Iranian weapon shipment being sent to Yemen siezed

[Independent voter]

Phewie! Now only the Saudis can blow shit up (while totally not breaking all laws of war! They are on UN human rights com, so they never hurt anyone innocent, ever!

"me love you long time!"

Since when did the Russians become champions of the Shiites?

[HumbleDuck]

but it sure was Obamas idea to have an agreement with and trust Iran not to make nuclear weapons when we cant even trust them not to send weapons to terrorist

So much assumption in your post.
1. You assume that the ship was coming from Iran. It was not confirmed to be coming from Iran, but there is a big chance that it was. And even if it was, there is no evidence that Iranian government actually supplied the weapons.
2- you assume Iran was sending weapons to alqaeda and ISIS. Last time I checked, Iran was actually fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Al-qaeda in the other hand is helping Saudi in Yemen, so ...
3. You are assuming Houthis are Terrorists, which as far as I know only Gulf nations catagorise them as such and not any of P5+1 countries.
4. You assume that the nuclear deal was reached based on trust, which again is not true. Both sides said it clearly, it is based on tight inspections by the UN.

If you want to go down that route, at least go with Hizbollah Lebenon. They are on US Terrorist list and Iran is funding them for decades. It never was a secret.

[Luxxor]

The reason there are extensive verification procedures for Iran's nuclear weapons program is precisely because we don't trust them. We hope that they won't cheat, but expect that they might, and that we will catch them.

We will catch them and then exactly nothing will happen. Doubt anyone in the world is scared of Obama doing anything but appeasement.

[Vyxn]

The reason there are extensive verification procedures for Iran's nuclear weapons program is precisely because we don't trust them. We hope that they won't cheat, but expect that they might, and that we will catch them.

extensive verification? now aren't you the misinformed one. how extensive can it be when there has to be a notice given weeks in advance before the inspection and US inspectors aren't allowed to do the inspecting

[ringpriest]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04...abian-sea.html

If you need anymore reason to say Obama was a bad president and Clinton a miserable SecState, this about covers it. Iran caught, apparently for a third time, shipping weapons to Yemen, or more probably into the hands AQAP.

<Looks for evidence.>
Zero information on vessel's registry (if any), course, destination, crews' nationality, the weapons point of origin, etc.
<Doesn't find any.>

But hey, Fox News calls it "an Iranian arms shipment" and they must be telling the truth, right? ("Fact-Checking Site Finds Fox News Only Tells the Truth 18 Percent of the Time" - it's an old link, Fox is now down to not lying 17% of the time.)

It's called Faux News for a reason - various navies have stopped multiple illegal weapons shipments in the Arabian Sea, but to the best of my awareness the "evidence" that they're being shipped to Yemen is... that the US claims they're being shipped to Yemen, with nothing beyond that, because reality doesn't support (or actively contradicts) their fiction.

But, I'm sure if they'd bought the weapons from the US and dropped them on hospitals in Yemen, that would have been just fine.
"Yemen conflict: US boosts arms supplies for Saudi-led coalition"
"Yemen war: Saudi Arabia accused of deploying illegal, US-supplied cluster bombs in conflict"
"Bloodshed in Yemen continues: 3rd Doctors Without Borders hospital bombed in Saudi-led, U.S.-backed war "

[Deleted]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04...abian-sea.html

If you need anymore reason to say Obama was a bad president and Clinton a miserable SecState, this about covers it. Iran caught, apparently for a third time, shipping weapons to Yemen, or more probably into the hands AQAP.

Please stop - AQAP - is SUNNI Iran is SHIA This is like confusing Catholics and protestants.

[Gheld]

Also I'm pretty sure the nuclear deal with Iran opens the door to a certain amount of international oversight of their nuclear program.

Between- 1. status quo. They continue nuclear program in the shadows.
2. Starting a war over it that could potentially lead to a lot of suffering.
And
3. Make a deal that everyone can agree on.

Option 3 was the lesser of all evils.

[Kalis]

Please stop - AQAP - is SUNNI Iran is SHIA This is like confusing Catholics and protestants.

Some people on these boards do not even realise Catholics are Christians, what hope they will know the difference between Muslim sects? I spoke about Greek Orthodox before and someone thought they were Jewish.

I am not going to say which country those people always come from, but yoU See A lot of ignorance about basic religious knowledge on these boards.

[Auxora]

If you need anymore reason to say Obama was a bad president and Clinton a miserable SecState, this about covers it. Iran caught, apparently for a third time, shipping weapons to Yemen, or more probably into the hands AQAP.

Iran is Shia, Al-Qaeda and ISIS are Sunni groups...so Iran wouldn't be sending weapons to AQAP. They would be sending arms to the opposition groups fighting for control with AQAP. Primarily those would be the Houthis (who are Shia), who coincidentially the Saudi's (cough cough Sunni) have been fighting and don't like. That said, those opposition groups aren't wonderful folks either...but wouldn't be AQAP or ISIS. It's kind of a proxy war of (Sunni) Saudis vs (Shia) Iranian supported groups going on in Yemen.

Also, not sure how that has anything to do with Obama or Clinton. It's not up to them if Iran wants to send crates around the world with weapons, that's very very tough to catch or stop. Iran has been sending arms to Hezbollah for 20+ years over both GOP and Demo presidencies. It's not like the US has the ability to look in every shipping crate to and from every independent country.

[Venaliter]

Also, not sure how that has anything to do with Obama or Clinton. It's not up to them if Iran wants to send crates around the world with weapons, that's very very tough to catch or stop. Iran has been sending arms to Hezbollah for 20+ years over both GOP and Demo presidencies. It's not like the US has the ability to look in every shipping crate to and from every independent country.

The US released hundreds of billion of dollars in Iranian-siezed assets as part of the Iran deal - money that is spent to finance terrorism and arms deals. And while I know, and appreciated, the difference between Sunni and Shi'a, the reality is what has ALWAYS happens - even to the US. A good portion of those arms WILL fall into the arms of AQAP.

[ringpriest]

The US released hundreds of billion of dollars in Iranian-siezed assets as part of the Iran deal - money that is spent to finance terrorism and arms deals. And while I know, and appreciated, the difference between Sunni and Shi'a, the reality is what has ALWAYS happens - even to the US. A good portion of those arms WILL fall into the arms of AQAP.

"Where are Iran's billions in frozen assets, and how soon will it get them back?"

Iran lost access to tens of billions of dollars worth of funds in foreign banks. Exactly how much money was locked up is hard to pin down. Some American experts believe it reached more than $100 billion — enough, Cohen noted, to limit Iran's ability to stabilize its currency and conduct foreign trade.

Nader Habibi, a professor of economics at Brandeis University who has tried to figure out the exact number, says the nuclear sanctions lifted last week will probably free up only about $30 billion worth of assets. Iran's central bank chief, Valiollah Seif, had a similar estimate this week — about $32 billion.

From the same source,

"By and large, they're probably going to use this money at home," said Richard Nephew, a former sanctions chief of the U.S. negotiating team who is now a fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University in New York.

"What the government wants to do if President [Hassan] Rouhani can really control the course of events is put this money in the central bank as sort of a security to entice foreign investors to come to Iran and invest," said Habibi, who also cautioned that Rouhani was "not the only one in control" of political decisions in Iran.
See the most-read stories this hour >>

"There is a lot of domestic demand for funds at the moment," Habibi said. "Many projects have been half-abandoned because of lack of funds," and so some money will go to maintenance and repairs, for the auto industry and also for the oil industry. Iran also needs to buy a large number of new airplanes and parts for its aging aerial fleet.

You discredit yourself more every time you post - so please, by all means, share more gross exaggerations and make some more assertions about unsupported conspiracy theories.

[Merkava]

I'm not sure what a nuclear deal has to do with conventional arms. The JCPOA didn't somehow lift our sanctions on their arms trades. It certainly didn't remove our label of them as a state that sponsors terrorism.

It should have been about that as well. The Joint Chiefs advised against lifting the embargo as part of the deal and Ben Rhodes said that wouldn't be part of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Also I'm pretty sure the nuclear deal with Iran opens the door to a certain amount of international oversight of their nuclear program.

Between- 1. status quo. They continue nuclear program in the shadows.
2. Starting a war over it that could potentially lead to a lot of suffering.
And
3. Make a deal that everyone can agree on.

Option 3 was the lesser of all evils.

Option 4, better deal.

[Deleted]

Option 4, better deal.

What better deal?
Your leverage was shit - because A, everyone knew, Obama did not want to engage in a third war in the ME, B, because the US does not want to engage in another war there either, C, Because the EU is rapidly drifting away from you and Israel on these issues, so:
there was no 'better' deal - The outcome was No deal, or worse deal, Or war.
And anybody who is deluded and thinks sanctions can be reinstated on a whim, You are mistaken, because unless there is an actual violation, the EU will not comply, they will just ignore the practical requirements and that will be that.

[Gamevizier]

So much assumption in your post.
1. You assume that the ship was coming from Iran. It was not confirmed to be coming from Iran, but there is a big chance that it was. And even if it was, there is no evidence that Iranian government actually supplied the weapons.
2- you assume Iran was sending weapons to alqaeda and ISIS. Last time I checked, Iran was actually fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Al-qaeda in the other hand is helping Saudi in Yemen, so ...
3. You are assuming Houthis are Terrorists, which as far as I know only Gulf nations catagorise them as such and not any of P5+1 countries.
4. You assume that the nuclear deal was reached based on trust, which again is not true. Both sides said it clearly, it is based on tight inspections by the UN.

If you want to go down that route, at least go with Hizbollah Lebenon. They are on US Terrorist list and Iran is funding them for decades. It never was a secret.

I suggest a modchange the topic of the thread to "alleged Iranian weapon shipment..."

[Jessicka]

The point is Iran is not our friend, not a friendly state, and the US should not be helping Iran, as Clinton and Obama have done.

Guess you should stop providing them with material support in fighting IS in Iraq and Syria too then.

[Kallisto]

What better deal?
Your leverage was shit - because A, everyone knew, Obama did not want to engage in a third war in the ME, B, because the US does not want to engage in another war there either, C, Because the EU is rapidly drifting away from you and Israel on these issues, so:
there was no 'better' deal - The outcome was No deal, or worse deal, Or war.
And anybody who is deluded and thinks sanctions can be reinstated on a whim, You are mistaken, because unless there is an actual violation, the EU will not comply, they will just ignore the practical requirements and that will be that.

For some they were clinging on to the idea that the lips of the Ayatollahs were going to find their way onto Uncle Sams behind and be stuck there.

[Merkava]

What better deal?
Your leverage was shit - because A, everyone knew, Obama did not want to engage in a third war in the ME, B, because the US does not want to engage in another war there either, C, Because the EU is rapidly drifting away from you and Israel on these issues, so:
there was no 'better' deal - The outcome was No deal, or worse deal, Or war.
And anybody who is deluded and thinks sanctions can be reinstated on a whim, You are mistaken, because unless there is an actual violation, the EU will not comply, they will just ignore the practical requirements and that will be that.

Your argument boils down to, "they did the best they could." You think there's no middle ground between shitty deals and war. And I know sanctions can't be reinstated, I've said that previously.

[Deleted]

Your argument boils down to, "they did the best they could."

And that's what i believe.

You think there's no middle ground between shitty deals and war.

I don't think there was a better deal to be had without using more leverage - and by more leverage i mean military action - Substantial military action.

And I know sanctions can't be reinstated, I've said that previously.

Making this discussion utterly pointless, because even if a better deal could have been had, its now not going to be something the US can do anything about.

[Xarkan]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04...abian-sea.html

If you need anymore reason to say Obama was a bad president and Clinton a miserable SecState, this about covers it. Iran caught, apparently for a third time, shipping weapons to Yemen, or more probably into the hands AQAP.

Are there not a load of hadi (i think) loyalists between the iranian friends and the aqap people? would it not be more likely that saudi weapons fell in aqap hands? or am i missing something?

[caervek]

So basically, the US navy stopped a sailing vessel, seized some weapons then let it on it's way, and FOX has made the jump to it being an Iranian smuggling ring or something?

Looking at the reports on more credible news sites they are saying that the US Navy believes the weapons "may have originated in Iran", that's quite different from the narrative FOX are painting >.>