Reply With Quote
Pretty much how the Obama administration has framed it.
I don't watch TV outside of sports. How much Fox News have you watched in the past 3 days? I've talked to you about your sources before. Old habits die hard I guess.
Pretty much how the Obama administration has framed it.
There's not going to be an agreement. You don't have to wait until July to figure that one out. And it has nothing to do with the actual contents of a potential agreement.
This is all about image and politics, which is why is largely a waste of time.
ElNonostradamus. Frankly I was surprised they announced any accord at all a couple of days ago.
Then they shouldn't have signed off on the framework.
Why did they sign off on the framework?
Hardliners on All Sides Undermining Iran's Nuclear Talks
Reaching an interim nuclear deal with Iran would have been difficult enough even without hardliners in both Iran and the United States seeking to undermine them.
Many U.S. critics of the draft treaty deny this, however, naively assuming Iran is as weak as it was several decades ago, when foreigner powers could impose policies and even replace governments at will. Not only have such imperialist intrigues become more difficult overall, the reality is that Iran has, for better or worse, reemerged as a major regional power—as it has been for much of the past two and half millennia.
If President Obama and other Western leaders could dictate terms of a nuclear agreement, they certainly would. They realize they cannot, however. Republican opponents of the talks naively want a return to Bush administration policy of threats and ultimatums, during which Iran's nuclear program dramatically expanded. By contrast, thanks to the Obama administration’s insistence on negotiations, the expansion of Iran’s nuclear capabilities has been halted and even rolled back.
Anyone familiar with the process of negotiations is that, in order to get the other party to do what you want them to do, there must be incentives as well as punishment.
Imposing harsh sanctions without the hope of partial relief short of total capitulation is simply unrealistic, especially against a country with a strong a sense of nationalism and a history of humiliation by the West. There must be ways for both sides to declare victory. It now appears that, despite Republican efforts to sabotage such an agreement, this has been achieved.
Though some analysts have stressed the role of the so-called “Israel Lobby” in encouraging Congressional hostility, there is little new in GOP opposition to the administration’s efforts.
The Republican right has consistently opposed arms control treaties, including SALT II, the Nuclear Freeze, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Small Arms Treaty, and the ban on weapons outer space. There's no reason they should act differently in this case.
Meanwhile, Iranian negotiators have been faced with pressure from their own hardliners, who have skillfully manipulated Iranians’ strong sense of nationalism in pointing at Western double standards in trying to limit their nuclear program.
Up until the 1970s, the U.S. government encouraged American companies to sell nuclear reactors to the Iranian government, then under the dictatorial rule of the Shah, despite fears that his megalomania would lead him to divert the technology for military purposes.
Despite the subsequent rise of an anti-American regime in that country, the United States is still obligated under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to allow signatory states in good standing to have access to peaceful nuclear technology, including nuclear reprocessing, as long as there are sufficient safeguards to prevent weaponization.
The Obama administration justified strict sanctions on Iran on the grounds the country was violating a series of UN Security Council resolutions demanding special restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programs. The Iranians note, however, that not only has the United States blocked enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions targeting Israel, Pakistan, and India—which, unlike Iran, already have nuclear weapons—the United States provides all three countries with nuclear-capable jet fighters and has recently expanded its nuclear cooperation with India.
Iran has joined the vast majority of Middle Eastern countries in calling for the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone for the entire Middle East—similar to the NWFZs already established in Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Antarctica, and the South Pacific—in which all nations of the region would be required to give up their nuclear weapons and weapons programs and open up to strict international inspections and forbid foreign countries from bringing nuclear weapons into the region. The Obama administration has failed to support such a proposal, however, instead singling out Iran.
Iranians also point out that the United States, Russia, Great Britain, China, and France, which—along with Germany—are leading the negotiations seeking to restrict its nuclear program are themselves in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, article VI of which obligates them “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
It is important to remember that the only country to actually use nuclear weapons in combat is the United States, in the 1945 bombings of two Japanese cities, a decision most American political leaders still defend to this day.
Ultimately, the most successful means of curbing the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is to establish such a law-based region-wide program for disarmament, in which all countries – regardless of their relations with the United States – must be a part.
And, ultimately, the only way to make the world completely safe from the threat of nuclear weapons is for the establishment of a nuclear-free planet, for which the United States – as the largest nuclear power – must take the lead.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...-nuclear-talks
I will hold out some hope.
There are some real possible benefits for both sides.
And Israel.
much like cliches.
You opened that box when you commented on me following 'talking heads.' Your current dissembling speaks clearly enough.
So how much Fox News and AM radio have you consumed? It's a fair question considering the obvious parallel narratives as has been outlined.
Iran’s Leaders Fall Into Line Behind Nuclear Accord
TEHRAN — Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iranian hard-liners have been free to take to the streets and object to any form of compromise with the West, and particularly the United States.
But when a con uously small group of hard-liners did so on Tuesday morning in front of the Parliament building, holding up placards and shouting slogans against the nuclear framework agreed to last week in Lausanne, Switzerland, the Iranian Interior Ministry condemned the demonstration as illegal, because the protesters had failed to obtain a permit. There were also very few reporters.
It was perhaps the first time that conservatives — in this case mostly young people genuinely disappointed over the compromises Iran has made to reach a nuclear agreement — seemed disconnected from the power structure here.
Analysts say the message from the top is clear: Get with the program.
Senior officials, important clerics, lawmakers and Revolutionary Guards commanders, who in the past have reflexively opposed any accommodation with the West, now go out of their way to laud Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his team of negotiators, as well as the government of President Hassan Rouhani.
On Tuesday, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the highest-ranking commander of theRevolutionary Guards Corps, joined the chorus. “The Iranian nation and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps thank these dear negotiators for their honest attempts and political jihad, and for their resistance on the defined red lines,” the semiofficial Mehr news agency quoted him as saying.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/08...cord.html?_r=0
... to be followed by non-stop saber-rattling, LYING, PROPAGANDA from Repugs, the MIC, the Deep State, and BiBi.
Obama just caved. Press conference today set the stage for lifting all sanctions for just signing without a single inspection.
According to whom?
Obama just caved. Press conference today set the stage for lifting all sanctions for just signing without a single inspection.
Link, please.
It was a White House press conference. Do your own research.
You didn't watch the press conference.
Which blog told you what to say?
you chump. I watched the ing words come right out if his mouth. I'm on my phone and I'm not going to do your work for you.
It's easy enough for you to type all that.
I simply don't believe you.
There's nothing on it anywhere.
So I'm just going to say you made it up.
Eat your crow, .
Yep, you made it up.
Obama just caved. Press conference today set the stage for lifting all sanctions for just signing without a single inspection.
Typical CC hyperbole.
Yup sure is typical up in here
Lol your loyalty to your preconceptions is hilarious.
It is what it is.
Your hyperbole is your hyperbole.
You've done it before.
Damn Chump. Your google skills suck.
Here you go. New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/18/us...inee.html?_r=0
"It's enough that we can reimpose sanctions quickly"
now eat your crow, .
at chump getting owned and running like a little .
I got dinner.
lol "all sanctions"
CC hyperbole.
Is what it is. Next fold will be on inspections. He is desperate for a legacy agreement.
Damn chump, I never realized you were such an Obama apologist.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions