Kerry says Congress veto of Iran deal would be 'ultimate screwing of ayatollah'

are you seriously saying that Netanyahu never said Iran would have a bomb in a few months to a year before the deal?

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...y-netanyahu-crying-wolf-iranian-nuclear-bomb/

"In 2012 Netanyahu said in closed talks reported by Israeli media that Iran is just “a few months away” from attaining nuclear capabilities. Later that same year, he gave a widely-mocked address at the United Nations in which he alleged that Iran would have the ability to construct a weapon within roughly one year, while using a printout of a cartoon bomb to illustrate his point."

even if you go with the later statement, he says "roughly one year"

now with the deal he says with deal it will be 10-15 years

http://www.rt.com/news/249057-netanyahu-fear-iran-deal/

"He argued that this would let Tehran to shrug off nuclear monitoring and develop its nuclear weapons after a period of 10-15 years. "

another link pre-deal

"Israelis see Iran nuclear breakout possible in 2-3 months"

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...lear-capability-israeli-officials-refute.html

.

 

To be honest with you I never seen the point in these negotiations. Iran has not been negotiating in good faith and it has stonewalled and deceived the international community and the IAEA for years. The "Death to America!' crowd is not a regime that can be trusted, and appeasement will no more change its attitudes and behavior than appeasement changed the Nazis in 1938. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei made that crystal clear after the negotiations ended.

Another reason I have never seen the point in these negotiations is because I don't buy Obama's lie that the only alternative to this deal is war. That is absolute nonsense, and it overlooks the fact that for all of its shortcomings, the status quo is preferable to this deal. There is no "anytime, anywhere" inspection regime that will verify Tehran's compliance and the regime has made it clear that its military sites will be off-limits to inspectors. In light of that, it would be better just to leave the current sanctions and bans in place and keep the billions of dollars that the mullahs and their goon squads are going to spend on oppressing its civilians and exporting conflict and terror abroad out of their hands. 77% of Americans agree with me, too.

As for the sanctions, they may not last forever but they'll last longer than lifting them right away for no good reason. Given the choice of doing business with the USA and Iran, most nations and companies are going to make the smart choice.

I have never advocated war with Iran, but I do advocate isolating the regime and starving it of the resources it needs to make life worse for the Iranian people and the world a more dangerous place. Anyone who has been paying attention to this issue for the past several years is aware that a deal of this sort is going to initiate a nuclear arms race in one of the most unstable and terrorist-infested regions on earth, where an army of jihadists has managed to carve out a "caliphate" that is as large, if not larger, than the size of Great Britain.

There will be other negative consequences to this deal, most notably the consequences of betraying the trust and interests of our allies in the Middle East. The only thing this deal has going for it is that it can dismissed by the next president, but by then much of the damage will already be done.

 

maybe Bush should of attack Iran rather then Iraq

he knew all this then... why choose Iraq over Iran?

if we make the deal and break it.. that sends a message to the world that we do not honor our word

if were not gonna honor the deal, lets kill the deal now

.

 

Yes - I don't know what comes next if this fails. I don't know why all these nations would come together again in the near term. And, the farther out this goes the worse off we are.

We have an open process, which seems really weird at times. You could be right. Or, it might have been possible for Kerry to point to the GOP to indicate that he had gone as far as he could go.

 

there is no sure things here for sure, the safest bet for a politician is to oppose what ever finally happens, that way if all goes good, everyone forgets they were against it, but if all goes bad they can say stand up and shout... see I told you so

sadly most republicans and some democrats are for playing it safe for their on political futures... as there is too much unknown here

the deal may not work, but it gives us more time.... and it may just actually work long term after the 10-15 years too, who knows

odds are that at some point we will have to go to war.. those are just the odds (deal or no deal) just with the deal it will be later on down the road, we can't really afford another 10+ year war right now, nor do I think the American people or our allies are ready for another war right now

.

 

I really get tired of the "Chamberlain"/appeasement thing. There is zero comparison. This is not WWII. Iran is not Germany. Territorial expansionism is not an issue here. Iran is a bad actor, but we need to address them in the modern world, not the world of 75 years ago.


Sanctions do us ZERO good by themselves, as they do not prevent Iran from doing anything they want to do. Their ONLY value is in negotiations. And, sanctions will not last. They can be abandoned by other nations. Routes for smaller players can be developed.

Strengthening the sanctions would require gigantic diplomatic work. That would require enlarging the number of nations that support the sanctions. Iran is a large and powerful nation that has significant economic clout, is adjacent to Iraq (who needs their help, must live beside them, has a strong religious tie in being Shiite, which is a minority in the Muslim world) and has other borders as well as air routes that are not easy to control.


Which GOP candidate would be the best at cooperating with China, Russia and European nations to form a stronger coalition against Iran?

 

You have the stupid act down pat.

 

Actually, under the original deal, they could never develop nuclear weapons. 15 years is LESS time than forever.

 

You made that up about eliminating centrifuges. It doesn't eliminate ANY centrifuges.

 

knock it off with the personal attacks, I posted facts and links to back them up.... now play nice

 

The deal takes 13,000 centrifuges, leaving them using between 5,000 and 6,000.

 

then why was Netanyahu saying they could

fact was, our allies were not going to do sanctions forever, they were costing them to much money

.

 

No, they are still denied nuclear weapons after 15 years as long as they don't back out of the treaties they are part of today.

The issues is what verification we have.

Between now and 15 years from now it's safe to say we will have substantially more information due to inspections, will have advanced our inspection technology, will see how they are using nuclear material they've created (sales? energy? medical? world market?), will see changes in our relationship with Iran (for better or worse), etc.

Guessing that a deal cut today will be what we want in 15 years hits me as a long odds bet. And, suggesting there is some "permanent solution" short of conquering and occupying Iran forever is ludicrous.

My guess is that in 12 years or so we'll need to start to work on the next phase, whatever that will be, in order to be ready to take it the next increment of time.

 

Why the heck are you believing Netanyahu?

I agree with the sanctions being likely to collapse at some point. Keeping the current coalition together on meaningful sanctions will get harder as time passes.

 

We have no evidence that iran will not abide by the agreement
Actually, it would be counter productive for them to make this agreement and then clearly violate it
Why agree i the furst place?

Otoh israel has frequently committed to stoppung new settlements, and continuously violates their agreement

Not to mention the fact that israel promised not to develop n weapons... Then did
And now doesnot want others to do what they themselves did
And to agree to inspections they will not agree to for themselves

 

never said I believe him, I said he said these things, do confuse me saying he said these things with me believing him

I think he is a fear monger and over-exaggerating in both cases, he does doesn't care what the evidence is, he wants war imo

sort of like Bush and the war with Iraq...

.

 

at this point it looks like it's more likely the Republicans would break the deal if it passes before Iran ever could

it's sad to say that as I dislike Iran's government... but it seems to be the case

.

 

Sorry - I'll watch that.

And, yes, Netanyahu has based his entire political career on national security, promoting various existential threats.

The Israeli analysis of Iran's nuclear efforts came out almost immediately after the last election - considered suspicious by many. That analysis stated that Iran was not progressing toward a nuclear weapon, which is in agreement with the US intelligence assessment.

 

Yes, that seems likely
And would destroy our credibility
Why would any other nation have confidence that we would stand by deals that we negotiate
And, of course then it makes iran look like a victim
As well as accomloshing nothing since the other nations of the world will drop sanctions
As well as accept that iran need not hold to the agreement since we did not

As far as their government
Governments can change
There was a time when china was much more hostile
There was a time when cuba was much more hostile
Obviously we still have many areas of disagreement
But the whole n issue seemed to be putting us on a track towards a military response

 

While I advocate Iran and the US finding a rapprochement, and would prefer a broader deal than what was negotiated and find fault with many provisions of this deal from Iranian national security perspective, your analogy to Nazi Germany is simply baseless. Iran's entire military doctrine is entirely defensive in nature, even according to America's military establishment and reports regularly given to the US Congress on the issue. For that reason, the underlying analogy is absurd. This deal isn't arrived at to stop Iran conquering anyone else by force; if there is anyone threatening force, it is the US and company. If there is any appeasement going on, it is Iran appeasing the US. That is unless you believe the US should have the right to stop Iran from propagating its message -- a message that is indeed against US policies. The Death to America chants, and Iran's Supreme Leaders comments after the deal, is about that. It is about clarifying that this deal is not capitulation by Iran on other issues and Iran will still oppose US policies on many fronts, including as it relates to Israel, in Syria, against Hezbollah, in Yemen etc. Just because Iran doesn't wish to accede to US hegemony, and doesn't agree with policies that frankly aren't in America's interests either, doesn't mean Iran is suddenly Nazi Germany!

You are being misleading. Before this deal, Iran was 2 months away from amassing enough enriched uranium for 10-11 bombs and would, if it ever decides to exit the NPT, be able to build those bombs were quickly. The status quo you are referring to, which saw Iran suspend its activities and freeze itself in not getting closer to amassing the requisite stockpile of enriched uranium and make the many other advances it could make to bring itself very close to have an even much larger nuclear arsenal with hundreds of nuclear bombs and not a few, is a status quo that relied on Iran continuing its suspension activities when in fact the reason there was a deadline for reaching a deal from Iran's perspective was because Iran would not abide by such suspension indefinitely if there was no hope of a deal to remove sanctions. In that case, the only alternative would indeed be war. And anyone who suggest war with Iran would be much of an alternative, doesn't understand the dynamics involved in any such war.

America's policies to isolate Iran, to contain it, to try to wreck its economy, to bring it to its knees, are entirely misconceived. The right American approach towards Iran is something that would require the US to stop following the dictates of its so-called allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. That policy would require a dramatic change in US approach to Iran, but to help enlist Iran's support in bringing about a just order in the region that is indeed in the interests of all concerned. The contours of such a policy are suggested in this article (Why Iran Rising is a Good Thing) and discussed in greater length in this website by promoting their vision and their book, Going to Tehran.. Any other posture by the US, even frankly the posture advocated by Obama (never mind the mindless posture advocated by Israel and the neocons), guarantees the US to be wasting its money and resources in an endless pit while making everything worse, not better.

 

I should mention one other thing. While sanctions have hurt Iran, it would be totally foolish for anyone to oversell their impact and imagine that the US has a leverage in negotiating with Iran that it simply doesn't.

First, after the first couple of years following the enhanced sanctions on Iran in 2010, Iran's economy shrunk and had to adjust to the problems that were ushered by these sanctions. But Iran's economy adjusted and Iran has been experiencing even positive economic growth again despite those sanctions. Sure, the rate of growth is significantly lower than Iran would have without sanctions, and sanctions have made Iran's economy at least 25% smaller than it would be otherwise and much smaller than it would be without them in the future, but they do not impose on Iran the kind of hardships and problems that would force Iran to capitulate more than it has.

Second, Iran is not dependent on the outside world for its needs. Even if there were areas that Iran once relied on foreign imports, that reliance is no longer in place because the sanctions forced Iran to look to domestic production to meet the deficit.
In the words of one western economist, Iran is a diversified economy that has learned to make everything from cars to vodka during decades of isolation. “Iran is the only economy we have ever seen that has a positive trade balance in every one of 70 export categories, including alcohol."

Third, if you take an even cursory look at various projects started in Iran during these sanctions, you would get a good idea of the limitations of these sanctions as a tool to force Iran to capitulate. I live in Tehran; during the past few years since 2010, I have witnessed business activities like never before, probably because Iranian investors with money are now forced to invest in Iran. But to give just one example: how many countries can you find which have 200 new mega shopping malls constructed, with 65 such mega malls being built in Tehran alone? Contrary to the title to this New York Times article (Lavish Malls Sprouting Up to Attract Iranian Elite), whose headline is actually contradicted by what is in the article itself, these new malls aren't being built just to cater to a small number of people in Iran. Their sheer number (being built all over Iran, many in economically disadvantaged areas), on top of the huge number of malls and shops that already exist in Iran (2 of the top 10 shopping malls in the world are already in Iran) belie the notion that Iran is reeling under sanctions! If Iran was in such a mess, you wouldn't have people still flocking to shopping malls and so much shopping!

Finally, I believe people have a very wrong picture of Iran. As I have said elsewhere, this is something that is cured only if you get to visit Iran. Many people are now visiting Iran as Iran has been undergoing a tourism boom since these negotiations. Just read what they have to say. The most regular comment from those visiting Iran: Iran is nothing like it is portrayed in the western media!

 

Maybe Obama can pull that off. If he does will Iranians start treating him as the Imam Mahdi?

 

People who visit Iran often end up in Evin Prison for years to be used as hostages for the Iranian regime.

 

In his recent speech Obama claimed the Iran Deal was a permanent solution didn't he?

 

Pure propaganda. Except for dual Iran/US nationals who work in capacities that involve contacts with US/Iranian government, Iran is by all accounts from those who actually visit the country as safe as any. Just Google and read the comments by people who visit Iran instead of this propaganda nonsense. In the meantime, 5 million foreign tourists visited Iran the past 5 months alone and Iran is experiencing a huge boom in tourism, helped no doubt by the negotiations on the nuclear deal. The propaganda image of Iran some like to insist on cannot last under the circumstances and will not.