The Astonishing Rationality of the Iran Nuclear Deal

delaying them is not going to work but that doesn't mean war is the next best option. smoothing their path by taking away sanctions with nothing but words in return certainly isn't a a preferred option from my limited access to political/military/government intelligence. especially when they, different parts of the Iranian government/Mullahs, are contradicting the apparently forthcoming words of agreement?

It is coming off to me that Kerry wants a deal no matter what by his actions even though he is still throwing in a few tough quotes for the record.
 
Horn6721- If I only read the sites you apparently read I could see how that would be your perception of Rouhani. I said he's a moderate compared to his predecessors. I fully acknowledge that all Presidential candidates are vetted by Khomeini. 36 applied and only 8 were allowed to run this last election cycle. That doesn't diminish the statement that the trend in Iran is towards moderates, much like in the USA. ;)
 
Husker
How funny. Because in your mind and a few media Rouhani doesn't " appear" to be as radical as his predecessors that makes him ' moderate". I guess his actions and words mean nothing. What has he done that has you so convinced Rouhani is moderate?
well :rolleyes1: okay then.
And again Iranians dancing and cheering in the streets after being told Iran scored a great victory against the West means they are " moderate". And when they chant " Death to America" even as negotiation are going on wow that must show they love us or something?
 
Here is a column by an Israeli professor that seems to be in line with a lot that Seattle Husker has pointed out. I think it wothy of a read. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carlo...ans-_b_7041484.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
It is quite certain, though, that attacking Iran militarily would push it toward building a nuclear bomb ASAP, and that, at this point in time, no Iranian leadership will either accept a complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program or endorse Israel's existence. So Netanyahu asking for this is not politics but empty rhetoric, as former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said when slamming the prime minister recently. As Sen. Feinstein observed, Netanyahu has been good at criticizing the United States without putting forward a single workable proposal, along the way harming U.S.-Israel ties.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It seems the Democrats are the ones saying war, war, war, with Iran if Kerry doesn't capitulate fast enough? Who else, maybe Cheney, is talking war with Iran?
 
This is so absurd Feinstein should be embarrassed, "As Sen. Feinstein observed, Netanyahu has been good at criticizing the United States without putting forward a single workable proposal, along the way harming U.S.-Israel ties."
Really? Is Netanyahu privy to all the details and workings of the negotiations?

But Netanyahu has offered a proposal. in fact it is the same one BO put forth in 2012, ""The deal we'll accept is they end their nuclear program. It's very straightforward"
 
Some more info on those S-300 missiles:

Many U.S. defense officials from the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps agree that the Russian missile system effectively renders entire regions no-go zones for conventional jets like the F-16 or Navy F/A-18 Hornet. Currently, only high-end stealth aircraft like the $2.2 billion B-2 Spirit—of which the Air Force has exactly 20—and the high-performance F-22 Raptor can safely operate inside an area protected by the S-300 and its many variants. The Pentagon’s $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will eventually be able to operate inside those zones, too. But according to multiple sources within the Pentagon and defense industry, no warplane now operating can remain inside those well-defended areas for long.

A senior U.S. Marine Corps aviator said that if Russia delivers the S-300 missile to Iran, it would fundamentally change U.S. war plans. “A complete game changer for all fourth-gen aircraft [like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18]. That thing is a beast and you don’t want to get near it,” he said.

The sale of the S-300 also would neutralize any possibility that Israel could take unilateral action against Iran, one senior Air Force commander noted. The S-300 would effectively prevent the Israeli air force from attacking Iran until the F-35 is delivered to that nation.

“I find it almost hilarious that the Russians are saying, ‘It’s an entirely defensive system and cannot attack anyone, including Israel,’” the senior officer said. “But it also essentially makes Iran attack-proof by Israel and almost any country without fifth-gen [stealth fighter] capabilities. In other words, Iran, with the S-300, can continue to do what they want once those systems are in place without fear of attack from anyone save the U.S. Brilliant chess move…”

But even when Israel receives the F-35, the relatively short-range stealth fighter can only carry a pair of 2,000-pound bombs—which are not likely to be adequate for the most heavily fortified Iranian targets. Some of the Iranian facilities are likely to require the use of the massive 30,000-pound GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) that can only be carried by the American B-2 stealth bomber.

An attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was going to be a daunting task, even under the best of circumstances, another Air Force official with extensive experience flying stealth aircraft said. The targets are deeply buried—which makes them hard to crack open with bombs—and the facilities are scattered all over the place. The Air Force’s tiny fleet of B-2 stealth bombers would have to do most of the work because only those aircraft have the range and weapons needed to hit those targets properly. The introduction of any version of the S-300 would make that extremely difficult job much more challenging, the official said.

But the exact number and exact location of where the S-300s are placed makes a big difference, the official said. That’s further compounded by the fact that the S-300 system is mobile—and can move at a moment’s notice.

If there is a large number of those S-300 air defense systems in place, even pilots flying stealth jets like the B-2 and F-22 Raptor would find the mission to be extremely difficult. “If they’re all over every square inch of the country, then it doesn’t matter what you put out there—it’s going to be a challenge,” the Air Force official said.
Click to expand...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/13/putin-s-missile-could-make-u-s-attacks-on-iran-nearly-impossible.html
 
Netanyahu's "criticism" was given before the talks started and even after it was announced a framework was reached was pretty general in nature, the same positions BO had taken in 08 and again in 12.
Can you cite ONE criticism Netanyahu spoke that suggests Bibi had "inside" information?
Maybe when he said Israel would not be annihilate by a nation who seeks its destruction?
 
033115MichaelRamirez_Creators.jpg
 
Now we're offering them a $50 billion "bonus" to sign. That's in addition to the billions of frozen assets we'll release.

Man this is humiliating.
 
Is this true about the deal signed today:

We have a deal. It's a deal worse than even we imagined possible. It's a deal that gives the Iranian regime $140b in return for ... effectively nothing: no dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, no anytime/anywhere inspections, no curbs on Iran's ballistic missile program, no maintenance of the arms embargo, no halt to Iran's sponsorship of terror.
Click to expand...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/very-good-deal-iran_990662.html

That doesn't seem to be too prudent if true? Is the $140B Iranian funds being released or money from the USA or other? Are we still Satan after this deal?
 
As the largest state sponsor of terrorism chants "death to America," some of you actually think this is a good deal? Good news, Assad and Putin think this is a a great deal! Only good news is that this will haunt HRC as she seems to have come out in support of it. Big question is whether congress will be able to override his veto. This will place democrats in a bad spot.

Of all the bad governing Obama has done, not sure this one can be topped. Jimmy Carter, please hand over the trophy.
 
So with no deal, the uranium enrichment doesn't slow down, there are no international inspections and except our benefit of imposing economic hardship on Iran, it's not really a win for us or Israel. Iran is a soverign nation. I know at one time we imposed a dictator on them, but the people overthrew him and chose their own government, much less to our liking. Those people and the politicians they support will rebel if the deal is much worse for Iran.
 
Make the sanctions tougher and strike with missiles if necessary. Sooner or later, you will be faced with the harsh reality of military action with Iran. Burying your head in the sand is not the answer. The Neville Chamberlain approach will not work.
 
what is the story with the 140 billion they receive? that is a lot of money to buy **** to bomb Americans(car bombs, roadside bombs, etc etc)
 
theiioftx said:
Make the sanctions tougher and strike with missiles if necessary.
Click to expand...
Yeah, let's blow up more **** in the Middle East against an aspiring nuclear power. Surely that will end well.
Sooner or later, you will be faced with the harsh reality of military action with Iran.
Click to expand...
Much sooner I'm guessing with the proposed strategy.
 
The naivety of the left is amazing. Syria's Assad hails this as a great victory for Iran. Iranians including government officials routinely chant "Death to America" and they clearly want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and kill all Jewish people. Yet, Obama gives them a path to nuclear weapons and accelerates it with billions of dollars.

If Kerry was negotiating for an American business, it would be bankrupt in just a few days. America got nothing for this deal - not even release of four hostages who are being tortured by the Iranians. At best, Obama is an idiot. In truth, he really is looking like someone who is pro Muslim. I have never believed this until this idiotic deal.

Flame away sheep. Your president is a fool.
 
What I'd like to know is WTF happened?
2 months ago BO and his minions were all tough and on these 3 points adamant that if not part of the deal then there would be no deal.
These are only 3 BO kowtowed :
We will have ANYWHERE ANYTIME INSPECTIONS or NO deal.
Iran must shut down Fordow
Iran must fully disclose past nuclear weapons research and development (known as the PMD issue) or NO deal.

He got none of those. The anytime /anywhere inspection requirement turned into a joke. Fordow remains open. And the US won't even be part of the inspections.

Iran gets the 150-180 BILLION with no restrictions on how it spends it. Think the ' Moderate" Rouhani will spend it on the Iranian people OR on weapons etc to the many terrorists Iran is supplying?
BO is sure good at drawing meaningless red lines.
 
MrD
I read the article but perhaps I am too stupid to grasp how Congress could improve the deal without killing it.

Help me understand what the writer offered as improvements that BO would accept. Didn't the writer suggest BO would be against any changes ?
 
Last edited:
Horn6721 said:
MrD
I read the article but perhaps I am too stupid to grasp how Congress could improve the deal without killing it.

Help me understand what the writer offered as improvements that BO would accept. Didn't the writer suggest BO would be against any changes ?
Click to expand...

You're not stupid. When he calls for "improving the deal," that's not a wise choice of words, because this wouldn't actually change the terms of the deal with Iran but would change our own policies and the policies of our "allies." (I put that in quotes, because these countries should be standing by the sanctions. Their unwillingness to do so weakened our leverage, but that's a separate discussion.) Basically, he's assuming that Congress will vote to abandon the deal, which Obama will veto. What he's calling on is for Democrats to use their willingness to consider overriding the veto to leverage the White House to make other commitments that are outside the scope of the deal but could be done unilaterally by the United States and/or multilaterally with the P5+1 countries.

"What would such a commitment include? Here is the laundry list: It would start with a guarantee of an aggressive ramp-up of American resources—money, sophisticated weapons and equipment—to help Israel and possibly our Sunni allies, to make sure that the conventional consequences of the deal do not overwhelm the pluses of a considerable delay in Iran’s nuclear capacity. In addition, there should be a guarantee of tough additional sanctions against Iran for bad behavior outside of the nuclear realm as a result of having more resources to give Hezbollah and other malevolent actors; an outline of sanctions and penalties that the United States will seek to get its P5+1 partners to agree will be imposed if Iran cheats at all, including along the margins; and a commitment to use every avenue, including force, if Iran violates the basics of the deal and moves toward a nuclear weapon."
 
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