Preliminary deal reached with Iran

[Que]

Tentative deal announced yesterday.
"But...but...is it as successful as The Camp David Accords?"


#MooooooooooooveTehGoalposts

Uh, no.

The meme came from the left in SUPPORT of the administration pointing out that those accords had naysayers, yet look at the peace that followed them, implying that because there is opposition to this one, historically one should expect great things.

You could ask Zumi. I am pretty sure he still supports the president when he posted that meme.

The left dancing underneath an imaginary goalpost is not the right moving the goalpost.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Do you also feel this "historic" agreement is analogous to the Camp David Accords?

Strictly speaking, no. Israel is not a party to the present negotiations, and the U.S. was only a mediator at Camp David.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The left dancing underneath an imaginary goalpost is not the right moving the goalpost.

Remember, there is only one goalpost here: Keeping Iran out of the nuclear club. Making Iran acknowledge Israel's right to exist, ending Iran's meddling in affairs to its west, none of that is on the agenda nor should be. Those are different problems and can be deal with later and differently.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

In the old day we stuck bombs up their asses and that was it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I blame old wars that killed America's free and brave leaving American girls to breed with near queers with traumatized testicles and PTSD from sexual collisions with girls.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Strictly speaking, no. Israel is not a party to the present negotiations, and the U.S. was only a mediator at Camp David.

Israel sure tried their damnedest to influence negotiations, with the Israeli Reichsfuhrer breaching all sorts of diplomatic protocol to harangue the congress of another country.

 

[Que]

Remember, there is only one goalpost here: Keeping Iran out of the nuclear club. Making Iran acknowledge Israel's right to exist, ending Iran's meddling in affairs to its west, none of that is on the agenda nor should be. Those are different problems and can be deal with later and differently.

If that is the goalpost (and really it doesn't even reach that, nor can anyone with the Iranians, bush did no better,) why then is the left pretending it is more than that, that is has a thing to do with peace in the region?

Having the region not escalate into a nuclear conflict is a worthy goal to be sure. But it is only that.

As far as "deal with later and differently? How? You remove all sanctions in return for some iffy assurances about the nukes you cant slap them back on for them continuing to do all the other things that they are doing right now.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

"Zumi's meme."

"Zumi's meme."

"Zumi's meme."

http://media0.giphy.com/media/Rhhr8D5mKSX7O/giphy.gif

Amazing how the value of progress gets under certain people's plastic skin.

 

[MrBates2]

Israel sure tried their damnedest to influence negotiations, with the Israeli Reichsfuhrer breaching all sorts of diplomatic protocol to harangue the congress of another country.

His apology tours to Muslim nations and his pro-Palestinian stance, especially his demand that Israel negotiate with Hamas terrorists, were foolish, but carried no lasting impact and could be seen as naive mistakes.

 

[phrodeau]

His apology tours to Muslim nations and his pro-Palestinian stance, especially his demand that Israel negotiate with Hamas terrorists, were foolish, but carried no lasting impact and could be seen as naive mistakes.

You made three consecutive lies. And on Easter Sunday, too.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You made three consecutive lies. And on Easter Sunday, too.

Truthiness has never been one of Bates' stronger points.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If that is the goalpost (and really it doesn't even reach that, nor can anyone with the Iranians, bush did no better,) why then is the left pretending it is more than that, that is has a thing to do with peace in the region?

Because it does. Settling the nuclear question is an indispensable first step and precondition to settling any other points of conflict with Iran.

As far as "deal with later and differently? How? You remove all sanctions in return for some iffy assurances about the nukes you cant slap them back on for them continuing to do all the other things that they are doing right now.

One provision of the framework is that U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place; only those sanctions relating to the nuclear program will be lifted.

Ali Gharib makes a persuasive case that the opponents of this deal don't want peace with Iran on any terms anyway, they want war.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Pub reaction ain't getting any smarter.

WALKER: Absolutely. If I ultimately choose to run, and if I’m honored to be elected by the people of this country, I will pull back on that on January 20, 2017, because the last thing — not just for the region but for this world — we need is a nuclear-armed Iran. It leaves not only problems for Israel, because they want to annihilate Israel, it leaves the problems in the sense that the Saudis, the Jordanians and others are gonna want to have access to their own nuclear weapons…

That’s about as vacant a response as you can offer, and it makes clear that Walker’s grasp of the issue doesn’t extend too far beyond “Iran is bad.” If an agreement is reached and President Walker does back out of it, then all he’ll have done is make it more likely that Iran obtains a nuclear weapon. He’s already acknowledged that whatever sanctions might be imposed will lack the backing of the international community, which he’ll have alienated with his unilateral action to demolish the diplomatic framework in place. So, as Jim Newell points out, that would leave Walker with two options: pray that nothing bad happens until the Iranian regime collapses, or drop a bunch of bombs.

Would dropping those bombs deprive Iran of a nuke? Well, John Bolton – who places more faith than anyone in the power of bombs to solve problems – says that an enthusiastic application of explosives to Iranian nuclear sites could set the program back a whopping three to five years. The framework under discussion would freeze things in place for at least 10 years. So we’d be putting Americans in harm’s way and pissing off all our friends, all for less than what we’d get than if we stick to our commitments.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Patrick L. Smith writes:

Between now and June 30, when a comprehensive agreement is to be signed, the conversation will be all about the proper terms, of course. The principle questions, among very many, will be these:

• Is the staggered sunset in the preliminary framework—various clauses expire from 10 to 25 years out—enough? Isn’t permanent disarmament the object?

• Is the inspections regime properly comprehensive—granular in its provisions? Will we know if Iran breaks its word?

• Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains in place. Is this not exactly what the Western powers set out to destroy?

There are answers to each of these. Very quickly:

• Yes, a quarter of a century is more than enough. As I will explain, it is a tribute to the patience and flexibility of Iran’s negotiators in Lausanne and its leaders in Tehran that they have accepted this schedule, never mind one more extensive. Even as is it extends far beyond their legal entitlement.

• The inspections regime is the most intrusive any nation has ever accepted. No need to take my word for it. Take that of Adm. Michael Mullins, the former Joint Chiefs chairman, who told Charlie Rose on the eve of the accord that it is more, even, than Washington asked of the Soviet Union during the later Cold War period.

• Any argument that the desired deal was supposed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program conclusively is 1) straight-out fallacious and 2) straighter-out stupid. There is no ground—legal, political, diplomatic, altogether rational—for this expectation.

“This deal… formalizes Iran’s status as an eventual nuclear-threshold state by allowing it to maintain a vast nuclear infrastructure,” Jeffrey Goldberg, the neoconservative commentator at the Atlantic, wrote Saturday. “This was not part of the international community’s original plan, and it is a worry.”

This is sheer mischief on Goldberg’s part. First, Iran would never accept the dismantling commentators of this stripe advocate. The point has been to alter its purposes. Second, only the U.S. and Israel, and no one else, has seriously entertained the thought that Iran can be stripped of all rights to a nuclear program as enjoyed by numerous other nations.

Finally, in the unimaginable event those negotiating with Iran forced this condition into the pact, then it would be time to worry: We would all have to reread Keynes on the Versailles Treaty, for a Middle East variant of the calamity that awaited Europe after the 1919 settlement would lie ahead. There is ressentiment enough among the Iranians, Mr. Goldberg, more than a century of it—and most of it perfectly justified. With 1930s Germany in mind, you want more now, not less?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Here's one Pub who can see through the bullshit -- Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell.

You have been very critical of the Republican Party. Why do you stay?

There are sane and sober people in the Republican Party. The public persona of the Republican Party has changed since the days of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower.

In the past you have said the Republican Party is full of racists. Do you stand by that and aren’t you afraid of a backlash?

I’m not afraid of a backlash. The GOP has scores of racists. Under Richard Nixon’s blessing, the GOP took advantage of disgruntled Democrats in the South. They are still there and their children are there. This is very much known in our party. This was a conscious strategy.

Your boss, Colin Powell, helped move forward the Iraq War with his presentation to the United Nations. But that turned out to be wrong information. What happened?

It wasn’t just Powell, he just said it convincingly. I helped him. It was everyone in the administration. [The information] was provided by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and CIA director George Tenet. The Russians, French and British spy agencies all provided the same evidence. It was a political and intelligence failure. The politicians took advantage of that. They took the intelligence and cherry-picked it, reinforcing the idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

So if Iraq never had WMD, what were the real reasons behind the war?

There are several reasons. President George W. Bush wanted a stellar victory. Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush are both oil men and wanted to ensure 300 billion barrels didn’t stay in Saddam’s hands. The Israel lobby and [former Deputy Secretary of Defense] Paul Wolfowitz wanted to get rid of Saddam. There is no singular motivation. There are many, including wanting to send a message to all concerned after 9/11 that said, very forcefully, “Don’t mess with America.”

I have read that another reason for the Iraq War was to send a message to other Middle Eastern countries that America has the military might to overthrow their countries and reshape the region.

The opposite occurred. [The Bush administration] demonstrated we were incompetent. They destroyed the balance of power and we are living with the result. Iraqis will tell you that Iraq was a better country under Saddam. There was more freedom for women and a better economy. It shows you how bad the situation is today.

Was the war partially about making money for defense contractors? The Financial Times states the U.S. government has paid contractors $138 billion. KBR, a subsidiary of Cheney’s former company Halliburton, received about $40 billion in government contracts.

We wasted a ton of money. It went into people’s pockets, like Halliburton and Lockheed Martin and Bechtel — and a lot of Iraqis like Ahmed Chalabi. I also understand Eisenhower’s warning about the Military Industrial Complex’s unchecked power. It was a prescient warning. Eisenhower said this unchecked power was in every office of the federal government, every statehouse, and impacted our economic power and even our spiritual well-being.

So the Iraq War was a costly disaster. Why are Republicans pushing for war with Iran?

There are three components of this push for war with Iran. The neoconservatives feel the only way to settle the problem is to destroy the current Middle Eastern governments, and they will turn into democracies in 30 years. The second reason is Israel. We have come to the point where we blindly follow Israel. Congress gave multiple standing ovations to Benjamin Netanyahu. If Middle Eastern countries are in chaos, they can’t unify against Israel. The third reason is there is a regional power struggle between Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council [a union of gulf states] and the United States. These people don’t want Iran in power. They want Iran isolated.

Some Republicans have called for an attack on Iran. Rep. Duncan Hunter said we should use a tactical nuclear weapon.

If we attacked Iran, they would go nuclear. If we attacked Iran it would take 500,000 troops, 10 years and trillions of dollars. Alexander the Great almost died in Iran. You don’t want to invade Iran. Iran has 75 million people. It’s the most stable country in the region.

 

[oggbashan]

The agreement is only an outline for further negotiations.

It sets the parameters for negotiations to start.

The real negotiations are the ones that matter, but getting this far is an achievement.

 

[MrBates2]

Obama Deal With Iran in Trouble
Michael Barone | Apr 10, 2015

Is the tide turning against President Obama's purported nuclear weapons deal with Iran? One sign that the answer is yes is the devastating opinion article in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal by former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz.

The architect of Richard Nixon's opening to China and the partner of Ronald Reagan in his negotiations with the Soviet Union are diplomatic in their criticisms. They pay passing tribute to their successor John Kerry's "persistence, patience and ingenuity." But they have many disturbing questions -- I count 16 question marks in the article -- about the deal.

Certainly it falls far short of what Obama himself cited as minimum requirements as recently as December 2013. The Fordow underground facility will not be eliminated; the heavy water Arak reactor won't be closed down; and Iran will be allowed thousands of centrifuges unnecessary for any peaceful nuclear power program.

American negotiators did obtain a few concessions. Enrichment will be confined to one facility, and within certain limits, the enriched stockpile will be reduced. But are even those parts of the deal enforceable?

There also remain questions of just what was agreed on. The Obama administration's "key parameters" statement says that Iran needs to meet benchmarks before sanctions are lifted. The Iranians put out a paper saying that sanctions will end immediately.

Obama took the rare step of summoning the usually sympathetic New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to a Saturday interview at the White House. Obama admitted that "there are a lot of details to be worked out, and you could see backtracking and slippage and real political difficulties, both in Iran and obviously here in the United States Congress."

Speaking more generally, he said, "If in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change." The nuclear negotiations, he said, are "this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity."

That suggests that Obama believes no future president would approve such a deal -- which is plausible, given the public's skepticism and the doubts of experts that it can be effectively enforced against a hostile regime with a record of cheating and concealment.

 

[MrBates2]

Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Blasts Terms of Nuclear Framework Deal

y ASA FITCH in Dubai, JAY SOLOMON in Washington and CAROL E. LEE in Panama City, Panama
April 9, 2015 7:51 p.m. ET
258 COMMENTS
Just a week after agreeing on a framework for a nuclear deal, Iran’s supreme leader and the Obama administration clashed over its core elements, rekindling doubts about whether Washington and Tehran can finalize an accord by a June 30 deadline.

The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in his first public comments on the diplomacy, said on Thursday the U.S. and its negotiating partners must lift all sanctions on his country immediately upon a final deal being signed. The Obama administration has been demanding a phased repeal of the penalties, conditional on Iran’s continuing compliance.

The 75-year-old cleric also said Iran’s government and security forces wouldn’t permit outside inspections of the country’s military sites, which are officially nonnuclear but where United Nations investigators suspect Tehran conducted tests related to atomic weapons development.

Mr. Khamenei said he didn’t support or oppose the parameters of the deal at this stage, arguing they were still a work in progress.

“Everything done so far neither guarantees an agreement in principle nor its contents, nor does it guarantee that the negotiations will continue to the end,” he said in a speech broadcast on state television and posted on his website.

“The whole problem comes now that the details should be discussed, because the other side is stubborn, difficult to deal with, breaks promises and is a backstabber,” he said.

 

[oggbashan]

...

“The whole problem comes now that the details should be discussed, because the other side is stubborn, difficult to deal with, breaks promises and is a backstabber,” he (Ayatollah Khamenei) said.

Pot and Kettle?

That statement should apply to Iran.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Pot and Kettle?

That statement should apply to Iran.

But more to the U.S., ever since the neocons were heard of.

 

[Beco]

Pot and Kettle?

That statement should apply to Iran.

They're just negotiating....pretty good strategy if you ask me and my guess is our White House will kowtow to this rhetoric. Its a bad deal which will be a talking point for candidates in 2016.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

how long before Iran sends a nuke to Israel or Washington DC?

clearly, America can afford to have DC nuked as its been taken over by terrorist as it is

 

[NeverEndingMe]

iran is evil
islam is evil

therefore obama loves iran cuz obama is evil

 

[Beco]

how long before Iran sends a nuke to Israel or Washington DC?

clearly, America can afford to have DC nuked as its been taken over by terrorist as it is

That never made sense to me. Israel is a "stone's thow" from Iran. The fallout would impact the entire region. Sending a nuke to Israel from Iran is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Now sending one to the US, different ball game