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

Husker
? it is this particular fame work that is the issue. NOT that there shouldn't be an accord that includes IAEA oversight and severe sanctions when Iran violates.
My concern that this particular deal is heading toward an accord that is completely different from what BO said was what he would ask for( and I agreed with many of the things he said were important), these things do not appear in his outline.

Yes right now we do not know what the accord will be in June but now is the time for questions to be asked NOT after it is signed.

great article Husker and it explains the problems the IAEA has had. It is clear the IAEA Director is skeptical based on his past history with Iran.
Iran got pretty much everything they wanted( based on BO's outline) in this first round. Maybe this is a clever ploy and we will get tough in the real negotiations, maybe even require dismantling of the 2 site Iran built that are in violation of the NPT Iran signed.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Horn6721-
So what's your solution? It sounds like more of the same (sanctions) or war. ...............
Click to expand...

Bibi Net. was asked on the ABC Sunday morning news show the same kind of question by the news woman (M.Raddatz).

I could not find the quotes quickly on the web. But paraphrasing him, I heard him say that, if we keep the sanctions on at the level BO had started reducing them, maybe in a year Iran would change their tune and be more willing to accept a better "framework" deal. His answer to your question is to keep the screws on Iran as hard as we can. His implication is that the sanctions were working to some degree. My interpretation was that the oil prices falling, in conjuntion with how much Iran's economy depends on their sale of oil, was having a dramatic affect on their ability to function to help their terrorist proxies.

It is BO that frames the situation as "war vs deal". He no longer addresses the sanctions as a possibility and as doing some good. Again, it is BO leading the American people down the path that he wants (i.e., for his legacy).

Bibi's quotes:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said today that the agreement reached over Iran's controversial nuclear weapons program is a "bad deal" and asserted that Iran would use the relief from sanctions currently imposed to bolster its military operations and what Netanyahu called its "terror machine." ....... "It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure. It lifts the sanctions on them fairly quickly and enables them to get billions of dollars into their coffers. They're not going to use it for schools or hospitals or roads,"
 
Last edited:
I saw Bibi's tour on the news shows. His assumption is that the sanctions were going to stick longterm. Do you think Russia would continue to honor the sanctions? China? The only incentive Russia has to honor the sanctions is to keep Iranian oil off the market. Of course, China would love to get some. Notice that Netanyahu isn't only worried about their nuclear program (which this "framework" is supposed to address) but rather their funding of terrorism overall. That was the reason he cited for keeping the harsher sanctions in place. That's a non-sequitur to what this teal will eventually be.

With that said, I'm not sure Netanyahu would accept anything other than "capitulation" by Iran.

Like I said before, having IAEA investigators on the ground even in an impeded status is better than the absence of them if your goal is to prevent nuclear arming of Iran.
 
Last edited:
I don't know the details of the deal well enough to judge it, and I don't really care. As I've mentioned earlier, this whole think is a charade. Nevertheless, I have a question, and it will sound like I'm being sarcastic and partisan, but I'm dead serious.

Iran claims that its nuclear program is strictly for production of electricity and not atomic weapons. Why don't environmentalists have a problem with this? We haven't built a nuclear power plan in the United States in over 30 years, and if we did, environmentalists would throw a fit. If it's not OK for the US, why is it OK for Iran?

Again, serious question.
 
Husker,
Gee Really? Netanyahu wants to make sure Iran does not get Nuke?
Of course Bibi, as leader of his country, wants to make his people as safe as he can. Maybe you have not heard or read but the leaders of Iran have said Israel must be wiped off the face of the world.
Do you blame him?
What role does Israel have in the negotiations
 
Mr. Deez said:
Iran claims that its nuclear program is strictly for production of electricity and not atomic weapons. Why don't environmentalists have a problem with this? We haven't built a nuclear power plan in the United States in over 30 years, and if we did, environmentalists would throw a fit. If it's not OK for the US, why is it OK for Iran?
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to two facts -- believability and distance. With all the petroleum reserves that they have for internal consumption, nobody seriously believes that Iran will have widespread usage of nuclear energy. People sophisticated enough to be active in the environment are not acting because they do not feel threatened by what Iran is saying. For some reason the target is now more those smokestacks from coal fired plants and the pollution from processing those tar sands. The hot button now is global warming [[ excuse me, climate change ]] and it is more difficult to tie nuclear energy to that cause.

Secondly, what happens further away from the environmentalists does not seem to be quite as important as what is happening close by that they might be able to control. Forget about all those smokestacks in India, China, and Germany. They dwarf in contaminant quantity what we are doing in the USA. The climate control enthusiasts fight what they might be able to control or have an affect upon. So most of the news and effort is on the EPA regulations and a big pipeline that requires a decade to study. Why is that one pipeline so much more important than all the millions of pipeline that exist already and the long trains carrying petrochemicals? Their resources are focused on what they can change. That means it is within the borders of developed countries for which there is a possible control to exert.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
Iran claims that its nuclear program is strictly for production of electricity and not atomic weapons. Why don't environmentalists have a problem with this? We haven't built a nuclear power plan in the United States in over 30 years, and if we did, environmentalists would throw a fit. If it's not OK for the US, why is it OK for Iran?

Again, serious question.
Click to expand...

Good question. I suspect environmentalists would rather nuclear rather than fossil fuels until the latter is no longer an issue. With that said, they are always in bed with the Dems so you won't hear them speak out about Iran's nuclear power with any significant mouthpiece.
 
Horn6721 said:
Husker,
Gee Really? Netanyahu wants to make sure Iran does not get Nuke?
Of course Bibi, as leader of his country, wants to make his people as safe as he can. Maybe you have not heard or read but the leaders of Iran have said Israel must be wiped off the face of the world.
Do you blame him?
What role does Israel have in the negotiations
Click to expand...

What does "recognize the Nation State of the Jewish people" have to do with an Iran-Nuclear deal? Of course he cares about a nuclear Iran but he's also tying it to much more like their sponsorship of terrorism. His comment about where Iran would spend their money with the lifting of sanctions is a direct attack at that point which has nothing to do with this deal. Israel has a vested in a weakened Iranian state, more than simply limiting their nuclear capabilities. It's the former statement that Bibi is tacitly trying to tie to the nuclear deal.
 
Husker?
So you think Netanyahu shouldn't speak up on an important issue that would have consequences for his country? I would think you might agree with him that Iran's sponsorship of terror is an important issue not just to Israel so why not tie that to any deal made?
I respect a leader that tries to protect his country whenever and wherever he can.
You certainly can't argue with his facts and he has been right about Iran for years.
I am not sure why you think he should not speak out on this "deal". Who has more to lose?
 
So you think Netanyahu shouldn't speak up on an important issue that would have consequences for his country? I would think you might agree with him that Iran's sponsorship of terror is an important issue not just to Israel so why not tie that to any deal made?
Click to expand...

So you agree that any deal on Iranian nuclear capabilities should be coupled with behavior modifications towards Israel. You think that should be the US or the 5+1 negotiating position? You think that is possible? Again, the primary US interest should be restraining Iran from nuclear weapons. Though behavior modification is an issue you'll never get a nuclear deal done by boiling the ocean. Again, I don't fault Netanyahu for defending his countries position but his argument is full of non-sequitur(s) to this deal.
 
?????
Husker
Please don't twist what I post. I never said any deal with Iran should include Iran stopping insisting on Israel's demise.
I said I understand why Bibi is out there speaking on an agreement that affects his nation more than any other.
I also said I admire any leader that puts his nation first, if he won't who will?

Funny thing You think any agreement should be to retrain Iran from getting nukes. Just from what is now known are you comfortable that BO is making sure of that?
 
I think Bibi if fine speaking for Israel. I don't think he's the only voice we need to hear on US foreign policy.
 
Well this is actually more than just US policy isn't it? I am pretty sure there are 6 nations in on accord and the UNhas also spoken out on this
but that is a good point
who else's voiced would you like to hear?
and who has more at stake ?
 
Horn6721 said:
?????
Husker
Please don't twist what I post. I never said any deal with Iran should include Iran stopping insisting on Israel's demise.
I said I understand why Bibi is out there speaking on an agreement that affects his nation more than any other.
I also said I admire any leader that puts his nation first, if he won't who will?

Funny thing You think any agreement should be to retrain Iran from getting nukes. Just from what is now known are you comfortable that BO is making sure of that?
Click to expand...

You've repeatedly been asked and neglected to provide for your own solution thus when you jumped in to support Bibi I assumed you supported his more sanctions to garner greater bargaining power approach.

If your interested in a leader putting their own nation first then you'd agree that Israel's desires should in now way factor into our negotiations for this deal, right? The Obama admin should put US interests first, right?
 
Horn6721 said:
Well this is actually more than just US policy isn't it? I am pretty sure there are 6 nations in on accord and the UNhas also spoken out on this
but that is a good point
who else's voiced would you like to hear?
and who has more at stake ?
Click to expand...

Wait...you just said you admire a leader putting their nation first? Does that only apply to non-US non-Democrat Presidents?
 
So you think that if I express an opinion on the way the current "deal" looks like it is headed I should provide a solution?
Ok MY solution is for Obama to stick with what he said in 2012.
And yes I do admire a leader who puts his country first.
BO told NPR News that Iran will be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms - not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material.
“What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,” Obama said."

Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear chief told a closed-door session of their parliament Tuesday that Iran would begin using its most advanced centrifuges as soon as the final deal with the U.S. and five world powers takes effect. If this is true it makes a mockery of what BO is saying as it would greatly speed up the time to create a bomb .
It was reported in the US fact sheet from last week that Iran would be prohibited from using anything other than the much slower centrifuge .
Iran has also said it would not sign the agreement to let the IAEA inspect but would rather assure verbally.

It so far looks like Iran is in the driver seat and BO is backing off what he said in 2012.
Now could that all change when the final accord is signed? Yea sure
So should we wait until then to express opinions?
 
Horn6721 said:
So you think that if I express an opinion on the way the current "deal" looks like it is headed I should provide a solution?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's easy to be critical without any alternate solution. That's been the primary criticism (mostly valid) of the conservatives the last 6 years. Rather than saying "it'll never work" then come out with your own idea that will work.

Horn6721 said:
Ok MY solution is for Obama to stick with what he said in 2012.
Click to expand...

That's not a negotiation but rather a dictation. So you won't be happy in less the US gets EVERYTHING we targeted? Do you always get the car at the price you want to pay? The house at the price you want to sell? Paid by your employer at the salary you demand? I subscribe to the cliche that sign of a good negotiated deal is that both sides walk out disappointed.


Horn6721 said:
Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear chief told a closed-door session of their parliament Tuesday that Iran would begin using its most advanced centrifuges as soon as the final deal with the U.S. and five world powers takes effect. If this is true it makes a mockery of what BO is saying as it would greatly speed up the time to create a bomb .
It was reported in the US fact sheet from last week that Iran would be prohibited from using anything other than the much slower centrifuge .
Iran has also said it would not sign the agreement to let the IAEA inspect but would rather assure verbally.
Click to expand...

There is no final deal and BOTH sides are trying to sell it to the hardliners like yourself. Step back from the political theater/echo chamber and realize that there are neither Israel, their supporters in Congress nor the mullahs want this deal. Strange bedfellows indeed.
 
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm far from a hardliner when dealing with people who are reasonable. People who have proven themselves to be my enemy, or much more negative and untrustworthy at minimum, don't get concessions or shouldn't. Kerry isn't that way and the PotUS isn't either because he chose his buffoon of a SoSotUS.

Maybe there can be some good coming from this but from what I have read it is now going to somehow be the fault of the US if Iran somehow doesn't live up to the agreement we all know they won't? WTF? How is that progress?

Maybe this was a deal done to try and make the rationally acting Republicans who are smart not to trust Iran but too foolish to fall for not letting Obama and Kerry clearly be the fall guys when this deal inevitably fails. Something like: We have severe reservations but will let the President have his foreign policy deal which we have little confidence in because of the long history of deceit, etc, from Iran. But if he feels they can be trusted let it be his watch that is blamed for the nuclear destruction that they bring.
 
Joe Fan said:
Click to expand...


I saw that. Since Iran only wants to enrich uranium for producing electricity, shouldn't we be providing them with solar panel and wind power technology? Both are much environmentally friendly than nuclear power, which is why the US and EU are moving away from nuclear power. I still don't understand why we aren't and why no one is even asking the question.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I still don't understand why we aren't and why no one is even asking the question.
Click to expand...
Especially when you take into account that Iran has one of the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world. There is no narrative that will fit these facts other than Iran is trying to develop a nuclear arsenal. I think even the most dyed in the wool liberal journalist would feel sheepish to ask that question.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I saw that. Since Iran only wants to enrich uranium for producing electricity, shouldn't we be providing them with solar panel and wind power technology? .....
Click to expand...

You have a good point there
(but, with the clever way you part your hair, no one can see it)
 
The State Department has admitted that the deal is not “legally binding."
Obama never required Iranian leaders to sign it.

"The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” -- Julia Frifield, State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, November 19, 2015


 
Joe Fan said:
"The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” -- Julia Frifield, State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, November 19, 2015
Click to expand...

Did we at least get a handshake and check that Khamenei didn't have his fingers crossed?
 
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