Looks like the Iran deal is a done deal

[vetinari]

It was a done deal as soon as the Senate passed that thing where they basically switched it from need senate approval to needing senate disapproval.

All that has been happening since is posturing among the republicans and some democrats. So the republican senators can point to the their voting record and say, "look I opposed Obama", and if the whole thing falls apart, say, "hey I voted against the deal".

All in all, a disgraceful episode.

[Kalis]

Can you show me where I said that?

Post #85 "Diplomacy that doesn't make Iran richer and stronger. Diplomacy that curtails some of their behavior. Diplomacy that would have resulted in getting our people released. Diplomacy that actually contains a viable mechanism for returning sanctions."

That would be a deal in which all the onus is on Iran to co-operate without any benefit.


[QUOTE]I don't have to show that it's true. Based on the expectations set by Obama's own advisers in the weeks leading up to the announcement of the deal and the reaction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, along with the history the current US administration has in foreign policy, it's my opinion that other's could have done better.

Yes of course I was talking about the US delegation. What's wrong with that? The framework of the deal was based on bilateral negotiations, between Iran and the United States. If you didn't know that, and it appears you didn't, you may want to spend some more time researching this.

I read the bilateral framework was developed by Iran on the one hand and the UN Security Council (which includes the US) and EU on the other, I've not read anywhere that it only involved the US and Iran.

I may not want to admit who could have done a better job? First of all, it's not an admission, it's an assertion. And I asserted it on this very page.



The entirety of my opposition to this deal is based on objectivity. You're the one who attempted to paint me as a partisan in order to dismiss them. Again, here are my objections, and they are non partisan. A deal that makes Iran richer and stronger would be fine, if that deal kept ballistic missile technology out of their hands for the duration of the deal, like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs advised. A deal that makes Iran richer and stronger would be fine, if it had a mechanism for effectively snapping back every single one of the international sanctions that existed previously. A deal that makes Iran richer and stronger would be fine if it prohibited them from any indigenous enrichment program like multiple previous UNSC resolutions stipulated. A deal that makes Iran richer and stronger would be fine, if it included anytime, anywhere access to inspectors like Obama's national security adviser promised it would.

You've directly contradicted your previous argument...

Diplomacy that doesn't make Iran richer and stronger.

I don't know if you forgot that you wrote post #85, but you've backtracked on it now and said you'd be okay with a deal that would make Iran richer and stronger with some caveats.

[Deleted]

Or you know could just say "Sorry fuckers you're not getting the shit you want because you are a bunch of anti-semetic genocidal fuckwads"<Probably what should have been done.

No one has ever fooled the UN before......

You want to plunge yet another middle eastern country into chaos? Haven't you "helped" enough already?

[Anyael]

Honestly, objectivly, the biggest obstacles to worldwide peace are the Republicans, they started the mess the middle east is in, they are in bed with the weapons manufacterors, they are the one's who always obstruct good rational diplomacy.

They don't care about peace, they care about them and their political campaign financers.

But don't take my word for it, history will prove my point.

Iraq was a terrible mistake. But the mistake has been made, the balance in the Middle-East is upset. If we sit back now and don't fix our (America et al) own mess, it will only get worse.

Do you honestly think the world is better off with the Iranian leadership in power? Do you think that Iraq is anything but a failed state as it stands? Is Syria even a recognizable area? To not act because of what happened last time is woefully irresponsible, given you find America responsible. To do nothing is to get caught in the blame without being allowed to act to fix it. I won't get into it but I blame France & the UK more.

Don't try to turn the corporatism that is American government into a one-party thing. I don't think either side is more guilty than the other. That's why a bunch of the current candidates are stirring up so much trouble : they aren't playing by the rules and it is scaring both the media and the establishment of the parties.

I don't know what you think will prove your point in history, because I think we disagree entirely on what "world peace" entails. To me, "world peace" is no large body of people clamoring for war in any region of the earth, regardless how much fighting is actually going on. And to me, when one nation (Iran) has been clamoring for genocide for 35 years, they are an obstruction to world peace. And as the past tells us: si vis pacem, para bellum.

[Merkava]

Post #85 "Diplomacy that doesn't make Iran richer and stronger. Diplomacy that curtails some of their behavior. Diplomacy that would have resulted in getting our people released. Diplomacy that actually contains a viable mechanism for returning sanctions."

That would be a deal in which all the onus is on Iran to co-operate without any benefit.

I read the bilateral framework was developed by Iran on the one hand and the UN Security Council (which includes the US) and EU on the other, I've not read anywhere that it only involved the US and Iran.

You've directly contradicted your previous argument...

I don't know if you forgot that you wrote post #85, but you've backtracked on it now and said you'd be okay with a deal that would make Iran richer and stronger with some caveats.

This shouldn't be too hard.

First of all do you need a definition for the word and? Unfamiliar with the concept of it being used to connect two clauses or conditions?

Second, I know what I said. I've said it all along. An Iran made richer and stronger by being allowed to possess weapons technology previously prohibited is a bad thing. It's made worse by all the other conditions that I listed. Iran is made stronger simply by being richer. This idea that I would only approve of a deal that didn't contain sanctions relief is ridiculous, and something that I never said.

Third, then what you read was wrong. A framework developed by more than two countries isn't bilateral. That would be trilateral, or even multilateral. Some of which occured here. But the main framework of the agreement was struck as a result of bilateral negotiations between the US and Iran. Something you would have known even if you were just casually following the news over the last year Again, maybe you should read a little more.

Gary Samore, former White House coordinator for arms control and WMD, participating in a panel, said: "Any deal will have to be struck between Washington and Tehran and then ratified by the P5+1 and ultimately the UN Security Council".

Fourth, as I've said earlier, I did not contradict my previous argument. I clarified it for Yavelle. I'll do it for you now; An Iran made richer and as a result, made stronger isn't necessarily a bad thing. If however, it's made stronger by being allowed to possess ballistic missile technology, than that's a bad thing.

Again, I don't know why I need to point these things out to you.

Edit - My position on this has been consistent all along, going back to the middle of July, on this forum.

I'll say it again. There's nothing in this deal stopping an Iran made richer from sanctions relief that we can't rescind, from contracts and deals that we can't abolish, and more powerful and menacing from the conventional weapons that we've allowed them to purchase, from telling us to go fuck ourselves in 8 years and commencing work on a bomb. You may say that there's nothing outside of a deal stopping some of those things, but that doesn't make this deal a good one.

[Gamevizier]

people seem to forget WHY there were sanctions in the first place. let me remind you, it was for Iran's NUCLEAR PROGRAM.

THIS DEAL IS ONLY ABOUT THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM. What Iran does with the unfrozen money is it's own business, it's THEIR money in the first place. there are many other countries with a human rights record as bad as or even worse than Iran.

The argument that there is not a good mechanism in this agreement that governs how Iran spends the unfrozen money is horseshit.

and are you folks this dumb to actually think Iran managed to haggle it's way with not just US, but the european governments into signing a deal that lets them inspect themselves???? really???? do you think world governments are actually RETARDS?!

and if, Iran, by any chance, managed to outsmart all the world leaders into signing a "laughable" deal then imo Iran actually has proven itself smart enough to have a nuclear weapon. so goddamnit grow a brain and think for yourself for a moment before coming here and repeating the shit that fox news spins.

[lockedout]

Iran has discovered an unexpectedly high reserve of uranium and will soon begin extracting the radioactive element at a new mine, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said on Saturday.

The comments cast doubt on previous assessments from some Western analysts who said the country had a low supply and sooner or later would need to import uranium, the raw material needed for its nuclear program.

Any indication Iran could become more self-sufficient will be closely watched by world powers, which reached a landmark deal with Tehran in July over its program. They had feared the nuclear activities were aimed at acquiring the capability to produce atomic weapons - something denied by Tehran.

"I cannot announce (the level of) Iran's uranium mine reserves. The important thing is that before aerial prospecting for uranium ores we were not too optimistic, but the new discoveries have made us confident about our reserves," Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0RC0A020150912

[Wells]

That's not really a huge deal.

[Jimmy Woods]

and if, Iran, by any chance, managed to outsmart all the world leaders into signing a "laughable" deal then imo Iran actually has proven itself smart enough to have a nuclear weapon. so goddamnit grow a brain and think for yourself for a moment before coming here and repeating the shit that fox news spins.

It's not so much Fox News, they just hate anything Obama does. AIPAC + other groups have been spending 10's of millions of dollars running ads against the deal. Thought I read they were going to spend over $100 million. Then you have $0 spent on pro-deal ads combined with a general massive uniformed public and you get a 70% (or w/e it's at) disapproval of the deal. Ignorance + Fear combo work at it's finest in play here.

[Kraenen]

That's not really a huge deal.

Seems like some big numbers: Keep its uranium enrichment levels at no more than 3.67%, down from near 20% - Maintain a uranium stockpile (at the above prescribed level) under 300 kilograms, well below its current 10,000-kilogram stockpile. President Barack Obama says this works out to Iran reducing its nuclear stockpile by 98%