JCPOA: Khamenei Was Right

[AmirPatriot]

It is Iran’s fault for not having the agreement ratified as a Treaty by US Congress.

If it couldn’t pass Congress and be ratified as a treaty then Iran should have known the deal was only as good as long as the next administration adhered to it. Which in geopolitical politics was a dumb move.

We were not in a position to make 2/3 of congress ratify the JCPOA. The Dems only just about managed to filibuster it. Iran wanted sanctions lifted asap and we got that.

The problem was that we manoeuvred ourselves into this situation in the first place, where we had to negotiate a deal even if its long term future was uncertain. Iran must be careful never to put itself in such a position anymore. We cannot make any material concessions any more.

Another option may have been to assume the Americans would do this from the start and have a strong process in the deal that would counteract American violations. For example, European blocking regulations, concrete statements that Iran could withdraw from some of its commitments if the other side was doing it. I feel like the language and terms of the deal that speak of this are too vague for any of those things to happen without Iran paying some sort of political cost.

 

[TheImmortal]

We were not in a position to make 2/3 of congress ratify the JCPOA. The Dems only just about managed to filibuster it. Iran wanted sanctions lifted asap and we got that.

The problem was that we manoeuvred ourselves into this situation in the first place, where we had to negotiate a deal even if its long term future was uncertain. Iran must be careful never to put itself in such a position anymore. We cannot make any material concessions any more.

Another option may have been to assume the Americans would do this from the start and have a strong process in the deal that would counteract American violations. For example, European blocking regulations, concrete statements that Iran could withdraw from some of its commitments if the other side was doing it. I feel like the language and terms of the deal that speak of this are too vague for any of those things to happen without Iran paying some sort of political cost.

Like I said it was a stupid move on iran’s part.

If someone promises to give you a dollar a day, but in order to do that you have to destroy your house. Then what stops that person one year from now not giving you that dollar? You gave up tremendous leverage for something that was conditional.

Iran made permanent changes (Arak reactor) and costly changes (Fordow) for a promise that brought no benefits.

Iran’s currency is in a worse state then during the years of sanctions. Furthermore, the deal was a disaster for Iran because it was sold as some boon to Iran’s people. However, when it turned out to be a bust then the domestic population reacted more negatively than If their was no deal to begin with!

Even if Iran sticks to the deal without the US, what did Iran really get other than being able to export energy products to pre-sanctions levels?

 

[zartosht]

Again it's a miss understanding of the situation! When the government was promoting birth control and low birth rate policies and adds was when birth rates were moderately higher than sustainable and that was mostly between 1980-2000 and the correct policy for that time was to try to reduce birth rates and it was a correct policy because children born between 1980-2000 will eventually grow old and they'll need education, Jobs and then retirement and it's absurd to think that having more people born during that time would have been anything but an increase burden and a strain on the government.

Today it's the generations born between 1980-2000 that should be having their own children and they are NOT and the reasons for that is a mass increase in Urban living + Increased literacy and education + Social government policies.

again you are repeating the same old propaganda to justify a failed policy. cite one historical example where the supposed apocalyptic scenario of a booming population led to dramatic social/economic consequences?

the US biggest growth was in the 50s/60s. That's when they really became the economic powerhouse they are known for. The statistics were something extradorinary when you look at it.

some like 5% of people~ owned fridges/TVs in the 1950. And that numbered increased to above 60% by 1953.

the numbers are mind boggling (though post ww2 environment where everyone else was bombed to the stone ages didn't hurt either)

this coincided with a massive "baby boom" for the Americans.

china also had this apocalyptic scenario of higher population = Armageddon. and they are on their way to becoming the worlds superpower. Even the worse, absolute worse example of india. Where the population is just runaway out of control. The pros and cons of it are up for debate (not that I'm saying iran should follow indias example)

to say that a program that irans government acknowledged as a mistake. That was lauded universally as successful by western propaganda entities whos sole purpose is to attack iran. to say that had no impact on irans population or was neccasary is completely false.

social/economics would have naturally reduced irans birthrates. There was no need to do it artificially. WE might have had a population of at least 100m today without intervention

 

[Hack-Hook]

peoples changing social economic situations definitely plays a role. But what you are ignoring was a unique (in the region) Iranian government program designed to specifically reduce birth rates. with the slogan of "think of future generations". Mandatory classes that propagated to couples the merits of not having too many children. readily available and even subsidized birth control operations, media campaigns.... etc..etc.. I remember this policy being almost universally lauded and encouraged by western propaganda factories.

have you ever seen them make an issue about india's runaway population growth? They only seem concerned about the birth rates of geopolitical enemies.

there is no denying this had a huge impact as well....

You don't get it . we can't provide water for 80million n we can't produce enough food for them and we can't make enough job for them and now you guys are talking about population must reach 150 million ,we have one of the highest divorce rate in the region and the reason mainly is because of economy.
Honestly I don't knew in which reality you live.

 

[Arminkh]

Like I said it was a stupid move on iran’s part.

If someone promises to give you a dollar a day, but in order to do that you have to destroy your house. Then what stops that person one year from now not giving you that dollar? You gave up tremendous leverage for something that was conditional.

Iran made permanent changes (Arak reactor) and costly changes (Fordow) for a promise that brought no benefits.

Iran’s currency is in a worse state then during the years of sanctions. Furthermore, the deal was a disaster for Iran because it was sold as some boon to Iran’s people. However, when it turned out to be a bust then the domestic population reacted more negatively than If their was no deal to begin with!

Even if Iran sticks to the deal without the US, what did Iran really get other than being able to export energy products to pre-sanctions levels?

The deal may not have worked the way Iran hoped. But I think it was a necessary move that Iran had to make. Let's say Iran never negotiated this deal or never complied with it. The rest of the world (and many Iranian people for that matter) would say the current situation is Iran's fault.

But now that Iran did all that, no one can say that anymore. The deal is backed and approved by Security Council. This time this is US that is ignoring a Security Council resolution and if it didn't have a Veto right, it could have well been sanctioned for it.

They say when you die, the things that haunt you the most are the things you didn't try or do. I'd say this deal was something Iran had to do. Now if it comes to more sanctions, war, and you name it, no one Iran would say, I wish we had done just that deal in order to prevent it.

I think it is simple: It is not about Iran's nuclear, missiles or etc. Even if Iran gives up its missiles, they will come after its cyber security force. After that it will be its submarines. The problem is Iran's ambitions. They like Iran to give up its ambitions and become a post WWII Japan, South Korea or even Germany while Iran likes to be a post WWII China.

 

[zartosht]

You don't get it . we can't provide water for 80million n we can't produce enough food for them and we can't make enough job for them and now you guys are talking about population must reach 150 million ,we have one of the highest divorce rate in the region and the reason mainly is because of economy.
Honestly I don't knew in which reality you live.

What on are earth are you talking about?? you have that exact same backward mentality that got us here unfortunately. just because the iranian government is falling short in providing those things today does not mean iran as a nation doesn't have the capacity to...

Japan is a TINY island country. with very little resources and 127~ million population. Thriving. Germany same population as iran. the size of a couple of Iranian provinces with far fewer resources. one of their stated goals of ww2 was "lebensraum" (living space.)

look at many other succesfull countries like the UK, france, Italy, etc... That have small land masses, very little natural resources, and populations comparable to iran.

are you telling me a huge country with iran. With such vast natural resources and wealth. is incabale of growing a little more? our population doubled since the revolution are people starving/thirsty? Has any alarmist doomed scenario of a population explosion turned into reality?

IF iran cant even keep up in population terms with regional neighbours at an absolute minimum . might as well wave the white flag now.

using your model. Qatar is the most powerful/successful country on earth? Why don't we just stop reproducing altogether. An iran with a 10 million population would have plenty of water and resources to go around. is that something your ok with?

if you look at powerful countries on earth. Without exception they have high populations. you can be succesfull with a small population. but you will never be powerful. its as simple as that. Does iran want to become a powerful relevant country ?

if the Iranian government is incabale of taking advantage of irans wealth to grow. and its too scared to try for fear of failure. then its time for a revolution for a competent government. its as a simple that.

 

[Hack-Hook]

What on are earth are you talking about?? you have that exact same backward mentality that got us here unfortunately. just because the iranian government is falling short in providing those things today does not mean iran as a nation doesn't have the capacity to...

Japan is a TINY island country. with very little resources and 127~ million population. Thriving. Germany same population as iran. the size of a couple of Iranian provinces with far fewer resources. one of their stated goals of ww2 was "lebensraum" (living space.)

look at many other succesfull countries like the UK, france, Italy, etc... That have small land masses, very little natural resources, and populations comparable to iran.

are you telling me a huge country with iran. With such vast natural resources and wealth. is incabale of growing a little more? our population doubled since the revolution are people starving/thirsty? Has any alarmist doomed scenario of a population explosion turned into reality?

IF iran cant even keep up in population terms with regional neighbours at an absolute minimum . might as well wave the white flag now.

using your model. Qatar is the most powerful/successful country on earth? Why don't we just stop reproducing altogether. An iran with a 10 million population would have plenty of water and resources to go around. is that something your ok with?

if you look at powerful countries on earth. Without exception they have high populations. you can be succesfull with a small population. but you will never be powerful. its as simple as that. Does iran want to become a powerful relevant country ?

if the Iranian government is incabale of taking advantage of irans wealth to grow. and its too scared to try for fear of failure. then its time for a revolution for a competent government. its as a simple that.

You have the same old shotty mentality that God provide .
Let me enlighten you God won't provide you a dann thing unless you work your a$$ for it.
We have no job talking about increasing the population
When against the constitution government can't provide free education for all
When we had to import our food from aboard
When in Iran we have to abandon villages for lack of water.
When we have to take away water from farmers to have it to cities .
When in places that you have reached water after 10m of digging now you have to digg 250m-300m
When every year unemployment increase .
When we can't provide job for university students even after many of them leaving country.
.
.
.
.

Do you want me count more
It's not important if we have all the oil in the world if the increase in demand continue we can't export it after 20 year.
Also we lack the most important resources and that's water .all the countries you mentioned have several time more water than us.


You and your advanced mentality go and come talk about increase in population when you could solve the problem I mentioned . and please don't show solution there was far two many people who showed us the solution ,when your solution get implemented and we saw the results then come and talk.

What on are earth are you talking about?? you have that exact same backward mentality that got us here unfortunately. just because the iranian government is falling short in providing those things today does not mean iran as a nation doesn't have the capacity to...

Japan is a TINY island country. with very little resources and 127~ million population. Thriving. Germany same population as iran. the size of a couple of Iranian provinces with far fewer resources. one of their stated goals of ww2 was "lebensraum" (living space.)

look at many other succesfull countries like the UK, france, Italy, etc... That have small land masses, very little natural resources, and populations comparable to iran.

are you telling me a huge country with iran. With such vast natural resources and wealth. is incabale of growing a little more? our population doubled since the revolution are people starving/thirsty? Has any alarmist doomed scenario of a population explosion turned into reality?

IF iran cant even keep up in population terms with regional neighbours at an absolute minimum . might as well wave the white flag now.

using your model. Qatar is the most powerful/successful country on earth? Why don't we just stop reproducing altogether. An iran with a 10 million population would have plenty of water and resources to go around. is that something your ok with?

if you look at powerful countries on earth. Without exception they have high populations. you can be succesfull with a small population. but you will never be powerful. its as simple as that. Does iran want to become a powerful relevant country ?

if the Iranian government is incabale of taking advantage of irans wealth to grow. and its too scared to try for fear of failure. then its time for a revolution for a competent government. its as a simple that.

You have the same old shotty mentality that God provide .
Let me enlighten you God won't provide you a dann thing unless you work your a$$ for it.
We have no job talking about increasing the population
When against the constitution government can't provide free education for all
When we had to import our food from aboard
When in Iran we have to abandon villages for lack of water.
When we have to take away water from farmers to have it to cities .
When in places that you have reached water after 10m of digging now you have to digg 250m-300m
When every year unemployment increase .
When we can't provide job for university students even after many of them leaving country.
.
.
.
.

Do you want me count more
It's not important if we have all the oil in the world if the increase in demand continue we can't export it after 20 year.
Also we lack the most important resources and that's water .all the countries you mentioned have several time more water than us.


You and your advanced mentality go and come talk about increase in population when you could solve the problem I mentioned . and please don't show solution there was far two many people who showed us the solution ,when your solution get implemented and we saw the results then come and talk.

 

[zartosht]

because water is the only obstacle right?

I don't think me and you are on the same wavelength. you simply do not grasp the nationaly security implications of irans demographics. And how damaging it is not to at least keep up with regional enemies. Especially when many powerful countries have made it a long term goal to defeat you.

You speak on the subject in comfort terms. do you think water was the only obstacle s. korea, Italy. ,japan, Germany, UK, france etc.etc.. faced?

these are successful resource poor countries with high populations. iran is not only an immensely resource rich country but many times larger then those countries . Your not going to have EVERY SINGLE resource at your disposal. virtually no country has that. and if that's what a government is waiting for then it needs to be toppled.

the solution is you take some of the hundreds of billions from your cash cow oil industry. and invest it in water infastracture. Just getting rid of inefficient wells and investing in modern irrigation methods could go along way. you can pipe water in from the Caspian, you can build water desalination plants. There are many many MANY options I can assure even a modestly advanced country would easily overcome this.

Now I return again to the bottom line. national security. Is it in irans interest to have a small population? would that not leave iran more vulnerable to predators? iran population more then doubled in a short time span, did any of the doomsday scenario come true?

has any population explosion doomsday scenario come true? NO. countries generally adapt. the most laughable part is jobs and unemployment. do You really think there are a finite amount of jobs, and the less people there are the less unemployment there is going to be? do you really think that's how it works?

 

[AmirPatriot]

s. korea, Italy. ,japan, Germany, UK, france etc.etc.. faced?

The most basic resources necessary are food and water. Without those, your 500 million people will just drop dead. You just described 6 countries who are US allies and hence have no problems with food. They can just trade for it. But crucially, even before the era of international trade, they have temperate, wet climates with plenty of rivers. Growing crops was not an issue. Japan even controlled much of China and could get its food from them. Because of the reasons I already mentioned they had no problems with water at all.

Iran has a hot, arid climate. We have to get this idea out of our heads that we can grow all our food domestically. It is not possible. Especially since most of the countries you mentioned have potatoes as their staple food, not water intensive rice. We have to depend on trade for food, that means keeping good relations with India who still supply much of the country's rice. Turkey is also a good overland trade partner for these things.

these are successful resource poor countries with high populations

If you're talking about mineral and fuel resources, all these countries are based on industry. In their imperial eras they had coal for fuel, (oil through Imperial possessions), steel for weapons etc. In the era of international trade they can buy those at a lower price than if they had to make themselves. Iran has mineral resources but we need to have a strong industry to use them. And that means lots of investment is needed to provide the jobs for that increasei population.

the solution is you take some of the hundreds of billions from your cash cow oil industry. and invest it in water infastracture. Just getting rid of inefficient wells and investing in modern irrigation methods could go along way. you can pipe water in from the Caspian, you can build water desalination plants.

Yes, but you have to remember to walk before you can run. These changes have to be made before we try and increase the population.

has any population explosion doomsday scenario come true?

India? Pakistan? Bangladesh?

 

[Hack-Hook]

because water is the only obstacle right?

I don't think me and you are on the same wavelength. you simply do not grasp the nationaly security implications of irans demographics. And how damaging it is not to at least keep up with regional enemies. Especially when many powerful countries have made it a long term goal to defeat you.

You speak on the subject in comfort terms. do you think water was the only obstacle s. korea, Italy. ,japan, Germany, UK, france etc.etc.. faced?

these are successful resource poor countries with high populations. iran is not only an immensely resource rich country but many times larger then those countries . Your not going to have EVERY SINGLE resource at your disposal. virtually no country has that. and if that's what a government is waiting for then it needs to be toppled.

the solution is you take some of the hundreds of billions from your cash cow oil industry. and invest it in water infastracture. Just getting rid of inefficient wells and investing in modern irrigation methods could go along way. you can pipe water in from the Caspian, you can build water desalination plants. There are many many MANY options I can assure even a modestly advanced country would easily overcome this.

Now I return again to the bottom line. national security. Is it in irans interest to have a small population? would that not leave iran more vulnerable to predators? iran population more then doubled in a short time span, did any of the doomsday scenario come true?

has any population explosion doomsday scenario come true? NO. countries generally adapt. the most laughable part is jobs and unemployment. do You really think there are a finite amount of jobs, and the less people there are the less unemployment there is going to be? do you really think that's how it works?

You don't get it Israel had war with Arab countries did its population saved them.
Water is not the only obstacle it is one of the important one .
We have education problem . we have pollution problem we have food problem and we have job problem

About your solution it worth nothing first take money from oil and invest in water sources and wells and ...... Then see results and then talk about increasing population. I knew you knew and everybody knew non of these solutions healed results.
By the way your solution was so general and without any detail that honestly was more like daydreaming.

 

[Kastor]

The new rumor is that Trump will leave JCPOA but may not let all of the sanctions resume....he may do this to save face with his voters but at the same time by not letting the sanctions to come back in full force he may placate the his European allies. I'm thinking this half measure for PR purposes is more like Trump so this is a real possibility.

 

[zartosht]

The most basic resources necessary are food and water. Without those, your 500 million people will just drop dead. You just described 6 countries who are US allies and hence have no problems with food. They can just trade for it. But crucially, even before the era of international trade, they have temperate, wet climates with plenty of rivers. Growing crops was not an issue. Japan even controlled much of China and could get its food from them. Because of the reasons I already mentioned they had no problems with water at all.

Iran has a hot, arid climate. We have to get this idea out of our heads that we can grow all our food domestically. It is not possible. Especially since most of the countries you mentioned have potatoes as their staple food, not water intensive rice. We have to depend on trade for food, that means keeping good relations with India who still supply much of the country's rice. Turkey is also a good overland trade partner for these things.


If you're talking about mineral and fuel resources, all these countries are based on industry. In their imperial eras they had coal for fuel, (oil through Imperial possessions), steel for weapons etc. In the era of international trade they can buy those at a lower price than if they had to make themselves. Iran has mineral resources but we need to have a strong industry to use them. And that means lots of investment is needed to provide the jobs for that increasei population.

I understand there are many factors involved. I named those countries as examples of small countries that can have high populations and be succesfull. their success comes from industry and service jobs that leech off of that true.

But that doesn't take away from what I said. you need industry and resources to be successful. Some overwhelmingly advanced nations can get it done without resources (like the ones I mentioned) but its a lot easier if you have resources. and iran has hit the jackpot on that front. Iran is a resource rich country that many times larger then them so there is absolutely no excuse.

I used that to make the case that as a country, iran has the capacity to support a population much larger then 80m.

Yes, but you have to remember to walk before you can run. These changes have to be made before we try and increase the population.



India? Pakistan? Bangladesh?

the Saudis have like the 3rd highest military budget in the world. and have made no secret of who they are aiming this at. irans response to this is to spend 2% of gdp~ on defence. do you really think this government is going to take the proactive step of building up water infrastructure before instructing people to get busy? is that realistic?

when you get you population up. its not going to be a case of 20million people randomly appear of out nowhere to cause water shortages. there will be a gradual increase in population. water infastracture will be unable to keep up, and that will force the government to invest or face the political reality of your population dying of thirst. that Is the only realistic way the Iranian government (and most governments)will invest. lets not kid ourselves.


I understand having population is not all roses. But a nation needs to have short term and long term objectives. It is without question in my opinion that as a strategic objective. It is absolutely fundamental that a country grows. IF your not growing you might as well give up. this is especially the case for iran locked In an existential battle. you cannot use short term economics to destroy long term strategic planning. that is treason. and I feel very strongly about it.

fundamentally. it is in irans interest to have a larger and growing population. it is without question that there is a direct connection between national power and population. india is a good example. by every standard measure they are an African country . Their population is the only thing that makes them relevant.

and in terms of negatives. that's completely untrue as well. Indians have actually never been wealthier in their history. There is just modern technology today for us to view their lifestyles. an average indian 100, 200 years ago was far worse off then he is today. To make a connection between their relatively poor standards of living and a high population would be completely false.

 

[SALMAN F]

Can you merge this thread with the main iran nuclear thread by @mohsen

 

[AUz]

What will Iran do now?

How’s media perception within Iran regarding Trump’s betrayal?

 

[KapitaanAli]

and in terms of negatives. that's completely untrue as well. Indians have actually never been wealthier in their history. There is just modern technology today for us to view their lifestyles. an average indian 100, 200 years ago was far worse off then he is today. To make a connection between their relatively poor standards of living and a high population would be completely false.

Indians were wealthier, but before industrial revolution and the West making sure no such revolution happens in the East.
The population-wealth correlation should be studied with this barrier in mind.

Anyway, the southern Indian states which are considerably wealthier than the north, has considerably lower population growth.
But it can be argued that even the southern states had a high enough population to fuel economic growth.

Southern population growth went down as the South progressed. Northern population growth kept going up as the North couldn't progress enough.

In 1951, Tamil Nadu’s population was slightly higher than Bihar’s. Six decades later, Bihar’s population is nearly 1.5 times Tamil Nadu’s. Madhya Pradesh in 1951 had 37% more people than Kerala; in 2011, it had 217% as many.