Guess Iran leader didn't like BO's secrets

Think there is any price to trumpeting to the world what MUST be in a deal and then getting NONE of your red line goals?
Kinda reminds me of his Syrian red line.
If you can't walk the walk DO NOT TALK
How many of Iran's goals were shot down?
Khamenei said he would NEVER agree to anytime anywhere inspections. said he would not shut down Fordow, would not disclose military details, would not reduce number of centrifuge and would not ship any out of country.
 
zork said:
if you have 20+ days before the inspectors are let in what good are inspections?
Click to expand...

That doesn't jive with what I'm reading. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ls-iran-nuclear-deal-primer-article-1.2291590

In particular, what must Iran do to have the sanctions lifted?

Iran must abide by the terms it agreed to, including: Reducing its stockpile of low-enriched uranium (material that can be made into nuclear fuel for weapons) by 98% for 15 years; reducing the number of centrifuges it has that enrich uranium at its main nuclear processing center in Natanz by two-thirds to 5,060; and moving the remaining centrifuges to a monitored storage site. Iran has also agreed to convert an enrichment site called Fordo, located deep in a mountainside and immune from air attacks, into a research center. Compliance with these provisions would make Iran unable to produce enough nuclear material for a weapon for at least 10 years. The regime must also allow for a new inspections regime, under which the U.N. nuclear agency can ask to inspect a site it deems suspicious. Iran has the right to refuse, which puts the result in the hands of an independent arbitration panel that decides whether Iran must comply with the request within 24 hours. In addition, Iran has agreed to the conditional continuation of the current U.N. arms embargo for up to five more years as well as the continuation of current restrictions on the transfer of certain missile technology for up to eight more years. In exchange, the country stands to receive the more than $100 billion in overseas assets that have been frozen by other countries. It would also see the end of a European oil embargo and other financial restrictions on its banks.
Click to expand...
 
Horn6721 said:
How many of Iran's goals were shot down?
Khamenei said he would NEVER agree to anytime anywhere inspections. said he would not shut down Fordow, would not disclose military details, would not reduce number of centrifuge and would not ship any out of country.
Click to expand...

Some of those they gave up (ie. number of centrifuge and Fordow inspections/details). I've always felt the result of a good negotiation is that neither side is happy. Why don't you call out the other "red lines" that Obama called out as required for a deal. Cherry picking only the items we didn't get as part of the deal is a little self serving don't you think? Again, negotiation implies 2 sides. In this case we weren't the only party at the table despite attempts by the right to paint the picture that Kerry was negotiating in solitude.
 
Husker
Iran is allowed to keep all 19,000 centrifuges and they will keep Fordow open.

do you have details on goals Iran stated that they did not get?
Both sides unhappy? Iran is still celebrating
 
Horn6721 said:
Both sides unhappy? Iran is still celebrating
Click to expand...
Do you think Obama is deliberately trying to sabotage Israel and the US' interest in the region? Or do you think he honestly wanted to try for a negotiated deal but just failed miserably?
 
change
good question. only BO knows answer
but do remember other people including former diplomats and members of Congress were cautioning BO and even Iran that a "bad" deal would not be accepted by Congress.
I wonder how BO et al got it so completely wrong?
Why were BO and his minions out there huffing and puffing if there was the slightest chance of failure on so many key points?
 
At least the Iranians know the details. No inspections are allowed at military sites. If not intentional, let's just go with incredibly incompetent negotiators.

From LA Times:
Iran can deny nuclear inspectors access to its military sites under the terms of the agreement worked out this month in Vienna, the country's foreign minister said this week, raising new questions about Tehran's commitment to the terms of the agreement.
 
Yes, per the source I posted above:

reducing the number of centrifuges it has that enrich uranium at its main nuclear processing center in Natanz by two-thirds to 5,060; and moving the remaining centrifuges to a monitored storage site.
Click to expand...

And Fordo is being converted from a military site to a research site that puts it under the inspections mandate I'm guessing.
 
Some of y'all are acting as if we simply handed Iran $140B, removed the sanctions and walked away letting them pickup where they left off.

Let me remind you of Bibi's presentation in 2012 to the UN. In this speech Bibi told the world that Iran was 6 months away from a nuclear weapon. It was only with the negotiations that Iran agreed to stop. If you believe the leader of Israel, had Iran walked away without a deal and restarted it's nuclear weapon program they'd have nukes in months. Yet you're here bitching that now they'll have them in 10-15 years!! You're bitching that they don't have to give up everything, including all their support of what the USA has defined as terrorists. I see where Donald Trump's 20% support in the Republican Party is coming from. Clearly you have inflated views of America's power to dictate negotiation terms.

 
Too bad we are no longer the strongest nation that has always found a way to get things done. Seven years of a community organizer leading a country will do that though.
 
Yep, Twice since the Reagan administration we've elected Democrats who started no new wars. Every time we've elected a Republican president since 1988 we've backed up our "credible threat" to enemies in the Middle East with big time shooting wars. Those weak-kneed Democrats seek alternatives to spending the treasure of our nation and spilling the blood of our patriots to set things right in the Middle East.
 
theiioftx said:
Too bad we are no longer the strongest nation that has always found a way to get things done. Seven years of a community organizer leading a country will do that though.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how you'd define "getting things done". Does it involve a magic wand by chance or simply more troops lives and US treasury?
 
The devil ( and world perception of Iran getting what it wanted at Our expense) is in the details
1. Fordow is NOT closing which is one of the goals BO etc laid out . And of course we trust Iran to " convert" to a research facility. But Hey ! we can always inspect it if Iran agrees.
2. Iran is NOT giving up it's 19k centrifuges read Husker's link again, ( details) They are reducing to 5060 centrifuge at the Natanz facility but keeping the rest of the 19 k
3. BO wanted a large number of centrifuges sent OUT of the country. Iran is going to still have them but at a monitored facility, wink wink
4. Inspection ANYTIME ANYWHERE seemed like a big deal to BO didn't it? That ANYWHERE included military facilities. ANYTIME? Now IAEA must politely ask Iran and Iran has 24 days to respond. PLUS there will be no inspection allowed at their military facilities . WE can trust Iran right?
5.Who here thinks U.S. negotiators agreeing to end the embargo on the import and export of conventional arms and ballistic missiles was a good idea?
 
Last edited:
At least we did not give them 500 billion! The message from Obama is consistently, that is all we could get. We did not negotiate from a position of strength with usually ends up with a bad deal like this.

There are no inspections at military sites. We provided financial relief. We secured no hostages. The Iranian leaders are laughing at Obama and tweeting pictures of him with a gun to his head. Death to America!

You fools keep buying the lies and transparency. The rest of us will be glad when he continues his speaking tour elsewhere.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I'm curious how you'd define "getting things done". Does it involve a magic wand by chance or simply more troops lives and US treasury?
Click to expand...
Don't expect an answer .. When you pin certain people into a corner they disappear, or come back with some other random response and never address the question.
 
Horn6721 said:
4. Inspection ANYTIME ANYWHERE seemed like a big deal to BO didn't it? That ANYWHERE included military facilities. ANYTIME? Now IAEA must politely ask Iran and Iran has 24 days to respond. PLUS there will be no inspection allowed at their military facilities . WE can trust Iran right?
Click to expand...

24 days or hours? The New York daily news says the latter. That's a big difference.
 
theiioftx said:
Check under your bed or just ask your Mom.
Click to expand...
There's a monster under my bed. It's name is OBAMA!

funny-gif-baby-scared-laughing-reactions.gif
 
Husker
Most news source say 24 DAY.
Here is a WSJ article on it but there are many more. I have not seen a single source that said 24 hours.
www.wsj.com/articles/iran-inspections-in-24-days-not-even-close...


I hope you read the link. It explains how Iran could easily stretch it to 3 mons to avoid inspection

edit to add first 2 paragraph froms WSJ article
"The Obama administration assures Americans that the Iran deal grants access within 24 days to undeclared but suspected Iranian nuclear sites. But that’s hardly how a recalcitrant Iran is likely to interpret the deal. A close examination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action released by the Obama administration reveals that its terms permit Iran to hold inspectors at bay for months, likely three or more.

Paragraphs 74 to 78 govern the International Atomic Energy Agency’s access to suspect sites. First, the IAEA tells Iran “the basis” of its concerns about a particular location, requesting clarification. At this point Iran will know where the IAEA is headed. Iran then provides the IAEA with “explanations” to resolve IAEA concerns. This stage has no time limit."
 
Most Americans are against the deal. Here is a breakdown:

- Supporters trust Iran to do the right thing or just want to kick the can down the road.

- Those who are against it do not trust Iran and generally support stronger sanctions and military action if necessary.

I support the latter as posted earlier.
 
The Republicans Presidential hopeful are getting a lot of air time and pumping out a lot of hot air. No doubt, with Huckabee (been a governor and wants to be President) saying we're marching Israel to the Oven's Door and Popular Tea Party Republican Ted Cruz defending Huckabee's histronics, many may assume they know something. As Deez has said on another thread "We are not a deep people."
 
Croc
You are correct;
as we see in this thread " many may assume they know something" using the bad information to decry other opinions. Hot air based on wrong information is still hot air and it isn't limited to Republican Potus hopefuls
 
you guys ok with this type of transparency?


Tuesday at the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the Iran nuclear agreement, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted he does not have “access” to the secret deal between the IAEA and Iran on the enforcement of inspections and has only been briefed on the agreements when pressed by

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)

74%

.


Exchange as follows:

POE: “The secret deal — Secretary Rice said that she has seen this deal with the IAEA and she’s going to share it with Congress. So if she’s seen it, have you seen it?”

KERRY: I don’t believe that the — Susan Rice, the national security adviser, has seen it. I think –”

POE: “–She said she did, six days ago. She said six days ago she had seen it and reviewed and that Congress will get to see it in a classified section. My question is: Have you seen it?”

KERRY: “No I haven’t seen it. I’ve been briefed on it. And –”

POE: “–But you haven’t read it, you haven’t seen it.”

KERRY: “No because it’s in the possession of the IAEA.”

POE: “Are you going to read it?”

KERRY: “We don’t have access to the actual agreement.”

POE: “But Secretary Rice has access to it, but you don’t have access to it –”

KERRY: “I don’t know about that.”

POE: “That’s just what she said. I’m just going on what she said!”
Click to expand...
 
I'm pretty indifferent on this deal and think both sides are making it out to be much more consequential than it really is. Like I've said previously, we can't stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon short of a major military response (which everyone in the world knows we aren't willing to do), which means any deal we'd make would rest largely on trusting Iran (which everyone in the world knows we cannot), so this whole issue is a charade. Everybody is pretending.

Nevertheless, if military sites are truly exempt from inspection, that's a pretty massive hole in the deal even if you think this is a consequential issue. Can someone verify this?
 
No clue on the details of the deal, but generally it seems the US was more willing to make concessions than Iran. It kind of makes sense, since the onus was on Iran. I think the US wants (needs?) Iran to help with other issues in the Middle East, and I agree with the strategy in principle. The US is trying to forge some cooperation with Iran, Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. All 4 of those countries share some interests with the US and are working against our interests in other areas. But the main point is that there are regional players that can be directed to help with issues like ISIS, and that each of those 4 countries are at odds with each other. That means no 1 country will become too powerful. Sunnis can be played against Shia. More secular governments vs more religiously fanatic ones. It is a delicate balancing act, but I hope it is one that the next President will continue.
 
kerry cant even give a straight answer about what he has or hasn't seen with regard to agreements that may or may not exist on a deal which he may or may not have capitulated in total. this is not talking to the American people, this is talking to Congress which he is duty bound to report such deals to in total. why not sue the executive branch for clarity. this is BS.

it is one thing to hide the deal from the people, no ******* way it should be hidden from Congress or at least from the committee that handles such agreements. the sniveling twits at the state dept need to follow the rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top