Nuclear Agreement Deal Reached with Iran

[DMX7]

He did it again! :hat

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-is-reached-after-long-negotiations.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0&gwh=B859933E1B11B1329707EE36FB7B10FB&gwt=pay&assetType=nyt_now

[boutons_deux]

Repugs will do everything they can to screw it up, if they can't actually block it.

btw, it just wasn't USA, but six nations, all deserve some credit.

[boutons_deux]

right on cue, the infamous extremist asshole

Tom Cotton Comes Out Swinging Against Iran Deal: 'Congress Will Kill' This


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tom-cotton-iran-nuclear-deal-dangerous?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29


1. He penned an underhanded letter to the leaders of Iran that sparked the trending hashtag #47Traitors. On March 9th, Cotton and 46 of his Republican colleagues went behind President Obama’s back by signing an “informative” letter (http://go.bloomberg.com/assets/content/uploads/sites/2/150309-Cotton-Open-Letter-to-Iranian-Leaders.pdf) to Iran, saying that a nuclear deal would not last because the next president could reverse it. Secretary John Kerry, one of the lead negotiators in the talks, called the letter “utterly disgusting” and “irresponsible.” Two dozen editorial boards slammed (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/11/national-outrage-grows-22-newspaper-editorials-blast-senate-republican-letter-iran.html) the letter and over 200,000 people signed a petition (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-charges-against-47-us-senators-violation-logan-act-attempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9) asking the senators to be charged for violating the Logan Act, a law which forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.

3. He has compared the negotiations of the UN Security Council (P5+1) with Iran to the “appeasement of Nazi Germany.”This accusation is ridiculous. Rouhani’s Iran is not Hitler’s Germany. Despite Cotton’s claims that “there are nothing but hardliners in Tehran,” Rouhani is a reformist, someone we need to work with to defeat ISIL. And the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran are a far better ––and safer–– approach than pushing Iran to the brink of war with the US (and Israel). For once, there is actually hope for a peaceful solution, something that certainly was not an option with Nazi Germany.

7. He received $700,000 for his senate campaign from the Emergency Committee for Israel.That’s correct -- $700,000! Such an exorbitant amount of money ensures that Cotton is one of the most pro-Israel senators in Congress. During the 2014 Israeli invasion of Gaza, when over 500 Palestinian were killed, Cotton called the Israeli defense force “the most moral, humanitarian fighting force in the world.” In December he said Congressshould consider (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Tom-Cotton-B-52-bombers-nuclear/2014/12/03/id/610960/) supplying Israel with B-52s and so-called “bunker-buster” bombs for a possible strike against Iran.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/10-horrifying-facts-about-gop-senator-tom-cotton

[DMX7]

Repugs will do everything they can to screw it up, if they can't actually block it.

btw, it just wasn't USA, but six nations, all deserve some credit.

No, it was all Obama. Kerry was just a proxy and the other nations just followed.

[Warlord23]

Fox and AM radio are going to provide much lulz over the next few days

[CosmicCowboy]

Fox and AM radio are going to provide much lulz over the next few days

We will see who lulz when Iran does the same thing it has always done and interferes with and stonewalls IAEA inspections.

[boutons_deux]

Obama Squandering America’s Precious Supply of Enemies

WASHINGTON -- By easing tensions with Cuba and now Iran, President Obama is “recklessly squandering America’s precious supply of enemies,” the leader of a conservative think tank said on Tuesday.
(http://www.newyorker.com/contributors/andy-borowitz)
“Our adversarial relationships with Cuba and Iran took years of frostiness and saber-rattling to maintain,” Harland Dorrinson, the executive director of the Washington-based Institute for Infinite Conflict, said. “Thanks to the President, decades of well-crafted hostility have been thrown out the window.”


According to Dorrinson, fears abound in conservative circles that the President might be “capriciously casting about for other powder kegs to defuse” during his remaining time in office.

“If his shameful record is any guide, he’ll probably try to disarm North Korea,” Dorrinson said. “That’s the doomsday scenario.”

Regardless of his future actions, Obama’s detente with Cuba and Iran will likely tarnish his legacy forever, Dorrinson said. “On this President’s watch, America lost two of its most enduring foes,” he said.

“He’s going to have to live with that for the rest of his life.”

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/obama-squandering-americas-precious-supply-of-enemies?mbid=nl_07.14.15&cndid=&mbid=nl_07.14.15&CNDID=&spMailingID=7903413&spUserID=MjczNzc0Njk0NDAS1&spJobID=721786559&spReportId=NzIxNzg2NTU5S0

[Warlord23]

We will see who lulz when Iran does the same thing it has always done and interferes with and stonewalls IAEA inspections.

My understanding is that the deal puts in place the following:
- If Iran does not respond within 14 days to a specific IAEA inspection requirement, all the parties (US, European partners, Russia, China and Iran) will review the dispute for up to 7 days
- This group will then agree on specific instructions for Iran; only 5 of the 8 parties need to agree (therefore China, Russia and Iran can't obstruct this by themselves)
- Iran will have 3 days to comply, failing which punitive action will be taken (military or economic)

Basically, Iran has at most a 24 day window to pull a stunt of some sort. After that, its ass is on the firing line.

Is it perfect? No, the perfect agreement would have been completely shutting down their nuclear program, but anyone with any standing in the matter says that they would not have agreed to that. Which would then have left military action as the only option. Imo this approach is a better alternative till Iran proves otherwise. If they renege, go HAM on them.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

My understanding is that the deal puts in place the following:
- If Iran does not respond within 14 days to a specific IAEA inspection requirement, all the parties (US, European partners, Russia, China and Iran) will review the dispute for up to 7 days
- This group will then agree on specific instructions for Iran; only 5 of the 8 parties need to agree (therefore China, Russia and Iran can't obstruct this by themselves)
- Iran will have 3 days to comply, failing which punitive action will be taken (military or economic)

Basically, Iran has at most a 24 day window to pull a stunt of some sort. After that, its ass is on the firing line.

Is it perfect? No, the perfect agreement would have been completely shutting down their nuclear program, but anyone with any standing in the matter says that they would not have agreed to that. Which would then have left military action as the only option. Imo this approach is a better alternative till Iran proves otherwise. If they renege, go HAM on them.

If they renege, it'll go the same as it always has. More extension, more talking, nothing being done to actually keep them from having nuclear weapons.

[CosmicCowboy]

My understanding is that the deal puts in place the following:
- If Iran does not respond within 14 days to a specific IAEA inspection requirement, all the parties (US, European partners, Russia, China and Iran) will review the dispute for up to 7 days
- This group will then agree on specific instructions for Iran; only 5 of the 8 parties need to agree (therefore China, Russia and Iran can't obstruct this by themselves)
- Iran will have 3 days to comply, failing which punitive action will be taken (military or economic)

Basically, Iran has at most a 24 day window to pull a stunt of some sort. After that, its ass is on the firing line.

Is it perfect? No, the perfect agreement would have been completely shutting down their nuclear program, but anyone with any standing in the matter says that they would not have agreed to that. Which would then have left military action as the only option. Imo this approach is a better alternative till Iran proves otherwise. If they renege, go HAM on them.

I am willing to wait and see how this is actually enforced. We know Iran is gonna try and push the boundaries. Sadly the guy above me is probably correct.

[Warlord23]

I understand the skepticism, but in the short term, if this gets Iran to reduce its centrifuges, reduce enriched Uranium and stop plutonium production ... that's a positive development. The alternative (continued sanctions) has done nothing to slow down their program. So unless we want another war in the middle east, this is better than the status quo.

[DisAsTerBot]

lol some countries can have nuclear weapons and some can't. what a joke.

[DarrinS]

lol some countries can have nuclear weapons and some can't. what a joke.


For the same reason we don't want crazy people owning guns

[LnGrrrR]

If they renege, it'll go the same as it always has. More extension, more talking, nothing being done to actually keep them from having nuclear weapons.

So... war then? I don't think you're really leaving another option.

[ElNono]

For the same reason we don't want crazy people owning guns

Pakistan, North Korea.... China, Russia, India to an extent... you can only suppress this thing for so long... nuclear technology is over 70 years old.

[ElNono]

So... war then? I don't think you're really leaving another option.

It's inevitable, IMO, sooner or later they're going to clash. Too much animosity, fueled by religious hate. The writing has been on the wall for a long time now.

[Infinite_limit]

My understanding is that the deal puts in place the following:
- If Iran does not respond within 14 days to a specific IAEA inspection requirement, all the parties (US, European partners, Russia, China and Iran) will review the dispute for up to 7 days
- This group will then agree on specific instructions for Iran; only 5 of the 8 parties need to agree (therefore China, Russia and Iran can't obstruct this by themselves)
- Iran will have 3 days to comply, failing which punitive action will be taken (military or economic)

Basically, Iran has at most a 24 day window to pull a stunt of some sort. After that, its ass is on the firing line.

Is it perfect? No, the perfect agreement would have been completely shutting down their nuclear program, but anyone with any standing in the matter says that they would not have agreed to that. Which would then have left military action as the only option. Imo this approach is a better alternative till Iran proves otherwise. If they renege, go HAM on them.
I caught some O'Reilly and he just assumed with no research Iran could "clean up" in 24 days. Really?

Seems more like 14 days or else they will start sniffing extra hard.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We will see who lulz when Iran does the same thing it has always done and interferes with and stonewalls IAEA inspections.

Just like Saddam! Am I right or what?!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's inevitable, IMO, sooner or later they're going to clash. Too much animosity, fueled by religious hate. The writing has been on the wall for a long time now.

Maybe but this ideological rhetoric made a hell of a lot more sense a month ago as opposed to today. Iran is going to have proxy wars with Sunni nations as long as people follow Ali but the nation state surprised pretty much everyone in the west by trying to work with us. It's a symbolic step with a chance for something better. It sure as hell beats the alternative.

[LnGrrrR]

It's inevitable, IMO, sooner or later they're going to clash. Too much animosity, fueled by religious hate. The writing has been on the wall for a long time now.

Israel can do what it wants... I just don't want to be roped into it. If people feel the only option is war, that's fine, as long as they acknowledge that no agreement would be acceptable to them.

[boutons_deux]

wannabe macho Repugs certainly want the BUSINESS of bombing Iran, starting a war.

That's how they define themselves, pro-business no matter what the costs, as long as they aren't the ones paying the costs in $Ts and lives.

[Infinite_limit]

Israel can do what it wants... I just don't want to be roped into it. If people feel the only option is war, that's fine, as long as they acknowledge that no agreement would be acceptable to them.
Can't have "I don't care attitude" when you armed Israel. Specifically in terms of Iran, they already battled your other Frankenstein creation Saddam for 10 bitter years.

[LnGrrrR]

If Israel is attacked, sure, I don't mind defending. But if they start the war?... Well, I don't think we need to jump in all gungho. We have enough of our own wars for now.

[CosmicCowboy]

A good read on IAEA enforcement issues.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/07/how-technology-will-help-enforce-iran-dealand-cheat-it/117769/?oref=d-river

[boutons_deux]

A good read on IAEA enforcement issues.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/07/how-technology-will-help-enforce-iran-dealand-cheat-it/117769/?oref=d-river

so like all brain-dead, stop-the-n!gg@ conservatives, you are against the deal. What's your solution to stop Iran, or any country, from going nuclear?

[Winehole23]

"major strides" dutifully noted:


With the announcement of the accord, Mr. Obama has now made major strides toward fundamentally changing the American diplomatic relationships with three nations: Cuba (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/world/americas/us-cuba-relations.html), Iran and Myanmar (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/world/asia/united-states-resumes-diplomatic-relations-with-myanmar.html). Of the three, Iran is the most strategically important, the only one with a nuclear program, and it is still on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism (http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm).OP (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250974)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A good read on IAEA enforcement issues.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/07/how-technology-will-help-enforce-iran-dealand-cheat-it/117769/?oref=d-river

Wasn't particularly exciting. They build a strawman and then put Iranian security as boogeymen for existing. You have anything that is not from a Nixon intern mouthpiece? Kissinger style diplomacy is the reason we are in this mess in the first place.

[CosmicCowboy]

so like all brain-dead, stop-the-n!gg@ conservatives, you are against the deal. What's your solution to stop Iran, or any country, from going nuclear?

Hey dumb fuck.

I said I was wiling to wait and see how the implementation of IAEA inspections goes.

go fuck yourself.

[boutons_deux]

Hey dumb fuck.

I said I was wiling to wait and see how the implementation of IAEA inspections goes.

go fuck yourself.

... posting an article that said inspections weren't always reliable.

[Warlord23]

British and German foreign ministers being surprisingly honest about Israel and Bibi's intentions:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/british-fm-israel-wants-permanent-standoff-with-iran/
http://news.yahoo.com/germanys-steinmeier-criticizes-israels-opposition-iran-deal-185903098.html

[CosmicCowboy]

... posting an article that said inspections weren't always reliable.

Well no shit, Sherlock. They certainly haven't been n the past.

[boutons_deux]

Well no shit, Sherlock. They certainly haven't been n the past.

so your Iranian policy is?

[CosmicCowboy]

so your Iranian policy is?

The agreement is fine if we have the political balls to enforce it and slam the door closed with sanctions the first time they test us. We won't.

[Ghazi]

Bibi is an idiot. Iran does not support terrorism. Iran would defeat Israel in a war.. but that war will not happen

[Wild Cobra]

The agreement is fine if we have the political balls to enforce it and slam the door closed with sanctions the first time they test us. We won't.

LOL...

What does the senate say on the issue?

[CosmicCowboy]

Bibi is an idiot. Iran does not support terrorism. Iran would defeat Israel in a war.. but that war will not happen

:lmao

Most ridiculous post of the day.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

Most ridiculous post of the day.

No shit.

Iran is one of the biggest funding countries of terrorism.

[Ghazi]

Who does Iran fund? they are fighting ISIs in Syria and Iraq. so is Hezbollah. Hezbollahs considered trrrorist because they humiliated Israel in the 33 day war in 2006, a major political and military victorh for Iran/Hezb at the time

[Ghazi]

Most terrorist groups share the Wahhabist idealogy and receive funding from the West and its arab puppet states.

[Ghazi]

There is nothing terrorist about hezbollah. they are a legitimate sociopolitical movement that fights to defend Lebanese borders from Israeli aggression.

[Wild Cobra]

There is nothing terrorist about hezbollah. they are a legitimate sociopolitical movement that fights to defend Lebanese borders from Israeli aggression.
You are a fucking joke, and a tool for terrorism.

Go away.

[CosmicCowboy]

In July 2012, the United States State Department released a report on terrorism around the world in 2011. The report states that "Iran remained an active state sponsor of terrorism in 2011 and increased its terrorist-related activity" and that "Iran also continued to provide financial, material, and logistical support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia." The report states that Iran has continued to provide "lethal support, including weapons, training, funding, and guidance, to Iraqi Shia militant groups targeting U.S. and Iraqi forces, as well as civilians," despite pledging to support the stabilization of Iraq, and that the Qods Force provided training to the Taliban in Afghanistan on "small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons, such as mortars, artillery, and rockets." The report further states that Iran has provided weapons and training to the Assad regime in Syria which has launched a brutal crackdown on Syrian rebels, as well as providing weapons, training, and funding to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, among others, and has assisted in rearming Hizballah. The report states as well that Iran has remained unwilling to bring to justice senior members of Al Qaeda that it continued to detain, and also refused to publicly identify these senior members, as well as that Iran has allowed Al Qaeda members to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iranian territory, which has enabled Al Qaeda to carry funds and move facilitators and operatives to South Asia and elsewhere.[9][10][11]

[Ghazi]

lol.. Iran doing business with Al quada... yea ok. Iran does not support terrorism any more than the P5+1 and Israel do

[Ghazi]

Hezbollah must be armed.

[hater]

US was a terrorist state many to.es in history. In the russia-afgan war they were sponsoring terrorism. Also when the Iranian president was brought down that is considered terrorism as well.

Funny that Americans like to point the finger when they themselves sponsored terrorism throughout history.

Hypocrisy

[Wild Cobra]

lol.. Iran doing business with Al quada... yea ok. Iran does not support terrorism any more than the P5+1 and Israel do

We understand you.

Your religion says it's OK to lie to us infidels.

I wonder what your 72 virgins will look like?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lCftRrT_cGY/S1zsu04ezcI/AAAAAAAAACk/SGeVdnB1lis/s320/72virgins.jpg

[in2deep]

US was a terrorist state many to.es in history. In the russia-afgan war they were sponsoring terrorism. Also when the Iranian president was brought down that is considered terrorism as well.

Funny that Americans like to point the finger when they themselves sponsored terrorism throughout history.

Hypocrisy

can't disagree with this.

We are as guilty as anyone we accuse.

[Ghazi]

We understand you.

Your religion says it's OK to lie to us infidels.

I wonder what your 72 virgins will look like?
CIA is the father of Al Quada
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lCftRrT_cGY/S1zsu04ezcI/AAAAAAAAACk/SGeVdnB1lis/s320/72virgins.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"Iranian president was brought down that is considered terrorism as well."

the background to the USA-Iranian conflict is USA/CIA overthrowing democratically elected Mossadegh in the early 1950s because he was going to nationalize UK's oil business. USA installed the dictatorial, murderous Shah who was USA puppet until 1979's Iranian revolution and the US embassy takeover.

So Iran of today is really just pushing back for USA dicking around in Iran 60 years ago, just like the USA has dicked around in so many countries since.

Ignorant, childish Americans ask "Why Do They Hate Us? :lol

[hater]

"we was just mind in our bidneez" - ignorant hicks of america

[Warlord23]

Cosmic - if a diplomatic solution that allows Iran to keep its civilian nuclear programme is such a terrible mistake, why did the Bush administration (specifically Condi Rice) say the following:


The Iranian people believe they have the right to civil nuclear energy. We acknowledge that right. Yet the international agreements Iran has signed make clear that Iran's exercise of that right must conform with its commitments. In view of its previous violations of its commitments and the secret nuclear program it undertook, the Iranian regime must persuasively demonstrate that it has permanently abandoned its quest for nuclear weapons.
The benefits of this second path for the Iranian people would go beyond civil nuclear energy, and could include progressively greater economic cooperation.
The United States will actively support these benefits both publicly and privately. Furthermore, President Bush has consistently emphasized that the United States is committed to a diplomatic solution to the nuclear challenge posed by the Iranian regime

Source: http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/67088.htm

[Infinite_limit]

http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac255/kegstermd/cocnan_zpsdrnuqg16.jpg

[ElNono]

Maybe but this ideological rhetoric made a hell of a lot more sense a month ago as opposed to today. Iran is going to have proxy wars with Sunni nations as long as people follow Ali but the nation state surprised pretty much everyone in the west by trying to work with us. It's a symbolic step with a chance for something better. It sure as hell beats the alternative.


Israel can do what it wants... I just don't want to be roped into it. If people feel the only option is war, that's fine, as long as they acknowledge that no agreement would be acceptable to them.

The thing is, to work any kind of long, stable accord there has to be trust. And there's zero trust in that region. Nobody trusts Iran, but also, really, who trusts Israel? If Bibi didn't need an excuse, he would've bombed the shit out of them already.

Unfortunately, the US is too knee deep at this point in the region, since junior's Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. You also have a good amount of hawks in both parties still in Congress.

[Trill Clinton]

621057935066693634

http://i60.tinypic.com/zvy1p2.png

[Infinite_limit]

The local Fox channel here in SD keeps mentioning the 4 American prisoners. Come on, Iran supposed to empty their prisons? Many nations were involved in this deal.

[boutons_deux]

In July 2012, the United States State Department released a report on terrorism around the world in 2011. The report states that "Iran remained an active state sponsor of terrorism in 2011 and increased its terrorist-related activity" and that "Iran also continued to provide financial, material, and logistical support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia." The report states that Iran has continued to provide "lethal support, including weapons, training, funding, and guidance, to Iraqi Shia militant groups targeting U.S. and Iraqi forces, as well as civilians," despite pledging to support the stabilization of Iraq, and that the Qods Force provided training to the Taliban in Afghanistan on "small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons, such as mortars, artillery, and rockets." The report further states that Iran has provided weapons and training to the Assad regime in Syria which has launched a brutal crackdown on Syrian rebels, as well as providing weapons, training, and funding to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, among others, and has assisted in rearming Hizballah. The report states as well that Iran has remained unwilling to bring to justice senior members of Al Qaeda that it continued to detain, and also refused to publicly identify these senior members, as well as that Iran has allowed Al Qaeda members to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iranian territory, which has enabled Al Qaeda to carry funds and move facilitators and operatives to South Asia and elsewhere.[9][10][11]

What you rightwingnuts/ankle-biters refuse to recognize is that the Iran deal addresses ONLY the nuclear bomb. Everything else was, is secondary, and will be addressed separately.

Unless a Repug gets into the WH, with a Repug Congress, then it will be All (MIC) Bu$ine$$ (aka war with Iran).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The thing is, to work any kind of long, stable accord there has to be trust. And there's zero trust in that region. Nobody trusts Iran, but also, really, who trusts Israel? If Bibi didn't need an excuse, he would've bombed the shit out of them already.

Unfortunately, the US is too knee deep at this point in the region, since junior's Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. You also have a good amount of hawks in both parties still in Congress.

The point is that before there can be long peace there needs to be a a short peace. The people of Iran have reason to dislike us for propping up the old English colonial regime and doing proxy wars of our own. WE have our own images from their revolution and its aftermath. Old enemies like Cuba, Iran and Vietnam are harder to use as excuses or rallying cries.

[ElNono]

The point is that before there can be long peace there needs to be a a short peace. The people of Iran have reason to dislike us for propping up the old English colonial regime and doing proxy wars of our own. WE have our own images from their revolution and its aftermath. Old enemies like Cuba, Iran and Vietnam are harder to use as excuses or rallying cries.

I just don't think it's going to work out, and mostly because the major parties in this hate eachother's guts. I'm not opposed to attempts such as this deal, I just don't think they realistically address the issue at hand.

A pragmatic analysis yields that Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same reason Israel and many other nations have them: to serve as a deterrent and a projection of power, especially to neighbors.

Iran won't stop towards that goal as long as Israel has nukes. Israel won't get rid of their nukes. So I don't see a solution to this conundrum.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I just don't think it's going to work out, and mostly because the major parties in this hate eachother's guts. I'm not opposed to attempts such as this deal, I just don't think they realistically address the issue at hand.

A pragmatic analysis yields that Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same reason Israel and many other nations have them: to serve as a deterrent and a projection of power, especially to neighbors.

Iran won't stop towards that goal as long as Israel has nukes. Israel won't get rid of their nukes. So I don't see a solution to this conundrum.

A pragmatic analysis should also yield that the Iranian people were overwhelmingly for this deal and that the Russians are also on board. Now sure maybe the Ayatollah and his personal guard have there own agenda and that is certainly what the Israelis want us to believe but there is a growing opposition ever since that crackdown on the Green party during the Arab Spring.

Those are the one's that are trying to push Iran back into the world at large. After that crackdown and witchhunt, powerful voices such as the families of the other revolutionary ayatollahs started comparing the Supreme Leader's tactics to that of the Shah. The parallels were obvious and the Grand Ayatollah surprised everyone by listening. He told his guard to allow people back home and released them from prison. It's been a road that ultimately brought him to the bargaining table with the west first through back channels and now famously out in the open. By agreeing to this deal, he's given that political movement legitimacy. He listened to them and followed through.

I get your concerns but this isn't your daddy's ayatollah nor his Iran.

[ElNono]

A pragmatic analysis should also yield that the Iranian people were overwhelmingly for this deal and that the Russians are also on board. Now sure maybe the Ayatollah and his personal guard have there own agenda and that is certainly what the Israelis want us to believe but there is a growing opposition ever since that crackdown on the Green party during the Arab Spring.

Those are the one's that are trying to push Iran back into the world at large. After that crackdown and witchhunt, powerful voices such as the families of the other revolutionary ayatollahs started comparing the Supreme Leader's tactics to that of the Shah. The parallels were obvious and the Grand Ayatollah surprised everyone by listening. He told his guard to allow people back home and released them from prison. It's been a road that ultimately brought him to the bargaining table with the west first through back channels and now famously out in the open. By agreeing to this deal, he's given that political movement legitimacy. He listened to them and followed through.

I get your concerns but this isn't your daddy's ayatollah nor his Iran.

That's fine. It's just that Israel largely doesn't care and don't want to hear it... hmm... let me rephrase that: a large swath of Israelis that put Bibi in power and a good portion of the power brokers in the west don't care and don't want to hear it.

Do you trust Israel not to sabotage this deal? I don't.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Most terrorist groups share the Wahhabist idealogy and receive funding from the West and its arab puppet states.

If you use military tactics especially guerilla tactics for political gain outside of a nation state structure you are a terrorist. You can try and bring up Sunni fundamentalist sects and try to split hairs but it is what it is. ISIS has made it difficult to get aid to Hezbollah lately and your boys havent been doing all that great for all your chest thumping.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's fine. It's just that Israel largely doesn't care and don't want to hear it... hmm... let me rephrase that: a large swath of Israelis that put Bibi in power and a good portion of the power brokers in the west don't care and don't want to hear it.

Do you trust Israel not to sabotage this deal? I don't.

It's not like they haven't been trying. Arab league is having kittens too and the deal still happened. Instead of worrying about Bibi and his political posturing what is going to make a difference with an election right around the corner is what people like you and I have to say. If the Senate ratifies it then it's going to happen.

I cannot stand conservative Israeli politics and I could do without the political islam of the arab states myself. I would like to see this deal get a chance. I guess I should write Cornyn and Cruz. bleh.

[ElNono]

It's not like they haven't been trying. Arab league is having kittens too and the deal still happened. Instead of worrying about Bibi and his political posturing what is going to make a difference with an election right around the corner is what people like you and I have to say. If the Senate ratifies it then it's going to happen.

I cannot stand conservative Israeli politics and I could do without the political islam of the arab states myself. I would like to see this deal get a chance. I guess I should write Cornyn and Cruz. bleh.

This is one of those areas where I don't think they really care what we think about.

[boutons_deux]

This is one of those areas where I don't think they really care what we think about.

they NEVER care what Human-Americans care about. They care about whatever their big donors care about.

It's going to be nearly impossible for the Repugs to block the Iran deal.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is one of those areas where I don't think they really care what we think about.

Texas Senate is a weird bug now that the state's demographics are changing. Used to be only the primary mattered but with the GOP losing redistricting court battle after another following the census their districts are not as ridiculous as they once were. I haven't been paying attention to what the dems are doing. I just hope someone worth a shit primaries against Cruz and again in the general. I'd gladly write a $1k check to help get that stooge out of office.

I'm going to write both TX senators and the Texas GOP to tell them I am donating this cycle and their obstruction will guarantee my donation goes elsewhere.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

they NEVER care what Human-Americans care about. They care about whatever their big donors care about.

It's going to be nearly impossible for the Repugs to block the Iran deal.

Being a older fag, you have probably been discriminated and marginalized your whole life. I get where the defeatism comes from but ffs it ain't all bad for the rest of us.

[boutons_deux]

Being a older fag, you have probably been discriminated and marginalized your whole life. I get where the defeatism comes from but ffs it ain't all bad for the rest of us.

you don't even really realize how much better off EVERYBODY should be if the VRWC hadn't succeeded in killing the American dream over the past 40+ years.

You're already defeated, a loser, beat down, and you don't even realize it, which is exactly what the VRWC wanted.

Fat, dumb, happy, enough material shit and TeeVee and sports distractions (all over-priced), while the VRWC continues to bleed you dry of $Ts.

The median household income should near $100K instead of (steadily declining) $50K.

[CosmicCowboy]

Cosmic - if a diplomatic solution that allows Iran to keep its civilian nuclear programme is such a terrible mistake, why did the Bush administration (specifically Condi Rice) say the following:



Source: http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/67088.htm

What the Fuck? Do you idiots seriously not read my posts?

I said i'm fine with the agreement as long as we have the political will to drop the fucking sanctions hammer on them the first time they interfere with IAEA inspectors.

That being said there is zero chance this administration has the balls to do it.

[boutons_deux]

What the Fuck? Do you idiots seriously not read my posts?

I said i'm fine with the agreement as long as we have the political will to drop the fucking sanctions hammer on them the first time they interfere with IAEA inspectors.

That being said there is zero chance this administration has the balls to do it.

Once BigCorp starts doing BigBusiness with Iran, no Repug administration will kill that business. Same reason Repugs have never had a plan for immigration, cheap labor, brown or white, is great for business.

[ElNono]

What the Fuck? Do you idiots seriously not read my posts?

I said i'm fine with the agreement as long as we have the political will to drop the fucking sanctions hammer on them the first time they interfere with IAEA inspectors.

That being said there is zero chance this administration has the balls to do it.

CC, why do you hate America? :lol

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

We understand you.

Your religion says it's OK to lie to us infidels.

I wonder what your 72 virgins will look like?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lCftRrT_cGY/S1zsu04ezcI/AAAAAAAAACk/SGeVdnB1lis/s320/72virgins.jpg

You have been working hard so I think you earned this

http://i.imgur.com/co7x98P.jpg

[spurraider21]

The median household income should near $100K instead of (steadily declining) $50K.
:lol boutons economic model

and YOU get 100k, and YOU get 100k

http://necolebitchie.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Oprah-You-Get-a-Car-Gif.gif

[TeyshaBlue]

:lmao

[Agloco]

lol some countries can have nuclear weapons and some can't. what a joke.

Lol, some countries support terrorism, some don't. What a concept.

[hater]

Lol, some countries support terrorism, some don't. What a concept.

USA being the former

[DarrinS]

http://youtu.be/FO725Hbzfls

[boutons_deux]

Darrin, or his family, friends, ready to die in war with Iran.

[Winehole23]

Whatever its deficiencies (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-us.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news), the Iran deal places limits on Iran’s nuclear program and enhances oversight of it. Walk away from the agreement in hopes of getting tougher restrictions and you’re guaranteeing, at least for the time being, that there are barely any restrictions on the program at all.

What’s more, even if Congress passes new sanctions, it’s quite likely that the overall economic pressure on Iran will go down, not up. Most major European and Asian countries have closer economic ties to Iran than does the United States, and thus more domestic pressure to resume them. These countries have abided by international sanctions against Iran, to varying degrees, because the Obama administration convinced their leaders that sanctions were a necessary prelude to a diplomatic deal. If U.S. officials reject a deal, Iran’s historic trading partners will not economically injure themselves indefinitely. Sanctions, declared (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/iran-sanctions-at-risk-if-deal-falls-through-u-k-envoy-says) Britain’s ambassador to the United States in May, have already reached “the high-water mark,” noting that “you would probably see more sanctions erosion” if nuclear talks fail. Germany’s ambassador added that, “If diplomacy fails, then the sanctions regime might unravel.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-nuclear-deal-obama/398450/

[Winehole23]

for all his evil empire bs, Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev. was he an appeaser too?

[ChumpDumper]

http://youtu.be/FO725HbzflsWhat land area did the US and other countries agree to give Iran, Darrin?

[ChumpDumper]

for all his evil empire bs, Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev. was he an appeaser too?That's completely different.

He sold Iran 2500 missiles.

For peace!

[Ghazi]

MARG BAR ISRAEL

[Winehole23]

That's completely different.

He sold Iran 2500 missiles.

For peace!Road stake for the liberation of Central America from local control. Totes different. We couldn't very well appropriate the funds in the usual fashion.

[Splits]

Former Rep. Ron Paul said in two recent interviews that he supports the Obama administration’s nuclear agreement with Iran, calling it “to the benefit of world peace.”

Paul’s statements stand in contrast to his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has said he will vote against the deal.

Ron Paul told “The Michael Berry Show” on Friday that a lot of opposition to the deal comes from an unfair view of Iranians, according to Buzzfeed.

“We have learned and been conditioned to distrust and hate the Persians, and that they’re gonna kill us,” Paul said. “But there’s no history to show that Iran are aggressive people.”

“When’s the last time they invaded a country? Over 200 years ago!” he added, comparing Iran’s support for terror groups to “what our CIA does.”

“We’re in 160 countries, and Iran is, you know, involved with Hezbollah and the others, trying to protect their interests,” Paul said.

He compared Obama’s deal to one reached by Ronald Reagan with Soviet Russia in the 1980s.

“Reagan did another deal with the Soviets, at the height [of the Cold War], and they had 30,000 missiles!” Paul said.

“They didn’t say boo about Reagan doing it!” he added. “And yet that was even a bigger gamble — but it was the right gamble to make.”

Ron Paul told Newsmax on Tuesday that the agreement was a step toward a better world, even if it doesn’t achieve everything it could.

"There's something to be said about moving in the direction of at least talking to people instead of saying, 'All right, you're scoundrels, we'll keep our $100 billion we've taken from you and all options are on the table, like if you don't do what we tell you, we're allowed to use our nuclear weapons against you,' " Paul said.

"The tone has been changed. It's to our benefit; it's to the benefit of world peace,” he added

Rand Paul, a 2016 presidential candidate, tweeted Tuesday that “the proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable and I will vote against the agreement.”

[Splits]

http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/us_military_bases_surrounding_iran.jpg-2.jpg

[Splits]

MARG BAR ISRAEL

[boutons_deux]

If You Can’t Beat Trump, Join Him: Huckabee Delivers Most Outrageous Line Of 2016

Huckabee called President Obama’s foreign policy “the most feckless in American history,” and called Obama naive to trust the Iranians.

“By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven,”

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/07/26/3684534/huckabee-iran-israel-wow/


You fucking Repugs are fucking nuts.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

The Huckster is literally mad.

[DMX7]

http://youtu.be/FO725Hbzfls

This shit is so played out.

[DMX7]

If You Can’t Beat Trump, Join Him: Huckabee Delivers Most Outrageous Line Of 2016

Huckabee called President Obama’s foreign policy “the most feckless in American history,” and called Obama naive to trust the Iranians.

“By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven,”

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/07/26/3684534/huckabee-iran-israel-wow/


You fucking Repugs are fucking nuts.

Unbelievable... what a clown show the republican primary is.

[boutons_deux]

Trump campaign manager: Huckabee’s right — Obama is sending Israelis to the ovens


http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Trump-campaign-manager-Michael-Cohen-via-screencap-800x430.png

Cohen — who serves as “special counsel to Donald Trump” — was a guest on CNN’sNew Day with Chris Cuomo.

“Does Donald Trump think it was wrong and offensive?” Cuomo asked, about the governor’s choice of metaphor.

“I don’t think so,” Cohen replied. “I think what he’s really trying to say here is that we’re really in a bad place.”

“He’s okay with these words?” said Cuomo. “‘March Israelis to the door of the oven?'”

“Because we’ve been there,” Cohen said. “My father was a Holocaust survivor and I can tell you, there’s that old statement, ‘Never again.’ What Trump is trying to say is that a nuclear Iran is the destruction of this world.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/trump-campaign-manager-huckabees-right-obama-is-sending-israelis-to-the-ovens/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

So what is the Repug alternative plan for Iran? bombing? invasion? Trump's plan for Iran?

[DMX7]

It's literally a campaign strategy to say something ridiculous and attention grabbing. And like clockwork, it boosts the candidate in the polls.

[FromWayDowntown]

President Obama could say on the public record that the Republican party is the best political party in the history of the world and that nobody should ever again vote for a Democrat, and Republicans would vehemently deny his statement.

[Spurminator]

Have the GOP candidates gotten around to reading the agreement yet?

[Winehole23]

You can argue that this deal should have been different, but when it comes time to vote on whether it should go forward, members of Congress will be choosing between two options, neither of them hypothetical. A yes vote means all the parties — not only Iran and the United States, but also the United Nations, China, Russia, and the European Union — implement this deal. A no vote, in contrast, doesn’t mean that some fantasy deal will fall from the sky. It means that the U.S. walks away from this deal, and it collapses.


That also could mean that the existing sanctions regime collapses. We can keep our sanctions on Iran, but the reason sanctions have been so devastating to the country’s economy is that they haven’t just come from the U.S., but also from the United Nations, the European Union, and elsewhere. If those other sanctions were to disappear, Iran would get most of what it wanted without having to fulfill any obligations at all. And if they want to pursue a nuclear weapon, they could then go right ahead.https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/23/lets-stop-pretending-republicans-have-a-serious-critique-of-the-iran-deal/

[boutons_deux]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/23/lets-stop-pretending-republicans-have-a-serious-critique-of-the-iran-deal/

and the alternative to the agreement is?

[mrtxstar]

and the alternative to the agreement is?

The Obama Admin. would have us believe the alternative is war.

[boutons_deux]

The Obama Admin. would have us believe the alternative is war.

that's exactly what the Repugs, Christian End Timers, and Bibi want. bomb Iran is the ONLY solution.

[mrtxstar]

that's exactly what the Repugs, Christian End Times, and Bibi want. bomb Iran is the ONLY solution.

So you are now the official spokesmen for the Republicans... how convenient for you.

[boutons_deux]

So you are now the official spokesmen for the Republicans... how convenient for you.

I listen to, quote the Repugs. MrTXstar, don't fuck with me, you're clearly out of your depth already.

[DMX7]

So you are now the official spokesmen for the Republicans... how convenient for you.

What do they want?

[DMX7]

625712295306399744

[mrtxstar]

I listen to, quote the Repugs. MrTXstar, don't fuck with me, you're clearly out of your depth already.

What? You can't be questioned? I was hoping for a civil discussion but I guess not.

[ChumpDumper]

The Obama Admin. would have us believe the alternative is war.What would you have us believe the alternative is?

[mrtxstar]

What do they want?

You saw what the "spokesman" said. Obviously they want war. :lol

[mrtxstar]

What would you have us believe the alternative is?

I'm not the spokesman for the Republicans. He said that they want war so that must be it.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not the spokesman for the Republicans. He said that they want war so that must be it.I didn't ask what the Republicans considered an alternative. I asked what you considered an alternative.

[mrtxstar]

I didn't ask what the Republicans considered an alternative. I asked what you considered an alternative.

Say please and I might tell you. I don't think you are truly interested in what I think. To you I'm just the newest whipping boy.

[ChumpDumper]

Say please and I might tell you. I don't think you are truly interested what in I think. To you I'm just the newest whipping boy.How would this be whipping you?

I simply asked your opinion.

If you don't want to answer, fine.

[mrtxstar]

How would this be whipping you?

I simply asked your opinion.

If you don't want to answer, fine.

You still didn't say please.

[ChumpDumper]

You still didn't say please.I don't need to and shouldn't have to if you are "hoping for a civil discussion."

No problem though. I'm not at all sure you had anything resembling an alternative anyway.

[mrtxstar]

I don't need to and shouldn't have to if you are "hoping for a civil discussion."

No problem though. I'm not at all sure you had anything resembling an alternative anyway.

Civility includes "please" & "thank you". You probably couldn't handle my alternative anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

Civility includes "please" & "thank you".It does not require them.
You probably couldn't handle my alternative anyway.You don't have one.

And that's OK.

[mrtxstar]

It does not require them. You don't have one.

And that's OK. I guess you will never know until you say "please".

[ChumpDumper]

I guess you will never know until you say "please".I'm sure the board will be fine without your imaginary alternatives.

[mrtxstar]

I'm sure the board will be fine without your imaginary alternatives.

Whatever. I know I'll be fine sans your insults. Goodbye.

[ChumpDumper]

Whatever. I know I'll be fine sans your insults. Goodbye.Thank you.

[DMX7]

Whatever. I know I'll be fine sans your insults. Goodbye.

Running away? What a great show of confidence is in your imaginary alternative.

[mrtxstar]

Running away? What a great show of confidence is in your imaginary alternative.

Are you wanting to discuss something? Are we being civil?

[DMX7]

Are you wanting to discuss something? Are we being civil?

Deflection? What a great show of confidence in your imaginary alternative.

[mrtxstar]

Deflection? What a great show of confidence in your imaginary alternative.

If all you have to offer here is insult, then I'm done here. Goodbye. :toast

[ChumpDumper]

If all you have to offer here is insult, then I'm done here. Goodbye. :toastThank you.

[FromWayDowntown]

Bizarre.

[boutons_deux]

so Repugs, End Timers have no alternative to the Iran agreement?

[ChumpDumper]

so Repugs, End Timers have no alternative to the Iran agreement?Not if we don't say please.

[DMX7]

If all you have to offer here is insult, then I'm done here. Goodbye. :toast

Running away? What a great show of confidence in your imaginary alternative.

[hitmanyr2k]

625712295306399744

FFS, not the mushroom cloud shit again. It's like going back in time to 2002.

[DMX7]

FFS, not the mushroom cloud shit again. It's like going back in time to 2002.

Im surprised the media hasn't made the comparison.

[mingus]

Good deal, ensures Iran won't build nuke. Elections getting closer, pundits and politicians will do and say anything to distance from Obama/democrats. Don't hate the playa hate the game (Huckabee).

[Winehole23]

The U.S. State Department has approved the possible sale to Saudi Arabia (http://www.reuters.com/places/saudi-arabia) of $5.4 billion in additional PAC-3 missiles built by Lockheed Martin Corp, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-usa-saudi-missiles-idUSKCN0Q320720150729

[boutons_deux]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-usa-saudi-missiles-idUSKCN0Q320720150729

War or non-War enriches the MIC

[SupremeGuy]

I want a deal as long as: we get all POWs back(including British, etc), we're not giving them money, and the inspectors get carte blanche; then yes let's make a deal.

[SupremeGuy]

Good deal, ensures Iran won't build nuke. Elections getting closer, pundits and politicians will do and say anything to distance from Obama/democrats. Don't hate the playa hate the game (Huckabee).Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[Winehole23]

I want a deal as long as: ... we're not giving them money.You mean frozen assets, i.e., their own money?

[Double-Up]

"Iran will not allow American or Canadian inspectors working for the U.N. nuclear watchdog to visit its nuclear facilities, an official said in remarks broadcast by state TV on Thursday."

I'm starting to hate this deal...we need more details.

[Winehole23]

details are out there:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-text.html

[SupremeGuy]

You mean frozen assets, i.e., their own money?You mean sanctions against a totalitaristic regime?

[SupremeGuy]

"Iran will not allow American or Canadian inspectors working for the U.N. nuclear watchdog to visit its nuclear facilities, an official said in remarks broadcast by state TV on Thursday."

I'm starting to hate this deal...we need more details.The funny thing is that hollywood jews won't speak out against this deal. Self serving, money, etc.

[boutons_deux]

Conservative Media React With Outrage To President Obama's Iran Speech


Fox's Tantaros: President Obama "Took A Blame America Approach" To His Speech. Reacting to President Obama's speech on the August 5 edition of Fox News' Outnumbered, host Andrea Tantaros commented that the president took a "blame America" approach to his statements. Guest host Jonah Goldberg also argued that Obama had turned the deal "into a partisan issue" with "Bush-bashing and all the Iraq War bashing." [Fox News, Outnumbered, 8/5/15 (http://mediamatters.org/video/204783)]

Fox's Hayes: Obama's Speech Was "Highly Demagogic" And "Unpresidential." Fox News contributor andWeekly Standard senior writer Stephen Hayes commented on Obama's speech in a series of tweets claiming it had been a "dishonest lecture" and calling it "[h]yperbolic, mendacious, illogical, small-minded, high demagogic, [and] unpresidential":



[Twitter.com, 8/5/15 (https://twitter.com/stephenfhayes/status/628971565837725696); 8/5/15 (https://twitter.com/stephenfhayes/status/628972511636500481)

Katie Pavlich: Obama Thinks "Republicans Are Just As Bad As Those Mullahs Who Hang Gay People." Responding to Obama's speech, TownHall.com editor and Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich tweeted that the president had implied that "Republicans are just as bad as those Mullahs who hang gay people, you know":

[Twitter.com, 8/5/15 (https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/628968970092212224)]
Bloomberg's Eli Lake: Obama "Talks About His Iran Deal Like He Was A Daily Kos Blogger." Responding to Obama's speech August 5, Bloomberg View Columnist Eli Lake tweeted that the president "talks about his Iran deal like he was a daily kos blogger":

[Twitter.com, 8/5/15 (https://twitter.com/EliLake/status/628970877305143296)]
Breitbart.com's Pollack: Obama's Speech Just "An Attack On Obama's Political Opponents." Breitbart.com Editor Joel Pollack responded to Obama's speech by claiming that it was "an attack on Obama's political opponents":

[Twitter.com, 8/5/15 (https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/628968035743698945)]
Free Beacon Responded With An Image Of A Nuclear Explosion . During the speech conservative blog Washington Free Beacon tweeted an image of a nuclear explosion:

[Twitter.com, 8/5/15 (https://twitter.com/FreeBeacon/status/628966048570679296)]
Allah Pundit Calls For Obama's Impeachment. In a series of tweets commenting on Obama's speech, Allah Pundit called for the president's impeachment, and claimed it was his "lowest moment as president":

[Twitter.com, 8/5/15 (https://twitter.com/allahpundit/status/628964830150430721); 8/5/15 (https://twitter.com/allahpundit/status/628970617732083712)]
Hugh Hewitt: Obama Has "Lost Touch With Basic Reality." Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt tweeted his disapproval of Obama's speech, writing that the president has "lost touch with basic reality comparing GOP to Iranian thugs":

[Twitter.com, 8/5/15 (https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/628981751201853440)]
But Experts Have Lauded The Iran Deal As "Necessary And Wise," "Pretty Damn Good," And Evidence Of U.S. Strength


Nonproliferation Expert Jeffrey Lewis: Iran Deal Is "Pretty Damn Good."

Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, explained in Foreign Policy that the Iran nuclear deal is "pretty damn good," containing "substantial" reductions in centrifuges and "clever" mechanisms to re-impose sanctions should Iran backtrack on its end of the bargain:

The real issues in Vienna were how to re-impose sanctions if the deal collapsed, as well whether to lift the United Nations' arms embargo and the sanctions on Iran's missile programs.

The mechanism to re-impose sanctions -- called "snap back" by people who don't wear baseball caps -- is pretty clever. Any of the parties can raise an issue within a Joint Commission created to administer the agreement. If the party is unsatisfied, it then can notify the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council has 30 days to act -- and if it does nothing, the sanctions are automatically re-imposed. That gives the United States and other parties the ability to blow up the deal and return to sanctions regime with no chance for Russia or China to veto.
[...]
What's going to be needed to deal with this is a sense of calm, a sense of perspective, and sense of humor. There are going to be lots of people who get red in the face, point out all the terrible things the Iranian government does and generally make accusations quicker than they can be debunked or resolved through negotiations. It will be important to step back every now again, breathe deeply, look at how things have turned out in North Korea and Iraq and remember: this is a pretty damned good deal. [Foreign Policy, 7/14/15 (https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/14/its-a-damn-good-deal-iran-nuclear-agreement-joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action/)]


Lewis: "I Would Give It An A." Lewis, who in addition to directing the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies also runs an arms control blog and podcast, spoke to Vox.com's Max Fisher and told him the negotiating team "did a fantastic job":

FISHER: Why is this a good deal?

LEWIS: It's a good deal because it slows down their nuclear program -- which they say is for civilian purposes but could be used to make a bomb, and which we think was originally intended to make a bomb. And it puts monitoring and verification measures in place that mean if they try to build a bomb, we're very likely to find out, and to do so with enough time that we have options to do something about it.

There's a verifiable gap between their bomb option and an actual bomb. That's why it's a good deal.
[...]

FISHER: Now that we're here, what grade would you give it?

LEWIS: I would give it an A.

FISHER: A solid A!

LEWIS: I mean, it's hard. There are two pieces to this.

Compared to the deal we could have gotten 10 years ago, if the Bush administration hadn't had their heads up their butts? Not an A! That would have been a great deal!
I remember when they had 164 centrifuges, in one cascade, and I said, "You know what, we should let them keep it in warm standby. No uranium, just gas." And people were like, "You're givin' away the store!"

FISHER: We would kill for that now! They got cut down to 5,000 centrifuges, and it's a huge deal.

LEWIS: Exactly. And that's been the fundamental experience of this for me. Every six months, the deal we could have gotten six months before looks better. Every time we tried to hold out for a better deal, and every time we got in the position of a worse deal.

So, compared to where they started, and what I thought was feasible to achieve, this team I thought did a fantastic job. If this team had been in place in 2003 or 2004 or 2005, it might have looked even better. But they inherited what they inherited, and they did a pretty decent job with it. How could I give them less than A? [Vox.com, 7/15/15 (http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8967147/iran-nuclear-deal-jeffrey-lewis)]


National Security Expert: "The Agreement We Have Is About As Good As Any Real World Agreement Could Be." Anthony H. Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy for the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former military advisor to General Stanley McChrystal, wrote that the U.S.' deal with Iran is "as good" as realistically possible:

One can debate the finer details, but in the real world, the agreement we have is about as good as any real world agreement could be. If this agreement is now blocked by internal U.S., politics, Iran is almost certain to react by portraying the United States as dishonest and as blocking arms control and peace, and react with a more active series of nuclear and military efforts -- as well with even more hostile efforts in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the Gulf.

Moreover, if the deal fails to pass Congress, outside nations will also take advantage of America's divisions. Russia and China will exploit the U.S. "failure" for their different reasons. The EU countries are likely to see this as an example of U.S. internal weakness and inability to lead. Our regional allies will have to confront both a more active Iran and a United States whose leadership and unity has proven to be all too uncertain. [Beyond Partisan Infighting: The Role Congress Should Play in Reacting to the Nuclear Agreement with Iran, 7/15/15 (http://csis.org/publication/beyond-partisan-infighting-role-congress-should-play-reacting-nuclear-agreement-iran)]


Harvard Diplomacy Expert: Iran Deal Was "Necessary And Wise." The New York Times quoted R. Nicholas Burns, professor of Diplomacy and International Relations at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, as saying the Iran deal is "necessary and wise":

"The reality is that it is a painful agreement to make, but also necessary and wise," said R. Nicholas Burns, who drafted the first sanctions against Iran, passed in the United Nations Security Council in 2006 and 2007, when he was undersecretary of state for policy. "And we might think of it as just the end of the beginning of a long struggle to contain Iran. There will be other dramas ahead." [The New York Times, 7/14/15 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-us.html)]


Executive Director Of Truman National Security Project: Iran Deal "Improves Our National Security," Was Accomplished By "American Leadership." Michael Breen, a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Executive Director of the Truman National Security Project, wrote on CNN.com that the "agreement demonstrates the power of tough, principled diplomacy" and should make Americans safer:

Keeping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is of central importance to American security. This agreement demonstrates the power of tough, principled diplomacy -- and will make America and our allies safer and stronger if properly implemented and enforced. American leadership made this agreement possible: rallying the international community to force Iran to the table with multilateral sanctions, maintaining a united front through months of negotiations, and holding firm for a deal that improves our national security.

This agreement is not based on trust. Because we expect Iran to try and cheat, verification is a critical component of the agreement. Its terms close off all of Iran's potential avenues to a nuclear weapon, give us access to their entire nuclear supply chain, and impose the strictest monitoring and verification regime ever negotiated in the history of nonproliferation. If Iran cheats a month, a year, or a decade from now, we will be in a position to know. And because this agreement is backed by the international community, America will be in a position to take decisive action with our allies if Iran violates the terms.

This generation of combat veterans, frontline civilians, and policy leaders knows all too well the sacrifice required when diplomacy fails. Many of us, myself included, have spent our adult lives attempting to redeem the aftermath of a deeply unnecessary war in the Middle East, launched in the name of nonproliferation. This time, through tough American-led diplomacy, we have charted a better, smarter course. [CNN.com, 7/14/15 (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/opinions/iran-nuclear-deal-roundup/)]


Arms Control Expert: If Iran Cheats On The Deal, The Likelihood Of Them Getting Caught Is "Near 100 Percent." Vox.com quoted Aaron Stein, an arms control expert with the Royal United Services Institute, who explained that in the event Iran backtracks on their commitments, their likelihood of getting caught is "near 100 percent":

The nuclear deal actually lays out how all of this is supposed to work if Iran cheats -- the negotiators clearly wanted to account for that -- and it looks pretty good, if not perfect.
Let's say, for instance, that Iran is secretly siphoning off some of its uranium and centrifuges and shipping them to a hidden site under a mountain somewhere, where it secretly processes the uranium into nuclear fuel that could be used for a bomb.

First what would happen, almost inevitably, is that international inspectors would catch Iran. There are any number of points in the process where Iran could get caught. Inspectors at Iran's uranium mines, its uranium processing mills, or certainly its enrichment facilities would find out if Iran were siphoning off even a little bit of material. Or, for example, they would notice that Iran's centrifuge factories -- which they'll monitor -- are missing centrifuges.

"The likelihood of getting caught is near 100 percent," Aaron Stein, an arms control expert with the Royal United Services Institute, told my colleague Max Fisher. [Vox.com, 7/14/15 (http://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/8963503/iran-nuclear-deal-violation)]


http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/05/conservative-media-react-with-outrage-to-presid/204788

Barry/Kerry Iran agreement is another huge 2015 bitch slapping of Repugs, Fox, right-wing hate media.

[DMX7]

Our Dear Leader has said this is the best deal ever. We must take it!

[Winehole23]

You mean sanctions against a totalitaristic regime?what do you know about it, neologism totally notwithstanding?

Persia(Iran) goes way back past 1979. As a culture, thousands of years older than us,

Who did they kick ass on recently besides Iraq (driven into Iranian arms by us, BTW)?

[Winehole23]

and why should we get to keep the money we stole from them?

[ChumpDumper]

You mean sanctions against a totalitaristic regime?Like China?

[CosmicCowboy]

Alan Dershowitz lays the smack down on Obama.


http://observer.com/2015/08/dershowitz-obama-is-an-abject-failure-by-his-own-standards/

[Pelicans78]

what do you know about it, neologism totally notwithstanding?

Persia(Iran) goes way back past 1979. As a culture, thousands of years older than us,

Who did they kick ass on recently besides Iraq (driven into Iranian arms by us, BTW)?

I think Iraq actually did more damage. Their military was way more superior at the time. The Ayatollah just wouldn't surrender. But it did deplete Iraq's military capability which was pretty massive back in 1980 before they invaded Iraq.

[Pelicans78]

The Saudis now have the strongest military among the Arab Gulf states, but just don't have enough troops to use them.

[boutons_deux]

If It’s Going to Push Us to War, Is It Time for AIPAC to Register as a Foreign Agent?


http://www.juancole.com/images/2015/08/J-Street-poll-on-Iran-Nuclear-Agreement1.jpg

It not only is sending lobbyists to the offices of all US congressional representatives and putting them under heavy pressure to reject the Vienna accords, but it or its subsidiaries are flooding the airwaves with vicious disinformation in an attempt to confuse the American public.

So my question is, on whose behalf is AIPAC intervening in American domestic politics?

Even if the J-Street and LA polls are flawed, how likely is it that they are hiding an overwhelming and vehement opposition to the deal among American Jewry (the vast majority of whom vote for the Democratic Party and strongly supported Barack Obama for president)?

Or that the gap between Jewish Americans and other Americans on this issue, discovered in the same polls, doesn’t actually exist?

The only logical possibility is that AIPAC is acting on behalf of the Likud government of Israel.

And if it is doing that, it falls under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (http://www.fara.gov/fara-faq.html). Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy repeatedly demanded that the American Zionist Council, the forerunner of AIPAC, so register.

Former Senator J. William Fulbright made a case for it in 1988.

The 2005 prosecution of two AIPAC employees for passing a classified Pentagon document (http://www.juancole.com/2004/09/aipac-spy-case-involves-intelligence.html) to an Israeli official should have pitched the question again but did not.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/if_its_going_to_push_us_to_war_time_for_aipac_to_r egister_20150811

[ChumpDumper]

Alan Dershowitz lays the smack down on Obama.


http://observer.com/2015/08/dershowitz-obama-is-an-abject-failure-by-his-own-standards/Eh, the US was never going to war with Iran over this. Why pretend we would?

[boutons_deux]

Alan Dershowitz lays the smack down on Obama.


http://observer.com/2015/08/dershowitz-obama-is-an-abject-failure-by-his-own-standards/

Dersh is a Likud tool

[Infinite_limit]

Alan Dershowitz lays the smack down on Obama.


http://observer.com/2015/08/dershowitz-obama-is-an-abject-failure-by-his-own-standards/
> Alan Dershowitz



> Dershowitz


> JEW

http://i.imgur.com/2E71frb.gif

[boutons_deux]

In Passionate Letter to Congress, Hundreds of Rabbis Endorse Iran Deal


Urging lawmakers to pass nuclear agreement, rabbis also fight perception of American Jewish opposition to the deal

More than 300 rabbis "from all streams of Judaism" on Monday sent a letter (http://www.ameinu.net/newsroom/press-release/340-rabbis-urge-congress-to-support-nuclear-deal-with-iran/) to all lawmakers in U.S. Congress urging them to approve the historic nuclear deal with Iran, calling it "the best arrangement possible given current international realities."

"As rabbis, we support the agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, Russia and Iran– The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. We encourage the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to endorse this agreement," the letter states.

"If Congress ultimately rejects the deal, the consequences for the United States, Israel, the Jewish community and the world will be significant," said Rabbi Samuel Gordon of Wilmette, Illinois in a statement accompanying the letter.

Signed by 340 rabbis from around the country and published by Ameinu, which describes itself as a broad community of progressive American Jews seeking social and economic justice in Israel and the United States, the missive also sought to highlight recent poll numbers indicating widespread public support for the deal by American Jews.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/08/18/passionate-letter-congress-hundreds-rabbis-endorse-iran-deal

[boutons_deux]

Iran deal opponents now have their "death panels" lie, and it's a whopper

The debate over the Iran nuclear deal may now have its own version of "death panels," a provision that is both a point of overwhelming criticism and largely fictitious.

"Particularly troublesome, you have to wait 24 days before you can inspect," Sen. Chuck Schumer told reporters last week, explaining why he is opposing the deal.

Conservative media (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/19/moniz-says-24-day-delay-for-iran-inspections-is-ok/) have hammered (http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/14/yes-iran-can-hide-nuclear-material-in-24-days-iran-deals-details-show-fatal-flaws/) at this idea (http://www.thetower.org/2296-deal-will-give-iran-24-days-to-cover-up-suspected-nuclear-sites/): that nuclear inspectors must wait 24 days before visiting any place in Iran that is not a declared nuclear site. Sometimes they imply or outright state, as in the case of this staggeringly misleading but representativeFox News story (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/19/kerry-defends-iran-nuclear-deal-says-anytime-anywhere-inspections-never-on/), that the 24-day wait applies even to known nuclear sites.

This certainly sounds scary. It sounds, as the critics often say, like those bumbling appeasers in the Obama administration have handed Iran the ability to cheat on the deal and then prevent inspectors from catching them.

Fortunately, this is all largely false. It's a lot like "death panels," in which Obamacare critics took a benign fact about the health-care bill — it would include end-of-life counseling (http://www.vox.com/2015/7/10/8924815/end-of-life-care-debate) — and then spun it up into a massive lie about how President Obama was going to cancel Granny's life-sustaining medications and send her to an early grave. This is an issue on which nuclear deal critics have taken a small truth and then exaggerated, distorted, and outright lied about it to make it into something very different.

How the "24-day wait" lie came about

When it comes to inspections, the deal divides Iran into two kinds of sites: declared nuclear sites and every other place.

The declared nuclear sites include any place where nuclear work is happening: uranium mines, uranium plants, centrifuge factories, and of course enrichment sites, which means the places where centrifuges spin up nuclear material. At those sites, inspectors do not have to wait. They will have nuclear sites under continual monitoring.

But what about the rest of the country? What if inspectors worry that Iran might be conducting secret nuclear work someplace else? It's happened before, after all. But this was always going to be a hard problem, and so-called "anytime, anywhere" inspections are not realistically possible: Generally, only countries that have lost a war can be forced to agree to something so obtrusive. And a country like Iran, which fears an attack from the US, worries that Western inspectors could abuse access to military sites to give their governments intelligence on Iran's non-nuclear military programs.

So the deal struck a compromise that actually gives inspectors pretty good access: If they want to go someplace that is not a declared nuclear site, they can demand access. Here's what happens if they do:

Iran has to grant access within 24 hours, unless it objects to the validity of the demand.
If Iran objects, it and inspectors enter negotiations. If they agree to disagree, the issue gets kicked to a special international commission that includes the US and the other countries that signed the nuclear deal. If it's been 14 days and they're still talking, it goes to the international commission (made up of US, UK, France, Germany, EU, China, Russia, and Iran).
The international commission votes on whether to force Iran to comply. The US and its European allies have a majority on the commission, so if they agree they can overrule the other members. They can hold that vote right away, or they can wait up to seven days.
If the commission votes to force Iran to comply, Iran has to let in the inspectors within three days. If it doesn't, the international sanctions will "snap" back into force.


What critics have done is look at this timeline and focus on the fact that in the most extreme possible scenario, the time between when inspectors demand access and when they get access could be as much as 24 days. Weirdly, this assumes that not just Iran but even the US and its allies will push delays as long as possible, but that is only one of the smaller problems with this idea.

This is a lot more than just misleading — it is a wild distortion of how inspections in general, and this inspection regime in particular, will work, based on a series of misleading or outright dishonest claims about how the deal works.

The truth about the "24-day wait"

Here are a few problems with the idea that inspectors will have to wait 24 days to access undeclared sites in Iran:



Iran deal critics are lying when they present this process as the default way in which every visit to an undeclared site will go. In fact, under an agreement that Iran has accepted called the Additional Protocol (https://www.iaea.org/safeguards/safeguards-legal-framework/additional-protocol), inspectors are required access within 24 hours. This other, multi-day process is meant as a fail-safe in case that doesn't work.
Critics claim that because the process could, in theory, take up to 24 days, it means Iran can force inspectors to wait 24 days. This is false. Iran does not control every step of the process — the US and its allies could force a vote on the international commission right away, for example — so it is nonsense to argue that Iran could unilaterally delay inspection up to 24 full days.
Even if Iran does push for as much delaying as possible, that would be like waving a big, neon-lit invitation over that particular site to Western spy agencies, which have a very good track record of spotting illicit Iranian nuclear activity. If Iran carted out material or bulldozed a test chamber or something, we would spot it, and the jig would be up.
Nuclear radiation lasts a very long time. If Iran wants to enrich uranium, it will produce radioactive isotopes that cannot be scrubbed out. Yes, there are non-radioactive activities that Iran could conduct, but you need the radioactive stuff to build a bomb, and that is detectable long after 24 days.
Iran deal critics pretend that during this process, the US and its allies would be powerless, essentially held hostage by Iranian intransigence. In fact, they have a variety of tools built into the deal by which they can pressure Iran to let in inspectors, and if necessary can blow up the deal by bringing back sanctions.


The bigger lie behind the "24 days" lie

This entire line of criticism fundamentally mischaracterizes how nuclear inspections work. Ultimately, inspections are a set of tools meant to determine whether Iran is holding to its commitments under the nuclear deal. If inspectors try to get access to sites but at every turn are delayed by Iranian stall tactics, guess what: It will be extremely clear from all this stalling that Iran is not adhering to the deal. Inspections will have worked.

It's not as if the deal binds our hands to accept Iranian behavior unless we catch them specifically in the act of illicit nuclear development. Repeatedly delaying inspectors up to the highest possible limit would effectively prove that Iran was cheating, without the world even having to catch them red-handed.

If the US suspects from Iran's delays that the country might be cheating on the deal, it can punish and pressure Iran into stopping the delays, even if those delays are technically within the allowed time frame. Indeed, those tools are built into the process.

David Albright, a nuclear expert who is considered otherwise skeptical of the deal, pointed out to the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/17/schumers-claims-about-24-days-before-you-can-inspect-in-iran/?postshare=2751439821439170) that the deal gives the US leverage to, for example, "slow nuclear cooperation and approvals of exports to Iran via the procurement channel." (He added, "Iran should get a message that prompt access is required under the Additional Protocol, despite the language in the [final nuclear deal].")

And if the US gets fed up, it can always use its veto power to unilaterally "snap back" United Nations Security Council sanctions. That's both a threat it can hold over Iran's head if Iran is delaying too much, and a threat it can actually use if it becomes necessary.

If anything, by codifying such a specific procedure for what happens if Iran refuses inspectors entry, the deal makes it easier to figure out if Iran is attempting to exploit the process to delay inspectors so as to cover up illicit development.

"This arrangement is much, much stronger than the normal safeguards agreement, which requires prompt access in theory but does not place time limits on dickering," Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at Middlebury University, wrote in his typically colorful Foreign Policy column (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/09/upchuck-senator-schumers-disingenuous-iran-deal-argument/).

Lewis sees this process for getting access as a strength that has been turned into a weakness, and one he goes on to compare to the "death panels" lie of the Obamacare debates:

Some of us might think it’s good that the agreement puts defined limits on how much Iran can stall and explicitly prohibits a long list of weaponization activities. Opponents, like Schumer — apparently for want of anything better — have seized on these details to spin them into objections. A weaker, less detailed agreement might have been easier to defend against this sort of attack, perhaps.

... The claim that inspections occur with a 24-day delay is the equivalent of Obamacare "death panels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel)." Remember those? A minor detail has been twisted into a bizarre caricature and repeated over and over until it becomes "true."



Lying about policy has consequences

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/vMRnzfV_Stax-sEDTwwJ6pTFy6w=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3981184/GettyImages-494501395.0.jpgSarah Palin speaks at an event. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

We all look back on "death panels" now and laugh; 2009 feels so long ago, and Sarah Palin's lie that Obamacare would have bureaucrats decide whether your grandmother's life is worth saving is safely in the past.

But at the time, it felt very significant, and indeed it was. One poll found (http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2009/08/death-panel-shaming-works-but-is-it-too-late.html) that 30 percent of Americans, including 47 percent of Republicans, thought it was true. Obamacare became, in the political press, inextricably linked to the
"death panels" myth.

It was politically damaging for the health-care act both because it scared people who thought it was true, and because it helped shift the national conversation away from the big picture of what Obamacare did for American health care and refocused it on whatever detail the critics were worked up about that week, whether that detail had significance or not, whether their criticism had merit or not.

Death panels were the boldest of these lies, but they were also the embodiment of a news cycle-driven obsession with whatever the latest controversy happened to be.

We are entering a similar cycle with the Iran nuclear deal. But debunkings never stick as effectively as the lie itself; just ask the 28 percent (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/conspiracy-theory-poll-results-.html) of voters who still believed as of 2013 that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

These lies aren't just a way for Sen. Schumer to give himself political cover for voting against the deal; they frighten people, and distort how they see the world. "Death panels" taught Americans to fear health care; "24 days" teaches them to fear even very good diplomatic agreements. Even if the deal passes, these lies have consequences, and we should stop repeating them.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/19/9176415/iran-deal-inspections-24-days

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-19-15-56-34 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-15-56-34)


Iran gets to inspect Iran's nuclear sites. :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

VIENNA (AP) -- Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

[boutons_deux]

VIENNA (AP) -- Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

how does that stop, or bother, external inspectors?

[TheSanityAnnex]

how does that stop, or bother, external inspectors?

Just say this out loud to yourself.

Iran gets to inspect Iran's nuclear site

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Just say this out loud to yourself.

Iran gets to inspect Iran's nuclear site

:lol

how does that stop, or bother, external inspectors?

[TheSanityAnnex]

how does that stop, or bother, external inspectors?

You didn't say it out loud

[boutons_deux]

You didn't say it out loud

how does that stop, or bother, external inspectors?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

still not getting mutual exclusivity and repeating yourself like an idiot I see.

[TheSanityAnnex]

still not getting mutual exclusivity and repeating yourself like an idiot I see.
Still "ignoring" I see.

So
Fucking
Pathetic

[Spurtacular]

Deal seems like a euphemism. Do we get anything out of this?

[Winehole23]

possibly we keep Iran from getting the bomb, and Iran gets opened up to commercial and cultural ties with the rest of the world. could be a win-win.

some big ifs there to be sure.

[boutons_deux]

As Conservative Media Trash Iran Deal, Nuclear Experts And Former Military Endorse It As "Strong" And "Effective"

Nuclear And Military Experts Release Statements Endorsing The Iran Nuclear Deal

Arms Control Association: Iran Nuclear Deal Is "Strong, Long-Term, And Verifiable."

On August 17 the nonpartisan Arms Control Association released a statement from nuclear nonproliferation specialists backing the Iran nuclear deal and calling it "a net-plus for nonproliferation." The statement, which was endorsed by 75 experts, called the agreement "strong, long-term, and verifiable" and noted that it "advances the security interests" of the United States and its allies:

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is a strong, long-term, and verifiable agreement that will be a net-plus for international nuclear nonproliferation efforts.
It advances the security interests of the P5+1 nations (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), the European Union, their allies and partners in the Middle East, and the international community.
[...]
If all sides comply with and faithfully implement their multi-year obligations, the agreement will reduce the risk of a destabilizing nuclear competition in a troubled region - giving time and space to address other regional problems without fear of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons--and head off a catastrophic military conflict over Iran's nuclear program.

Though all of us could find ways to improve the text, we believe the JCPOA meets key nonproliferation and security objectives and see no realistic prospect for a better nuclear agreement.
We urge the leaders of the P5+1 states, the European Union, and Iran to take the steps necessary to ensure timely implementation and rigorous compliance with the JCPOA. [Arms Control Association, 8/17/15 (http://www.armscontrol.org/files/Nonpro_Specialist_statement_on_Iran_Deal_Aug_2015. pdf)]


Retired Military Leaders: Iran Nuclear Deal Is "The Most Effective Means Currently Available" To Ensure Iran Doesn't Get a Nuclear Weapon.

A group of retired U.S. military generals and admirals voiced their support for the nuclear deal with Iran in an August 11 open letter, writing that they "support the agreement as the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons":

The international deal blocks the potential pathways to a nuclear bomb, provides for intrusive verification, and strengthens American national security. America and our allies, in the Middle East and around the world, will be safer when this agreement is fully implemented. It is not based on trust; the deal requires verification and tough sanctions for failure to comply.

There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. Military action would be less effective than the deal, assuming it is fully implemented. If the Iranians cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and the inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military options remain on the table. And if the deal is rejected by America, the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark.
[...]
If at some point it becomes necessary to consider military action against Iran, gathering sufficient international support for such an effort would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance. We must exhaust diplomatic options before moving to military ones.

For these reasons, for the security of our Nation, we call upon Congress and the American people to support this agreement. [Washington Post, 8/11/15 (https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2270925/read-an-open-letter-from-retired-generals-and.pdf)]


http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/18/as-conservative-media-trash-iran-deal-nuclear-e/204995

[boutons_deux]

Noam Chomsky: Why America Is the Gravest Threat to World Peace

Opposition within the political class is so strong that public opinion has shifted quickly from significant support (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/poll-2-to-1-support-for-nuclear-deal-with-iran/2015/03/30/9a5a5ac8-d720-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html) for the deal to an even split (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/08/03/american-public-split-on-iran-nuclear-deal-wsjnbc-poll/).

Republicans are almost unanimously opposed to the agreement.

The current Republican primaries illustrate the proclaimed reasons.

Senator Ted Cruz, considered one of the intellectuals among the crowded field of presidential candidates, warns (http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/threatens-resulting-genocide) that Iran may still be able to produce nuclear weapons and could someday use one to set off an Electro Magnetic Pulse that “would take down the electrical grid of the entire eastern seaboard” of the United States, killing “tens of millions of Americans.”

The two most likely winners, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, are battling over whether to bomb Iran immediately after (http://www.salon.com/2015/07/20/scott_walkers_deranged_hawkishness_hes_ready_to_bo mb_iran_during_his_inauguration_speech/) being elected or after the first Cabinet meeting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scott-walker-iran-deal_55acfd69e4b0d2ded39f57c2).

The one candidate with some foreign policy experience, Lindsey Graham, describes (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/03/broken)the deal as “a death sentence for the state of Israel,” which will certainly come as a surprise (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/08/israeli-military-brass-support-iran-deal.html) to Israeli intelligence (http://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990359/ex-mossad-chief-supports-iran-nuclear-deal) and strategic analysts -- and which Graham knows to be utter nonsense, raising immediate questions about actual motives.

Keep in mind that the Republicans long ago abandoned the pretense of functioning as a normal congressional party.

They have, as respected conservative political commentator Norman Ornstein of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute observed (https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1057), become a “radical insurgency” that scarcely seeks to participate in normal congressional politics.

Since the days of President Ronald Reagan, the party leadership has plunged so far into the pockets of the very rich and the corporate sector that they can attract votes only by mobilizing parts of the population that have not previously been an organized political force.

Among them are extremist evangelical Christians, now probably a majority of Republican voters;

remnants of the former slave-holding states;

nativists who are terrified that “they” are taking our white Christian Anglo-Saxon country away from us;

and others who turn the Republican primaries into spectacles remote from the mainstream of modern society -- though not from the mainstream of the most powerful country in world history.

http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-why-america-gravest-threat-world-peace?akid=13399.187590.x6-Ub_&rd=1&src=newsletter1041204&t=4

[boutons_deux]

The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained

On Wednesday afternoon, the Associated Press published an exclusive report (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a9f4e40803924a8ab4c61cb65b2b2bb3/ap-exclusive-un-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site) on the Iran nuclear program so shocking that many political pundits declared (https://twitter.com/jonathanalter/status/634114647138811904) the nuclear deal dead in the water. But the article turned out to be a lot less damning that it looked — and the AP, which scrubbed many of the most damning details, is now itself part of this increasingly bizarre story.

To get a handle on all this, I spoke to Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at Middlebury College's Monterey Institute of International Studies. What follows is a primer on what happened, what the AP story said and how it changed, the nuclear issues involved — a place called Parchin and something known as PMD — and what they mean for the nuclear deal.

The bottom line here is that this is all over a mild and widely anticipated compromise on a single set of inspections to a single, long-dormant site. The AP, deliberately or not, has distorted that into something that sounds much worse, but actually isn't. The whole incident is a fascinating, if disturbing, example of how misleading reporting on technical issues can play into the politics of foreign policy.

The AP ran an alarming headline with a more modest story

This all started when the Associated Press published a story with an alarming headline: "AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site."

The headline made it sound like Iran would get to self-inspect, which would indeed be appalling. Readers were given the impression that President Obama had made a catastrophically foolish concession to the Iranians; that our much-touted inspections regime was a big joke. And indeed, a number of prominent political journalists tweeted out the story with exactly this alarmed interpretation.

"If true" turns out to be a major issue here, as upon closer examination the inflammatory headline, as it has been widely interpreted, appears to largely not be true.

In fact, the text of the article said something much more modest. It said that in a one-time set of inspections at one military facility known as Parchin, Iranians, rather than nuclear inspectors, would take "environmental samples" (such as soil samples). It said that nuclear inspectors would not be permitted to visit, and that Iran would not provide photos or videos of the site. But still, it was concerning.

"The story was the Iranians would take the samples under some kind of IAEA monitoring," Jeffrey Lewis, the arms control expert, told me. "The details of that monitoring were not provided, so it's hard to say how weird that is. Some IAEA officials say that it's not unusual to let a country physically take the samples if there's an IAEA inspector present."

The sourcing in the story, though, seemed to water it down a bit more. The report was not based not on an actual agreement, but rather on a copy of a draft agreement. The anonymous source who showed AP the document said there was a final version that is similar, but conspicuously refused to show AP the final version or go into specifics.

"The oldest Washington game is being played in Vienna," Lewis said. "And that is leaking what appears to be a prejudicial and one-sided account of a confidential document to a friendly reporter, and using that to advance a particular policy agenda."

Oddly, the AP then quietly deleted the most damning details from the story

Then things got weird: A couple of hours after first publishing, the AP added in a bunch of quotes from Republicans furiously condemning the revelations, but at the same time, the APremoved (https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/634096807413481477) most of the actual revelations. The information in the article wassubstantially altered (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.672049), with some of the most damning details scrubbed entirely. No explanation for this was given.

The new version of the story said nothing about environmental sampling. It said that Iran will provide photos and videos of the site, as well as mechanisms by which the IAEA can verify that these are authentic. But information about how the IAEA would verify this, which was in the original story, had also been removed.

"The original version of the story, before they edited out all of the interesting details, seemed to modestly advance a story that [AP reporter George Jahn] had published (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e1ccf648e18a4788ac94861a3bc1b966/officials-iran-may-take-own-samples-alleged-nuclear-site) a few weeks ago," Lewis said. "But now we're so far down into the weeds of safeguards, it's really hard to know. The version that was originally published seemed to indicate that the level of access was lower than I would have thought, lower than I would have expected the IAEA to accept. But then those paragraphs disappeared."

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin (http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin)

:lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol Iran with a big middle finger test missile

[boutons_deux]

:lol Iran with a big middle finger test missile

show what's your solution, shit thrower?

[TheSanityAnnex]

The agreement is fine if we have the political balls to enforce it and slam the door closed with sanctions the first time they test us. We won't.

Didn't take long to test us.

[boutons_deux]

Iran parliament approves nuclear deal with world powers


http://news.yahoo.com/iran-parliament-approves-nuclear-deal-world-powers-055008840.html

[TheSanityAnnex]

Iran parliament approves nuclear deal with world powers


http://news.yahoo.com/iran-parliament-approves-nuclear-deal-world-powers-055008840.html:lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

White House says Iran's missile test may have violated U.N. resolution

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/13/us-iran-military-missiles-whitehouse-idUSKCN0S72BN20151013 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/13/us-iran-military-missiles-whitehouse-idUSKCN0S72BN20151013)

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Iran Nuclear Deal Formally Adopted

The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is committed under the deal to release a report by year-end about the status of Iran’s alleged weaponization work. U.S. officials over the weekend said the IAEA report would have no bearing on moves by the international community to lift sanctions.

“That final assessment, which the IAEA is aiming to complete by December 15th, is not a prerequisite for implementation day,” a senior U.S. official said Saturday. “We are not in a position to evaluate the quality…of the data. That is between Iran and the IAEA.”
Secretary of State John Kerry (http://topics.wsj.com/person/K/John-Kerry/7196) and other U.S. officials had previously said sanctions wouldn’t be lifted unless Iran substantively cooperated with the U.N. probe.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-nuclear-deal-formally-adopted-1445195172

... and the Ba Ba Ba Ba Bomb Iran Repugs are throwing their usual shit, ALWAYS WRONG, from the peanut gallery.

[boutons_deux]

Paul Ryan Promises House Will Do Everything Possible to Sabotage Peace with Iran

today he released the following statement (http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/statement-implementation-iran-nuclear-agreement)on implementation of the Iran nuclear agreement:

A bipartisan majority in the House voted to reject this deal in the first place, and we will continue to do everything possible to prevent a nuclear Iran.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/16/paul-ryan-house-sabotage-peace-iran.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

MotherFUCKING Repugs, fucking everything up.

[boutons_deux]

Iran says to buy 114 Airbus planes, interested in Boeing and other deals

Iran plans to buy 114 aircraft from European plane maker Airbus (AIR.PA (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=AIR.PA)) as soon as March, and is looking for other deals, senior Iranian officials said on Sunday as their country emerges from sanctions and international isolation.

The republic could need as many as 500 new planes over the next three years,

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-aviation-idUSKCN0V2098

I suppose it would help Iran's national treasury if oil went back to $100.

[boutons_deux]

Israel Paid Senator Tom Cotton $1 Million To Block The Iran Nuclear Deal

Tom Cotton (R) Ark. met with the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, part of his one week trip to Israel. Tom Cotton said in a statement after the meeting,
“Today’s meeting only reaffirms my opposition to this deal. I will stand with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel, and work with my colleagues in Congress to stop this deal and to ensure that Israel has the means to defend itself against Iran and its terrorist surrogates.”

Consider the behavior being endorsed (http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/08/19/ted-cruz-s-mystery-mega-donor-thoughtless-idiot/) by the Republican party. An elected U.S. senator travels to another country as part of his purchased partnership with a foreign official.

Together, their goal is to undermine American foreign policy. The Republican senator is working for Israel, and against the United States of America. And there is a reason for that. The Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel gave Tom Cotton nearly $1 million (http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/israel-fingerprints-republican) in his race for the Senate just five months ago.

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/09/01/israel-paid-senator-tom-cotton-1-million-block-iran-nuclear-deal/

[boutons_deux]

New Scandal for US: Republicans Asked Tehran to Keep US Prisoners in Jail Until Presidential Elections

Iran’s top security official Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani disclosed on Thursday that the US Republicans had demanded Tehran to suspend the January prisoners’ swap deal with Washington until the presidential elections in the US.

“The US Republicans sent a message to Tehran, demanding us not to release the American spies until the presidential race starts in the US,” Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani said on Thursday.

“However, we did release the US prisoners in an independent decision,” he continued.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=982681775150621&id=344851995600272&substory_index=0

Repugs fucking around in Iran AGAIN for cheap political gain.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol Facebook.

Fwd:fwd:fwd:fwd:

[Winehole23]

"In the course of the talks for exchanging prisoners, the Republican rivals of the current U.S. administration who claim to be humanitarians and advocates of human rights sent a message telling us not to release these people (American prisoners) and continue this process (of talks) until the eve of U.S. presidential elections," said Ali Shamkhani, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, according to Tasnim News Agency (http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2016/02/11/998130/us-republicans-had-urged-iran-to-delay-prisoner-swap-shamkhani-says), a privately owned news agency whose stated aim is "defending the Islamic Revolution against negative media propaganda."
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-saeed-abedini-american-hostage-iran-claims-republicans-stall-release-until-2016-elections-157430/#DCQbgGEvRPqKEx3y.99

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-saeed-abedini-american-hostage-iran-claims-republicans-stall-release-until-2016-elections-157430/#DCQbgGEvRPqKEx3y.99

It worked for Reagan. I think its obvious that they would rather work with Sanders or even Clinton as opposed to the carpet bombers of the GOP. Clinton has more of a hard line but she is also a known quantity they have worked with before because of her work at state.

[boutons_deux]

Clinton has more of a hard line

Hillz and Billz have taken $Ms for speaking in or for Israel.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Iran Threatens to Walk Away From Nuke Deal After New Missile Test




This file photograph claims to show an Iranian launch of an Emad long-range ballistic surface-to-surface missile / AP




BY: Adam Kredo Follow @Kredo0
March 8, 2016 12:40 pm


Iran on Tuesday again threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year with global powers, hours after the country breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles.


Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.


Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”


“If our interests are not met under the nuclear deal, there will be no reason for us to continue,” Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, warned during remarks delivered to a group of Iranian officials in Tehran.


“If other parties decide, they could easily violate the deal,” Araqchi was quoted as saying by Iran’s state-controlled media. “However, they know this will come with costs.”


Araqchi appeared to allude to the United States possibly leveling new economic sanctions as a result of the missile test. The Obama administration moved forward with new sanctions earlier this year as a result of the country’s previous missile tests.


Iran’s latest missile test drew outrage from longtime regime critics on Capitol Hill.


“The administration’s response to Iran’s new salvo of threatening missile tests in violation of international law cannot once again be, it’s ‘not supposed to be doing that,’” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) said in a statement. “Now is the time for new crippling sanctions against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ministry of Defense, Aerospace Industries Organization, and other related entities driving the Iranian ballistic missile program.”


House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) warned that the nuclear agreement has done little to moderate Iran’s rogue behavior.


“Far from pushing Iran to a more moderate engagement with its neighbors, this nuclear deal is enabling Iran’s aggression and terrorist activities,” McCarthy said in a statement. “Sanctions relief is fueling Iran’s proxies from Yemen to Iraq to Syria to Lebanon. Meanwhile, Khamenei and the Iranian regime are acting with impunity because they know President Obama will not hold them accountable and risk the public destruction of his nuclear deal, the cornerstone of the president’s foreign policy legacy.”


McCarthy went on to demand that the Obama administration step forward with new sanctions as punishment for the missile test.


Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department had difficulty Monday explaining why the nuclear agreement limits public reporting by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, on potential deal violations by Iran.


Yukiya Amano, the IAEA’s chief, disclosed on Monday that his agency is no longer permitted to release details about Iran’s nuclear program and compliance with the deal. The limited public reporting is a byproduct of the nuclear agreement, according to Amano.


When asked about these comments again Tuesday, a State Department official told the Free Beacon that the IAEA’s reports would continue to provide a complete picture of Iran’s nuclear program, though it remains unclear if this information will be made publicly available.


“There isn’t less stringent monitoring or reporting on Iran’s nuclear program,” the official said. “The IAEA’s access to Iran’s nuclear program and its authorization to report on it has actually expanded. It’s a distortion to say that if there is less detail in the first and only post-Implementation Day IAEA report then that somehow implies less stringent monitoring or less insight into Iran’s nuclear program.”


While the IAEA “needs to report on different issues” under the final version of the nuclear agreement, the agency continues to provide “a tremendous amount of information about Iran’s current, much smaller nuclear program,” the source maintained.


The IAEA’s most recent February report—which was viewed by nuclear experts as incomplete and short on detail—“accurately portrays the status of Iran’s nuclear program,” including its efforts to uphold the nuclear deal, the official added.


“We expect this professional level of reporting to continue in the future,” the official said.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-threatens-walk-away-nuclear-deal-missile-test/

[spurraider21]

always wary when free beacon is the source but :lol if true

[Th'Pusher]

always wary when free beacon is the source but :lol if true

What would be :lol if that were true?

[boutons_deux]

One year later, Obama gets the last laugh on Iran deal

And despite all the far-right apoplexy, and the dire warnings about the agreement creating a security crisis, the editorial board of the New York Times noted (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/opinion/dont-let-irans-progress-on-the-nuclear-deal-go-to-waste.html) the other day what is plainly true: the nuclear deal “is working” and has “made the world safer.”

We now have a score sheet on Iran’s compliance with its nuclear commitments from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is responsible for monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities, and from American officials.

Since the deal was reached last July, Iran has, as required, removed and placed in I.A.E.A.-monitored storage two-thirds of the 19,000 centrifuges it used for uranium enrichment at a facility at Natanz.

It has ended all uranium enrichment, a process that can be used to produce nuclear bomb-grade fuel, and removed all nuclear material from its once-secret facility at Fordow.

It has reduced its stockpile of enriched uranium from 12,000 kilograms, with a purity as high as 5 percent, to 300 kilograms, with a purity of no more than 3.67 percent and hence less usable as weapons fuel.

The core of a heavy-water reactor at Arak has been filled with concrete.

The bottom line:

If Iranian officials decided to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon, it would take at least one year; without the deal, it would have taken just two or three months.

That has won over some critics of the agreement, like Moshe Ya’alon, who was until recently defense minister of Israel.

Last month, he effectively endorsed it and said Iran no longer presented “an existential threat to Israel.”


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/one-year-later-obama-gets-the-last-laugh-iran-deal?cid=sm_fb_maddow