Who can explain the Iran nuclear deal? The New York Times has a summary page, but it seems to raise as many questions as it answers.
Iran, for example, will be able to buy ballistic missiles starting no later than eight years from now. But why would Iran want a stack of expensive ballistic missiles if it could not put nuclear warheads on top? Maybe the U.S. would do something insanely expensive like this, but any other country?
Iran will be able to keep a massive nuclear technology program going, with “enrichment sites” and “centrifuge production sites.” Now that fracking has unlocked more oil that we can burn, the Chinese have figured out how to make solar cells inexpensively, and the Europeans have figured out how to make windmills, is there a conceivable economic case to be made for nuclear energy? Forbes says that nuclear can’t compete with wind in China: “The variance between the nuclear roadmap and nuclear reality in China is following the trajectory of nuclear buildout worldwide: delays, cost overruns, and unmet expectations.”
Wouldn’t this therefore be an agreement that Iran can have nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles starting no later than eight years from now?
Tangentially related at best: