Iranian official states that GOP members asked to delay prisoner exchange.

[p291u]

The Iranians would hate to see the Republicans win the white house.

Pretty much. Republicans in 2017 means the Iran deal is gone. It is in their own best interest that the Democrats win the next election.

[Deleted]

Pretty much. Republicans in 2017 means the Iran deal is gone. It is in their own best interest that the Democrats win the next election.

To a large degree this is not really true, in practice the US does not have the power to unilaterally get the sanctions back.

[Stormspellz]

Kind of funny coming from someone who has started threads with links from Breitbart, Hotair and the like.

was thinking just that.

[p291u]

To a large degree this is not really true, in practice the US does not have the power to unilaterally get the sanctions back.

It's debatable. Regardless, Iran gets much more out cooperation with the US than merely lack of sanctions. It changes the dynamic in the ME, especially with regards to their mortal enemy the Saudis.

[Deleted]

There's been similar allegations about Reagan and the Iranian hostages back then as well.

They have form. The worst one was the Republicans asking South Vietnam to stall peace talks with the North until the election in 1968. That seems close to treason: persuading a foreign power to obstruct the US government. All the more despicable because President Nixon then sold out the South Vietnamese. What with courting racist Democrats and bugging the opposition, he was quite a piece of work.

[Pangean]

The Iranians would hate to see the Republicans win the white house. So I do not place any confidence in this story to be true. They will resort to about any trick they can use to avoid losing their position of power with the US.

Because as we all know Iran-Contra never happened so there's no history of republicans working with the Iranians. Ask Oliver North, he will tell you.

[Matchles]

Pretty much. Republicans in 2017 means the Iran deal is gone. It is in their own best interest that the Democrats win the next election.

Iran would LOVE that. The US unilaterally destroying its position in the world by showing it is incapable of adhering to any international deal.

[Pangean]

Pretty much. Republicans in 2017 means the Iran deal is gone. It is in their own best interest that the Democrats win the next election.

Your assumption is that this is only one power center in Iranian politics sharing the same views. I would suggest there is a group of Iranians that would love to see things fall apart. .

[Glnger]

soooo, when can we call these people trying to undermine America's forign policy from the inside what they truly are; terrorists.

If Edward Snowden is a "terrorist" then so are these republicans and democrats.

[p291u]

Iran would LOVE that. The US unilaterally destroying its position in the world by showing it is incapable of adhering to any international deal.

You act as if this is the first time people realize the US makes decisions on what is essentially a 4 year cycle... This is nothing new and unilateral destruction is pure hyperbole at best.

[Alakallanar]

There's been similar allegations about Reagan and the Iranian hostages back then as well. Probably nothing to it but yeah, its interesting.

Well, that the Reagan administration was cutting backdoor (and illegal) deals with Iran after Reagan was in office is proven fact, the claims that there were also deals made before he was in office has far, far less to support it, although there are US personnel who have made similar claims. (If true, it would be much like Nixon's pre-election deal with the North Vietnamese government - something that was definitively confirmed only recently.)

Add to that the fact that one of the main reasons why this allegation was considered dubious was because of the claim that Casey flew to Madrid for a secret meeting with Ayatollah Mehdi Karrubi. Which was considered to be proven false since Casey was said to be at Bohemian Grove or a London conference during the time the meeting should have taken place. (He definitely was at the London conference but likely only for the afternoon of the last day. He very possibly wasn't at Bohemian Grove since he is missing in the group photo that was made and an annotation of Casey's home phone number in Bohemian Grove that was considered prove of his presence was actually from the wrong weekend.)
Funnily enough, years later researchers found a document in the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library confirming that Casey had flown to Madrid for "unspecified reasons".

Also, it is a pretty rare for the iranian president, the israeli foreign affairs minister (as wall as an Aman agent), Arafat (as well as one of his aides) and a ex-Reagon White House political analyst to all agree on something.

---

BTT:

Unlike the 1980 case, the current accusation seems unlikely. I will withhold judgement but unless there is further evidence I have my doubts. The current GOP is far more antagonistic towards Iran, while Obamas presidency was a pretty good time for Iran. So Iran has no good reason to help the GOP against the Democrats and the GOP should be aware of this. Therefore it would be stupid for them to try something like this. For the moment it actually seems more likely that Iran tries to hurt the GOP a bit.

[Matchles]

You act as if this is the first time people realize the US makes decisions on what is essentially a 4 year cycle... This is nothing new and unilateral destruction is pure hyperbole at best.

Bullshit, the EU wants to preserve the deal. If the US goes it alone and destroys it, it will be incredibly damaging to our credibility. Who is going to want to deal with a petulant country that refuses to abide by its deals?

[p291u]

Your assumption is that this is only one power center in Iranian politics sharing the same views. I would suggest there is a group of Iranians that would love to see things fall apart. .

There are certainly Iranians that want to watch everything burn, but we're speaking of Iran from an outside perspective on their decisions and desires as a nation. They most certainly want this agreement to continue if for no other reason than the bump it gives them in the region as a Shiite nation surrounded by Sunnis.

- - - Updated - - -

Bullshit, the EU wants to preserve the deal. If the US goes it alone and destroys it, it will be incredibly damaging to our credibility. Who is going to want to deal with a petulant country that refuses to abide by its deals?

The EU is largely irrelevant here. They are a small part of the financial gain Iran gets out of this deal. Cooperation from the US is what they really want, this changes the dynamic in the ME because US support is important. By getting in bed with the Americans, Iran changes the dynamic with their mortal enemies the Saudis.


Also, I should note at this wouldn't be the first time the US would drop out of a deal. And it wouldn't be the last. Many countries do it, people still deal with them. Pure hyperbole.

[Pangean]

There are certainly Iranians that want to watch everything burn, but we're speaking of Iran from an outside perspective on their decisions and desires as a nation. They most certainly want this agreement to continue if for no other reason than the bump it gives them in the region as a Shiite nation surrounded by Sunnis.

That's kinda of silly to make that claim that there is one view because it's viewed from an outside perspective. Would you make the same claim of the US?

[p291u]

That's kinda of silly to make that claim that there is one view because it's viewed from an outside perspective. Would you make the same claim of the US?

I am not saying there is only one view, I am saying that when viewed from an outside perspective the nation operates as an amalgamation of these views in relation to their influence internally. Regardless, when it comes to the motivation behind this deal, and specifically seeking support from the US, almost all Iranians have something in common and are pretty united on this fact: they are a Shiite nation surrounded by Sunnis, Shiites and Sunnis have been killing each other for many centuries, and the Saudis are enemy #1.

In the interest of bringing this all back together: this gives a pretty good incentive for most Iranians to be united on a deal that will improve their standing in the region and over the Saudis, and this most certainly includes the Revolutionary Guard. (of which this "source" is a member) Many GOP candidates have openly stated that they will reverse this Iran deal and even if they cannot reimpose sanctions, it still means Iran's American support is in jeopardy. This creates a conflict of interest when it comes to telling the truth.

I am not making a claim about whether this particular story is true, all I am saying is that the source may not be reliable at all. Something for people to think of before they make posts that only serve to place them on the lower end of the IQ spectrum by assuming this is fact and calling people terrorists.

As for the US: yes and no, the US has a much larger political split than most countries... but on issues where almost everyone is united, most certainly.

[xuros]

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...3#post38780293 yup really needed another thread a couple hours apart from each other on this made up story.

[Matchles]

The EU is largely irrelevant here. They are a small part of the financial gain Iran gets out of this deal. Cooperation from the US is what they really want, this changes the dynamic in the ME because US support is important. By getting in bed with the Americans, Iran changes the dynamic with their mortal enemies the Saudis.


Also, I should note at this wouldn't be the first time the US would drop out of a deal. And it wouldn't be the last. Many countries do it, people still deal with them. Pure hyperbole.

The EU is not irrelevant, they are and will continue to be a much larger trade partner than the US.

Dropping out is one thing, reimposing sanctions is another. That would be a violation of international norms. A signatory to a deal (even if the deal is not ratified), is not bound to the deal but cannot do anything to undermine it. What the Republicans are proposing would undermine the deal and IS NOT something that many countries do.

[Merkava]

Then why did you make it an issue?





You rail about the quality of source for a page and a half and all of a sudden it is irrelevant.

Also I never mentioned that I believed him. In fact I have explicitly stated that I don't know if I believe him and I just thought it was a topic worthy of discussion. But you seem incapable of understanding that.

It's irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we should believe the claim made by the Revolutionary Guard. The situation, as it existed when your original post was created, consisted of an untrustworthy news outlet reporting on a statement made by an untrustworthy source. Anyone would agree with that. When that same untrustworthy source tells his story to an arguably more respectable media outlet, the trustworthiness of the original reporting agency becomes irrelevant. At that point all that matters is the trustworthiness of the source, in this case the Revolutionary Guard officer. It doesn't make his story any more believable no matter who reports on it, though. That's something that should be readily apparent to you.