isn't it MORE likely that if there is no "deal"...none of this charade...then China, Russia and Turkey would quietly tell Iran "ok, stop the bluster, don't build a bomb, thank you." Because Iran listens to Russia and China and Turkey.

Notice how when Iran talks to Russia-China-Turkey it doesn't invent media narratives about "war" and "hardliners"...it speaks authoritarian language of respect with other authoritarians...without resorting to propaganda in local media...

Only in the West does Iran feed narratives to media...it can't do that to China or Turkey or Russia...so when it deals with them it just admits it isn't actually building a bomb...it is just enriching uranium to use as leverage against the West.

So let's be honest. The Iran deal talk is build on two false premises. There won't be a war. Iran won't build a bomb. Iran does lots of other nefarious things like send arms to. Hezbollah and the Houthis. Better to focus on that. The nuclear issue is largely a distraction

Iran uses the nuclear issue to get concessions and sanctions relief...which is its goal. It wants sanctions relief in part to fund proxies around the region. Talk of a bomb is a means to an end.

Imagine if western countries had entered into this nonsense with other countries prior to them developing nuclear weapons, like Pakistan or Russia...and had to do "deals" with them to beg them not to move forward? But no one did that. Because it doesn't work.

Countries that want a nuclear weapon may indeed develop them. No one seriously sits around building a nuke and then saying "hold me back via a deal"...that's nonsensical. If they pretend to want a deal, it's because they don't want nuclear weapons. They want money. Like the mafia

Iran is essentially a mafia state. It says "if you don't do things for us, we will attack you or enrich uranium or do this and that." It only says this to western countries. With Moscow and Beijing and Ankara it never makes threats.

The smart way to deal with Iran is call its bluff. There won't be war. There won't be nuclear weapons. The US can do sanctions relief or not...regardless Iran had ample opportunity to build a bomb in the past. It never did.

Also...what happens on day 2 after Iran actually builds the bomb it doesn't want...what will it do then...say "you need to do a deal or we will build two bombs." Iran will lose all its leverage. The bomb would be a leverage downer for Iran.

So Iran can't build a bomb because it would then lose this leverage. What's it going to do...make threats about using the bomb...come on. "Make a deal or we use the nukes." Seriously? Mobilizing the Iran lobby in the US for that threat next?

The irony is that if the US were to just call the Iran bluff and say "hey, you know what, we will give you a nuclear weapon"...Iran would say "no, no...that would ruin our leverage over you." Because the regime doesn't want a weapon, or it would have built it. It wants a deal.

There is no need for a deal because Iran can't wage a war...won't risk one and won't risk creating a nuclear weapon...because that would upset relations with its friends in Moscow-Beijing-Ankara...and would ruin its bogeyman leverage.

Absent the nonsense about a deal, the US and others should pursue policies with Iran like they do other countries. Take away the leverage it has and then deal with its proxies and other activities.

Also an added benefit is that all the Iran Deal lobbyists and commentators who thrive on the nonsense about the need for a "deal or war" would disappear. They can't explain anyway how exactly a "war" would ever happen. Ask them, ask them to explain it. They never do.

When you deal with some commentators you hear the word "war" like it's some simple thing. There is war or no war, they say. Ummmm in the MidEast you have lots of conflicts that are not a declared "war". That's daily life, for instance, airstrikes in Syria...

Many countries wage undeclared wars forever. Iran arms and funds wars in places like Yemen. When you hear the bogeyman "there could be a war"...there already is a war. But Iran wages a type of war that is never a full blown war. That's how things work.