Who doesn't like BO's deal with Iran?

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
Well BO for one. If that is what he said he would accept what changed? Certainly Iran has ramped up its number of centrifuges and production of enriched uranium PLUS not allowed IAEA inspectors and finished an underground site . So Iran has not shown itself to be trusted, just the opposite.
why wouldn't BO stick to the principles he outlined in 12?
from Wapo link
"?
THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...612aeac_story.html?postshare=4151428013724869

now Iran is accusing the US of lying about the supposedly agreed on " facts" Kerry released.
Is even a bad deal better than no deal?
 
It's an "historic agreement". I know. My President told me so.

The bad news is that it's just a "framework". I'm sure the actual agreement will be even weaker.

The good news is that since Congress didn't have a damn thing to do with it, it probably will last as long as BO's Presidency and then get lost in the dust bin of history.
 
Well, what we are "giving up" is International Sanctions against Iran. Good luck putting those back in place once lifted, unless Iran fails to comply. Israel is well equipped with modern nuclear weapons. Iran is granted by the plan rights to peacefully develop a peaceful nuclear power program. Even it they violate it and get weapons, they would be crazy to use them against a powers like the US and Israel with vast nuclear capabilities. I learned those points from wacko leftist Pat Buchanan being interviewed by fellow leftie Sean Hannity. Here is a right win media take on the exchange. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Iran-Pat-Buchanan-Hannity-nuclear/2015/04/01/id/635934/
 
they would be crazy to use them against a powers like the US and Israel with vast nuclear capabilities.
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that Iran is crazy! They believe that only utter chaos and war will bring the return of the 12th Iman, al-Mahdi, who will establish Islam as the ruling religion world wide.
 
Croc
Oh we gave up more than just sanctions if you read what BO said in2012; that Iran give up its nuclear program. Does Iran getting to keep all 19,000 centrifuges sound like giving up the nuke program?
Even France thinks BO caved.
Thank goodness this is just a "framework" and not the final deal.

Croc?
Do you really believe this, " Even it they violate it and get weapons, they would be crazy to use them against a powers like the US and Israel with vast nuclear capabilities"

First of all it is not IF they violate the agreement but when
and as Clean pointed out Iran's leaders have zero regard for human life whether it is Iranians or Israelis. There will be NO cold war with iran.
 
Clean said:
The problem with your argument is that Iran is crazy! They believe that only utter chaos and war will bring the return of the 12th Iman, al-Mahdi, who will establish Islam as the ruling religion world wide.
Click to expand...

I think that's hyperbole just like the overblown stated risk of Sadam Hussein. Ultimately you have leaders in power that like their cushy power positions. Are there religious crazies? Yes but are the masses ready to follow them to oblivion? I don't think so.
 
?
You don't need masses of people to send nukes. The leaders in power will make sure they are on vacay when they send the nukes.
And why would you think Khameni or Rouani would tell the masses what they are doing?
 
You don't get it. It doesn't matter if the "historic agreement" has no real serious meaning or punishment for a very untrustworthy regime. It doesn't matter if it gravely endangers Israel, the Middle East and the World - it is an agreement checkmark to fulfill a presidential legacy.
 
So how many of you guys are ready for a major war? Iran is a sovereign nation continuing a course of action even as we and the international community apply just about all the pressure short of war that can be applied. This agreement allows in inspectors and extracts a pledge. No agreement means Iran can keep on doing what it's doing... unless we invade.
 
Crockett said:
So how many of you guys are ready for a major war? Iran is a sovereign nation continuing a course of action even as we and the international community apply just about all the pressure short of war that can be applied. This agreement allows in inspectors and extracts a pledge. No agreement means Iran can keep on doing what it's doing... unless we invade.
Click to expand...

That's the point. Nobody wants war, even those critical of the deal. Even with the sanctions Iran has been ditching and dodging to further their nuclear program to the point that if that stuxnet hadn't hampered them they'd very close. So more of the same gets us what?
 
Croc
Do you know the history of the IAEA and Iran?
Look no further than their new President's boasts of how he thwarted the inspections or IAEA reporting being denied by Iran.
Did we learn nothing from history?
 
Horn6721 said:
Croc
Do you know the history of the IAEA and Iran?
Look no further than their new President's boasts of how he thwarted the inspections or IAEA reporting being denied by Iran.
Did we learn nothing from history?
Click to expand...

What's your solution?

I found this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...57b24a-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

Amano said that the six global powers negotiating with Iran should insist that the country implement the additional protocol that would allow IAEA inspectors to go anywhere at any time to examine sites suspected of harboring secret nuclear weapons development.
Click to expand...

Did that happen? Of course, even if it is in the deal time will tell whether Iran follows through. I assume this is why the relief of the sanctions is dependent on Iran compliance.

I don't know whether this is a good or bad deal but sanctions in and of themselves aren't a permanent solution to stopping a country intent on developing nuclear weapons, especially when multiple countries (like Russia) are ready to help them get there.
 
Well Husker
If most of the world is dead set against Iran getting nuke weapons then the world ( not just the USA) needs to stand up but the US does need to be the leader and be firm.Considering BO's weakness in foreign policy I am not sure that will happen.
So is there someone else who would step up? France? UK?
 
For those of us willing to dedicate a few hours of study, you might want to bookmark this link to a Brookings paper outlining proposed US policy toward Iran. The paper runs 156 pages.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/6/iran-strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf

I've just begun reading the Brookings paper and am on page 9. It's quite interesting.

Here's an article found in an anti US foreign policy website which gives a critical view of US Iranian policy based largely on what is written in the Brookings paper. I want to complete the Brookings paper in order to evaluate the claims in this article.
http://journal-neo.org/2015/04/04/us-israel-wage-war-on-iran-in-syria/

Rand Corporation has articles pertaining to Iran policy here.
http://www.rand.org/topics/iran.html
 
Those are serious analyses, Musburger, not polemic designed for domestic political advantage. Why would any one read those?
 
Zork
Since Iran prevented the IAEA from inspecting known sites and since a new underground site was discovered in 2013 I'd say no, sanctionshave not stopped Iran from full steam ahead on developing a nuke weapon.
 
Iran has always been granted the right to peaceful nuclear development under the NPT, an agreement that Israel has always refused to be a part of.
 
Uh makes you wonder all the fuss is about then doesn't it?
I bet you think Iran only has peaceful intentions, yea that must be why there have been agreements forced on Iran, agreements reneged on by Iran resulting in sanctions and now another round of negotiations.
I bet you think Iran will live up to the agreement this time
:rolleyes1:
 
Ive been following Middle Eastern politics a long time, and thats all it is: politics. Its about power and control of resources and geography. When you play for the winning side, you can overlook all kinds of atrocities and evil, I know. :rolleyes1:
 
The question in the thread title is : Who doesn't like BO's deal with Iran?

How can you call this a deal? There is no deal. There is just a list of parameters by which the final signed document cannot go outside of the boundary conditions that are defined by these parameters. The list released by BO and Kerry defines what will be discussed for inclusion in the final agreement. All this list means is that there are restrictions now for what is in the final agreement in order to keep the talks going. Iran and US are not even playing from the same document released to their news agencies for internal consumption by their citizens.

BO/Kerry are declaring that there is an immediate snapback to the sanctions if Iran breaks the condition of the possible future agreement. Iran is now saying that they did not agree to a snapback but a phasing in time back to the sanctions. So --- what gives? There is no reference that the negotiators of the framework signed an agreed-upon list. How does one know whether which one is telling the truth about how the sanctions will revert back? This is not an interpretation of the language, i.e., a problem in language translation of some sort of a signed document. BO wants us to believe that the sanctions that exist now will automatically come back. How is that even possible? Immediately after the sanctions drop, there will be trade agreements made between Iran and other corporations. Will BO then call these contracts null and void if Iran does not follow through on the signed DEAL later?

To me, the only thing that exists now is equivalent to a letter of intent to make an agreement based upon the agreed guidelines.
 
Last edited:
BB
I probably should have used the word "framework" or "preliminary agreement" instead of deal but it wouldn't fit.BO is acting like he made an historic deal.


Mus
Brookings put that report out in 09. Now that there have been nearly 7 years of BO's policies it might be time for an update. Surely the people at the Nick Saban center for ME policy know that some people Iran Russia China etc can read too and react if they think the Bookings findings are credible
Your second link using many of the findings of the Brookings study describes/ accuses the US of helping to set up Israel to attack Iran so we could have plausible deniability. There would be many nations that would covertly support that.
It seems to suggest BO is deliberately crafting a bad deal that will drive Israel to attack Iran before it can actually get a nuke ready to launch?
 
So 6721, are we overlooking a way to make a deal acceptable to Israel, Iran and Republicans?
 
Croc
That presupposes Iran would compromise. I am not sure they have shown signs of compromising. There do not seem to be any signs of compromise in the latest outline.
 
So allowing international observers, slowing down enrichment of uranium and vastly reducing stockpiles of nuclear materials is "nothing." I think "capitulation" is the word you are searching for, not "compromise."
 
Horn6721 said:
BB
I probably should have used the word "framework" or "preliminary agreement" instead of deal but it wouldn't fit.BO is acting like he made an historic deal.
Click to expand...
6721,
I was not trying to be sarcastic about the thread title itself. My target was BO and the people who are speaking for him and proclaiming that there is a deal. It is typical BO and how he artfully "stretches" the truth in order to mislead Americans about what is really going on. In reality it is a list restricting what further will be discussed. It just took a couple of days before there was disagreement on what they supposedly agreed upon. What a majority of people will remember are the first headlines and not the debate about the issues that will endlessly continue on. Citizens in both countries are proclaiming some sort of victory when nothing has been really signed.

The acronym BS has turned into BO. It is because there is real body odor that exists with his BS.
 
Last edited:
Croc
Are you saying Iran " agreeing" to allow IAEA to monitor is compromise? Why do you think Iran will allow international observers this time?
So they agree to " compromise" and get sanctions lifted. They get the benefit of the lifted sanctions and then delay and /or refuse IAEA( You know they have done this before, right?)
Everything in the framework, just like in accords of the past, is based on IAEA able to inspect. Check Iran's record of cooperation from 2003-2006. and they just stopped pretending to comply.

Who was in power when Iran signed the NPT that you seem to think is so important to them?

Do you wonder what compromise there is that allows Iran to keep Fordow which was built in violation of their NPT?
As late as July 2014 past cheating was confirmed. Why would you think Iran will stop ?

Iran has said it would NOT sign any new IAEA protocol, saying it would implement I a voluntary and temporary basis.

Oh yes this is all just a framework and we should wait until an agreement is d so we know what is in it.
 
Horn6721-

So what's your solution? It sounds like more of the same (sanctions) or war.

BTW- Here is what the IAEA had to say about Iran in March. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-director-general-urges-iran-clarify-nuclear-concerns

Iran and the P5+1 group of countries reached an interim agreement in November 2013 known as the Joint Plan of Action. The IAEA is tasked with verifying that Iran meets its commitments under the accord, under which Iran agreed to curb some of its nuclear activities in exchange for the easing of some economic sanctions. Iran and the six countries are now negotiating a comprehensive agreement.

IAEA inspectors are continuously present on the ground in Iran and have been able to verify that Iran is meeting its commitments under the Joint Plan of Action, Mr Amano said.

Also in November 2013, Iran and the IAEA agreed on a Framework for Cooperation aimed at resolving all outstanding issues in a step-by-step process.

Mr Amano said the cooperation agreement worked for the first several months to help improve the Agency's understanding of Iran's nuclear programme by giving it access to uranium mines and other locations in Iran. But progress has been "very limited" in clarifying issues with possible military dimensions.
Click to expand...

So, it's a mixed bag although one could argue that simply having inspectors on the ground, forcing Iran to stealthily continue their weaponization may be more effective than having no inspectors on the ground and hoping sanctions limit their progress.
 
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