Well - if Iran will not agree to inspections going wherever and whenever the IAEA inspectors want to deal will be off. They we can add more sanctions.
2
It is ridiculous to expect any country to allow access to its military sites. Every country has conventional weapons that they keep secret. The key is finding inspection methods that verify that nukes are not in the picture.
Since our nay saying congress is so smart, why don't they come up with an airtight verification agreement?! Instead of sabotaging anything the president comes up with.
Since our nay saying congress is so smart, why don't they come up with an airtight verification agreement?! Instead of sabotaging anything the president comes up with.
2
With the US, and esp Kerry eager beyond recounting for a deal [and a footnote in history], Khamenei masterfully hammered US expectations down.
Who on the US side will now stumble all over himself to get a deal, then rationalise later how good and smart it was?
Who on the US side will now stumble all over himself to get a deal, then rationalise later how good and smart it was?
4
It is worthwhile to underline that Ali Khamenei did NOT reject the framework; thus, de facto crystallizing the initiative from the Iranian side, as a precedent-setting milestone toward the ultimate mission to steer Iran away from using nuclear know-how and assets except for peaceful purposes.
Khamenei is now a fence-sitter by necessity and may wear the bad cop's hat and be noticeable by his absence. That is the wisest strategic face-saving position to temper angry and hawkish domestic opposition and secure further concessions, as it is common in multi-party geopolitical negotiations, from the FTA and NAFTA to the Camp David Accord and SALT II. Among the good cops at the negotiation table, Javad Zarif and Ali Salehihave have much more at stake, including their own lives, in the worst-case scenario, as witnessed with Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin. President Rouhani is also vulnerable to surprise events, as observed with former President Rafsanjani.
By their occasional discretion and carefully-nuanced public statements, Laurent Fabius, John Kerry, Ernest Moniz and Chancellor Merkel have been utterly mission driven on the wider P5+1 group. The U.S., France, Germany and the UK must stay on course and NOT be event driven. Although US-Iran relations may not be normalized between the governments and much less between the people of both countries, keep in mind that the U.S. did abide by presidential agreements as in SALT II, which was never be ratified by the Senate.
Khamenei is now a fence-sitter by necessity and may wear the bad cop's hat and be noticeable by his absence. That is the wisest strategic face-saving position to temper angry and hawkish domestic opposition and secure further concessions, as it is common in multi-party geopolitical negotiations, from the FTA and NAFTA to the Camp David Accord and SALT II. Among the good cops at the negotiation table, Javad Zarif and Ali Salehihave have much more at stake, including their own lives, in the worst-case scenario, as witnessed with Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin. President Rouhani is also vulnerable to surprise events, as observed with former President Rafsanjani.
By their occasional discretion and carefully-nuanced public statements, Laurent Fabius, John Kerry, Ernest Moniz and Chancellor Merkel have been utterly mission driven on the wider P5+1 group. The U.S., France, Germany and the UK must stay on course and NOT be event driven. Although US-Iran relations may not be normalized between the governments and much less between the people of both countries, keep in mind that the U.S. did abide by presidential agreements as in SALT II, which was never be ratified by the Senate.
4
Seems to me like Gen. Mohammed Ali Jafari, the commander of the Republican Guards is the one making the decisions. The Guards are the main beneficiaries of the sanctions, as they control the smuggling and illicit trade which they have built into their own multi-billion dollar economic empire. to avoid a popular rebellion, they are trying to stage things so they can tell the Iranian population the Americans are to blame.
4
He is the one talking not the same as making decisions.
2
Who didn't see this coming? Iran gets the sanctions removed and then what?
Ayatollah denies ever planning to comply. Iran does whatever it wants for reorganizing its' nuke program, declaring certain inspections illegal, and then what?
Then we're really gonna get mad!
Ayatollah denies ever planning to comply. Iran does whatever it wants for reorganizing its' nuke program, declaring certain inspections illegal, and then what?
Then we're really gonna get mad!
6
Sanctions back in force immediately.
2
I don't like the part of limited access to inspectors. That's what Saddam tried to pull with his palaces being off limits. Nothing to hide nothing to fear. Inspectors should have total access when and where they chose to inspect. That should be a deal breaker. the lifting of the sanctions is a reasonable demand upon signing of the agreement but the limited access to the inspectors is a red flag no no.
4
This report by the NY Times and the video it includes of "Iran’s Supreme Leader on Nuclear Deal", there is a significant omission of his rational remarks when he emphasized that: "Iran's nuclear industry is essential for the development of Iran in the areas of energy, water desalination, medicine and agriculture."
Just the same could have been said about California.
Just the same could have been said about California.
3
neither Obama nor Iran can be trusted. It is time to walk away from the talks and tighten the sanctions that clearly have been effective
3
Israel has the bomb, Pakistan has the bomb, Russia has it, France has it,and so many others. The US invades Irak, supports dictatorships all over the Middle East, deposed legitimate Mossadech and we wonder why Iran is suspicious?
4
AS I read the comments by the "Usual Suspects" to abandon the talks, it seems these folks "Brilliantly Fail" to see the Logic of the other side.
IF we are "Genuinely" interested in bringing Iran into a "Constructive Mode" in the Regional & Global Peace and Security fronts, IT would NOT be possible without Wholesale Removal of the UN, the EU and All those US Sanctions imposed under the Executive Powers by Mr. Obama as Iran asserts that these Sanctions were/are Illegal and are based on "Fabricated Allegations" with an intent to cause "Regime Change".
SO "Trust" for them is the Foundation of this accord and if we "INSIST on Punishing" them based on "Bogus Allegations", an objective observer should/must conclude that "WE Want To Eat Our Cake And Have It Too".
SO WE Need To Make Our Mind Up: "Negotiate In Good Faith Or Keep Throwing More Falsehoods At The Other Side".
Both Mr. Khamenei And Mr. Rohani Must Be Able To Demonstrate To The Iranians That For All The "Substantial Concessions" They've Made, They Got A Comparable Package That "Allows Them To Get Their Own Money Back and Get their Own Economy Back On Track".
IF we are "Genuinely" interested in bringing Iran into a "Constructive Mode" in the Regional & Global Peace and Security fronts, IT would NOT be possible without Wholesale Removal of the UN, the EU and All those US Sanctions imposed under the Executive Powers by Mr. Obama as Iran asserts that these Sanctions were/are Illegal and are based on "Fabricated Allegations" with an intent to cause "Regime Change".
SO "Trust" for them is the Foundation of this accord and if we "INSIST on Punishing" them based on "Bogus Allegations", an objective observer should/must conclude that "WE Want To Eat Our Cake And Have It Too".
SO WE Need To Make Our Mind Up: "Negotiate In Good Faith Or Keep Throwing More Falsehoods At The Other Side".
Both Mr. Khamenei And Mr. Rohani Must Be Able To Demonstrate To The Iranians That For All The "Substantial Concessions" They've Made, They Got A Comparable Package That "Allows Them To Get Their Own Money Back and Get their Own Economy Back On Track".
2
I request this of the NY Times:
Please remove/change this disgraceful NYTimes graphic header showing the four leaders "The Iran Nuclear Deal's Definition Depends on Who's Talking". It does not help the NYTimes to put up "a convincing case" when they deliberately blot the face of PM Netanyahu with a eye poking finger symbol in that graphic.
No matter how incensed you might be at his most recent electoral victory and the regular and often (more often that in America) exercise of free democracy by the citizens of the Jewish State Israel. There ought to be no room for such incitement from the articles and pages in the NY Times.
Ever.
Please remove/change this disgraceful NYTimes graphic header showing the four leaders "The Iran Nuclear Deal's Definition Depends on Who's Talking". It does not help the NYTimes to put up "a convincing case" when they deliberately blot the face of PM Netanyahu with a eye poking finger symbol in that graphic.
No matter how incensed you might be at his most recent electoral victory and the regular and often (more often that in America) exercise of free democracy by the citizens of the Jewish State Israel. There ought to be no room for such incitement from the articles and pages in the NY Times.
Ever.
2
I request this of the NY Times: Please remove/change this disgraceful NYTimes graphic header showing the four leaders "The Iran Nuclear Deal's Definition Depends on Who's Talking". It does not help the NYTimes to put up "a convincing case" when they deliberately blot the face of PM Netanyahu with an eye poking finger symbol in that graphic. No matter how incensed the NY Times might be at his most recent electoral victory and the regular and often (more often than in America) exercise of free democracy by the citizens of the Jewish State Israel. Such anti-democratic subliminal incitement from the articles and pages in the NY Times ought to stop.
4
When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.
Iran has made clear it has no intention of following Obama's version
of the "deal" and Obama has proven countless times that he is a
pathological liar. Any pretense of a deal might as well be written
on toilet paper. Lifting the sanctions cedes control of ME to Iran.
It does not stop wars in the ME, but only guarantees that Iran will win them. Iran doesn't need nukes to takeover the ME. Wake up America.
Iran has made clear it has no intention of following Obama's version
of the "deal" and Obama has proven countless times that he is a
pathological liar. Any pretense of a deal might as well be written
on toilet paper. Lifting the sanctions cedes control of ME to Iran.
It does not stop wars in the ME, but only guarantees that Iran will win them. Iran doesn't need nukes to takeover the ME. Wake up America.
6
Perhaps Khamenei has fools around him threatening to make some dramatic change that would allow them to reject a deal they don't like. With so many influential political figures desperately looking for any excuse or method to scuttle a deal his reason probably doesn't matter.
Now Iran seems to be abandoning its recent muted tones to something more like the chest-thumping and bombast that has been pouring out of US political circles, from locals and guests, it seems more likely that hard liners on all sides will get their wish. Their will be no deal.
We can have another multi-trillion dollar war for the next ten or so years instead, and create another real-world training area, recruitment poster and rallying cry for terrorists. The Ayatollah and his apparent soul mates Mrrs. Netanyahu, Cain, Beohner, Schumer, et. al can sit back with their favorite beverage and congratulate themselves on generating another stupendous windfall for weapons makers and saving the world from prosperity and peace.
Now Iran seems to be abandoning its recent muted tones to something more like the chest-thumping and bombast that has been pouring out of US political circles, from locals and guests, it seems more likely that hard liners on all sides will get their wish. Their will be no deal.
We can have another multi-trillion dollar war for the next ten or so years instead, and create another real-world training area, recruitment poster and rallying cry for terrorists. The Ayatollah and his apparent soul mates Mrrs. Netanyahu, Cain, Beohner, Schumer, et. al can sit back with their favorite beverage and congratulate themselves on generating another stupendous windfall for weapons makers and saving the world from prosperity and peace.
3
Lift sanctions? Restrict inspection of their military? Ha! Iran has no leverage to make such demands. In fact, they say "death to America", our response should be "more sanctions on Iran."
6
AGREED!! More sanctions less talking!
They need to show good faith before we do anything to help them.
They need to show good faith before we do anything to help them.
2
This is bad news but I hold out hope that a rift is developing in Iran between the Khameni led hard liners and the moderates who want to normalize diplomatic and trade relations with the U.S. and Europe. Just maybe, the moderates wil be strong enough to push the religious radicals into the background. If not, at least now the Iranians can be blamed for the failure of the negotiations instead of the American Congress.
1
Let us hope that Senator Charles Schumer can rally more Democrats to oppose this agreement. While I consider the Republicans in general utterly risible, in this instance they should be characterized as "useful," reminding us that even folks who are wrong on every other matter can be right at least once.
What would Iran have to do in order to deserve to sit at the table of nations in the twenty-first century? At the very least, Iran would have to pay massive reparations to the United States and to survivors of the 1979-80 Embassy-Hostage episode. That, moreover, would not cement a deal, but would merely allow Iran to sit at the bargaining table.
What would Iran have to do in order to deserve to sit at the table of nations in the twenty-first century? At the very least, Iran would have to pay massive reparations to the United States and to survivors of the 1979-80 Embassy-Hostage episode. That, moreover, would not cement a deal, but would merely allow Iran to sit at the bargaining table.
5
You got that right-it's too bad no one else get it.!!
Better be careful, or we're liable to find a bill in OUR mailbox . . .
3
Does no one see what's obviously going on here? It's a deal in stages. First was the preliminary accord that we're in now. In return for the freezing of their program, we softened some sanctions. Now we have an impending deal that was a) just agreed to or b) soon to be agreed to. They say all sanctions must be lifted. We say they'll be lifted as Iran complies.
Anyone want to bet what Iran is doing right now? They're complying their butts off so that by the time we reach June 30, the bulk of the sanctions can be legitimately lifted. We get to say they were lifted in stages. They get to say that they were lifted "upon implementation." It's a two-step, pure and simple.
Anyone want to bet what Iran is doing right now? They're complying their butts off so that by the time we reach June 30, the bulk of the sanctions can be legitimately lifted. We get to say they were lifted in stages. They get to say that they were lifted "upon implementation." It's a two-step, pure and simple.
2
Leave it to Kerry to screw this up as he usually does. We can be t that sanctions will be lifted, we will loose our bargaining chip and the Iranians will not comply with any terms of the treaty. They are just pacifying the gullible fools that we send in their to do the job and as usual they will fail and we will back to square one in in no time.
3
yes! It is called "negotiation"! EVERYone gets to "save face"
In the name of God
So sorry for you guys don't know about Iran and even about your own country USA. so let me tell you: Iran has been for decades the victim of terrorism which has been supported by especially USA.
1- Just remember that the only country used nuclear bomb killing thousands innocent in 1 second was the USA.
2- From the very beginning of forming the USA, your fathers killed the Indians and occupied their lands.
3- slavery was a routine thing in US for centuries while all the people with diff religions and thoughts have been free for millennia in Iran.
4- look at Vietnam war. who doesn't know about savageries of the US militaries?
5- your country and lots of others supported Saddam against us in war for 8 years for what? because we were not an obedient beast like others.
6- Only US can send a rocket to an Iranian plane with 300 innocent kids, women and ... and give its commander the award for that brave-like rocket sending.
7- Al Qaeda and ISIS are the created babies of USA, but apparently not obedient anymore??
8- ...... many other examples
9- USA media can show white as black and black as white
Conclusion:
USA has made fool of its people. They try to keep the people behind their schedules and then after one decade they say OK, we went wrong, so sorry??
As an Iranian pray for you to get out of ignorance and become able to analyse what is going around you with open eyes.
thanks
So sorry for you guys don't know about Iran and even about your own country USA. so let me tell you: Iran has been for decades the victim of terrorism which has been supported by especially USA.
1- Just remember that the only country used nuclear bomb killing thousands innocent in 1 second was the USA.
2- From the very beginning of forming the USA, your fathers killed the Indians and occupied their lands.
3- slavery was a routine thing in US for centuries while all the people with diff religions and thoughts have been free for millennia in Iran.
4- look at Vietnam war. who doesn't know about savageries of the US militaries?
5- your country and lots of others supported Saddam against us in war for 8 years for what? because we were not an obedient beast like others.
6- Only US can send a rocket to an Iranian plane with 300 innocent kids, women and ... and give its commander the award for that brave-like rocket sending.
7- Al Qaeda and ISIS are the created babies of USA, but apparently not obedient anymore??
8- ...... many other examples
9- USA media can show white as black and black as white
Conclusion:
USA has made fool of its people. They try to keep the people behind their schedules and then after one decade they say OK, we went wrong, so sorry??
As an Iranian pray for you to get out of ignorance and become able to analyse what is going around you with open eyes.
thanks
2
Back prior to the 1979 revolution, many people of my generation in the United States were displeased that out government was supporting the Shah and his brutal regime. I am talking about people of my generation who, like myself, had moved generally to the Left while in college in the 1960's. You are correct in saying that we knew nothing about Iran or about Iranians. We expected a Marxist revolution, not an Islamic revolution. Ever since 1979 I have regarded the Iranian people with absolute contempt. The Shah was too good to them.
1
If the Iranians want to "walk away", sanctions will stay in place, the citizens of Iran will be very unhappy. The desire for peace and prosperity is the wish of most humans. Continuing the good fight to impose your God's will on the "others" is not a desirable option for most.
Kameni's Dictatorship tries to control public opinion so they want to fight for "God". Khameni prefers to avoid listening to the will of the Iranian people wishing for peace and prosperity.
No sanctions will mean the chance for prosperity. Sanctions means that Iranians living standards will continue to recess.
Mr Kerry, you have done a great job so far, just continue to stick to our demands. Remember the Iranian people want peace and the chance of prosperity, just like everyone else in our world. They want a deal just like we all do.
Kameni's Dictatorship tries to control public opinion so they want to fight for "God". Khameni prefers to avoid listening to the will of the Iranian people wishing for peace and prosperity.
No sanctions will mean the chance for prosperity. Sanctions means that Iranians living standards will continue to recess.
Mr Kerry, you have done a great job so far, just continue to stick to our demands. Remember the Iranian people want peace and the chance of prosperity, just like everyone else in our world. They want a deal just like we all do.
2
How long will the U.S. let Kerry and Obama continue the charade that they have made a verifiable deal with a bunch of religious zealots and world-wide terrorists? Think back, people, to how other presidents have handled threats from much lesser nations: JFK, Nixon, George H.W. Bush. Remember when Obama changed his mind about a strike on Syria for using chemical weapons? Remember Kerry saying: Well, yes, we have to do an air strike because we said we would, but it will be a pin-prick and no one will be injured or hardly even notice? Kerry, at Obama's bidding, has scurried all over the globe like a chicken with its head cut off and they have both become jokes!
2
Khamenei is acting with as little regard for the interests of the people of Iran as the Republicans in Congress are motivated by the foreign policy interests of America. Time will show, in both cases, what mixture of rhetorical posturing, hardball negotiating, and actual political power this involves. The deal outlined in Lausanne was tentative, it is still alive and it is still tentative.
The inspections are more important than the sanctions. Inspections DID work in Iraq, what did not work was the independent press or the backbones of Democrats in Congress who rubberstamped Cheney-Bush's bungled invasion.
Sanctions can be a valuable tool, but, as actually implemented, were not very effective against Saddam, and recall also that the USSR toppled after trade with it and openness towards it increased (not the reverse). The advisability of sanctions on Iran also has limits. We should be prepared to lift them as part of the fine print of an overall deal.
The inspections are more important than the sanctions. Inspections DID work in Iraq, what did not work was the independent press or the backbones of Democrats in Congress who rubberstamped Cheney-Bush's bungled invasion.
Sanctions can be a valuable tool, but, as actually implemented, were not very effective against Saddam, and recall also that the USSR toppled after trade with it and openness towards it increased (not the reverse). The advisability of sanctions on Iran also has limits. We should be prepared to lift them as part of the fine print of an overall deal.
1
"The assertions by the leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could be tactical, intended to give both the negotiators and himself some political space to get Iran’s hard-liners accustomed to the framework of the nuclear deal reached a week ago with the United States and other world powers." -NYT.
Is there anyone among US, especially public employees, that does not understand that Islam has no moral or ethical obligation to be truthful to the infidels? If it furthers the goals of the Military Political Complex of Islam it is their duty to deceive and mislead !?
Is there anyone among US, especially public employees, that does not understand that Islam has no moral or ethical obligation to be truthful to the infidels? If it furthers the goals of the Military Political Complex of Islam it is their duty to deceive and mislead !?
3
Since when does Iran have anything with which to "bargain.?" Stick to the deal or continue to suffer the economic consequences. Immediate lifting of sanctions was NEVER part of the deal, and will NEVER be approved in the US. Liars usually do not change their habits, so this is only going to work, as it was described by President Obama and SOS Kerry, with strict international oversight, and a strong commitment to "snap-back" sanctions. No tickee, no washee.
2
That is the way it is supposed to work but now the US SOS will screw this up too and give away the store so that it appears that he has actually done something. We need to replace him asap!!
1
And that is a non-starter. If Obama caves to these demands, he deserves to be impeached (for what, I don't know, but still). THe negotiations can continue, but these terms are off limits. The sanctions will be slowly lifted as Iran complies with the agreement. Of course, military sites have to be included for inspection. I hope the stupid Ayatollah kills this deal, so we can put even harsher sanctions on Iran and bring it to its knees.
6
This deal gets worse for the United States and anyone outside of Iran daily. President Obama and John Kerry need to wake up and walk away from the table. We will lose more allies if President Obama lifts the sanctions against them and Iran had never followed anyone rules so why would you Friday then now. A leopard never changed his spots.
6
Is anyone really surprised ? It was sactions that brought them to the table.
Removing them will only serve as a disincentive for them to abide by any agreement.
Removing them will only serve as a disincentive for them to abide by any agreement.
7
You got that right- why is it that our government reps don't see the light. Is it because they don't want to and just want to look good, like they are doing their job. ??
Pure nonsense. Iran cannot be trusted to do anything they agree to do!!
Pure nonsense. Iran cannot be trusted to do anything they agree to do!!
5
Khamenei does not have to please the hard liners. He's their leader and number one hard liner. This is what happens when the criminally insane run the hospital for the criminally insane.
4
Not surprisingly, the Bibi-ites are rushing to "kill the deal" even before there is a deal. And while the recent posturings in Iran are fodder for their effort, reasonable people should take into account--at this point--Iranian need to appear strong in it's dealings with the West.
Let the negotiations play out to a conclusion and then evaluate the result at that time. If we don't like the final agreement, we walk. However, that will not bring us to happier times.
The Bibi-neocon axis tells us that by turning the screw of sanctions tighter--despite the fact that the rest of the world may not fall into line--leavened by a dash of bombing here and there, we can bring the Iranians to heel.
Even the cliche "unintended consequences" is too euphemistic for this one!
Stay at the negotiating table and sweat it out!
Let the negotiations play out to a conclusion and then evaluate the result at that time. If we don't like the final agreement, we walk. However, that will not bring us to happier times.
The Bibi-neocon axis tells us that by turning the screw of sanctions tighter--despite the fact that the rest of the world may not fall into line--leavened by a dash of bombing here and there, we can bring the Iranians to heel.
Even the cliche "unintended consequences" is too euphemistic for this one!
Stay at the negotiating table and sweat it out!
8
With all the attitude toward Bibi that exists please keep in mind that the USA would doubtless react much the same way if one if our near at hand neighbors would be developing nuclear weapons and state as their credo the obliteration of the USA. It's easy to condemn others but what if we were those others. I dislike Bibi, I disagree with him on everything but I do understand his anxiety and those of most Israel's of the possibility that iran's threats are not idle threats and only for local consumption.
2
And so here it is. What ever made our government think Iran could be trusted for even a minute. This is like buying a car, with Iran now trying to renegotiate a deal already made. Good luck with this.
3
Really what fools we are to believe anything they promise will ever come true-it's like saying This car will last you a lifetime!! the question is which lifetime ? The cars or yours?? LOL
The good thing is that Iran is talking to us. An agreement? That does not exist. What we have is Iran, Russia and China moving to take over the world and then fight it out amongst themselves. Iran the middle East proxy by proxy, Russia Europe country by country and China the far east island by island and 100,000 miles of water and resources.
2
This "deal" is beyond terrifying - what is the point, besides containing military applications?
3
The Obama administration had already decided to lift sanctions with Iran to end the fear of and wrath Iran was sending to Obama and the rest of the Middle East. These negotiations which the limp-wristed Kerry claims to have produced via high-level diplomacy, mano-a-mano leadership had no teeth and were merely show to appease the Obama dreamers. Kerry couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag.
4
Right you are-we need to remove him and get a real man to do the job. He is a joke and the world knows it. His boss needs to wake up and accept his mistake in putting the SOS where he is.
The marvel is that anyone had ever actually thought the result would be different. Our President offers an open hand, and they, predictably, uncurl the fist into a finger.
I love saying this:
We told you so.
I love saying this:
We told you so.
4
Hogwash! Posturing is simply part of negotiating. The Soviets did the same thing. You can only say "I told you so" if and only if there is an actual deal and the Iranians break it, but then we will have real grounds for military action and your pronouncement will be meaningless. The point of an agreement is to give peace a chance, but the flip side is that if Iran dismisses peace, they are the one choosing war, not us. The Hawks dismissing this deal out of hand have us choosing war. This matters to the rest of the fair minded world.
1
And the same salutation to you, sir. For view modification, please read Brooks' NYT column today, and Kissinger and Schultz in the WSJ yesterday.
You call this posturing. It does not require a huge knowledge of Iran's psyche to understand that Khamenei can never walk back his very clear remarks, about clearly defined matters. Sanctions over at signing; and no inspections of military sites (defined I expect by Iran). How does he walk that back?
The answer is, he doesn't. We walk to him. And if we don't, he folds. Having gained valuable time in which to further advance Iran's non-negotiable bedrock principle that it deserves to have the bomb (or “nuclear power for peaceful energy and medical uses”, as they describe it).
“Give peace a chance” sounds so sixties. The alternative is not war, that alternative is Obama's False Choice. The alternative is tightening sanctions. The alternative is resolving that we will not let Iran become another North Korea.
You call this posturing. It does not require a huge knowledge of Iran's psyche to understand that Khamenei can never walk back his very clear remarks, about clearly defined matters. Sanctions over at signing; and no inspections of military sites (defined I expect by Iran). How does he walk that back?
The answer is, he doesn't. We walk to him. And if we don't, he folds. Having gained valuable time in which to further advance Iran's non-negotiable bedrock principle that it deserves to have the bomb (or “nuclear power for peaceful energy and medical uses”, as they describe it).
“Give peace a chance” sounds so sixties. The alternative is not war, that alternative is Obama's False Choice. The alternative is tightening sanctions. The alternative is resolving that we will not let Iran become another North Korea.
1
Why are the NYT and the administration bending themselves into pretzels trying to convince us the rhetoric coming from Iran is just, well, rhetoric and not to be taken seriously? Does Obama want an agreement so badly that he will ignore what they are saying and end up making a disastrous deal? When Iran's leader says "death to America" and no inspectors will be allowed on military bases, I believe
him.
him.
6
This is exactly why Congress needs to be involved. Obama/Kerry/Clinton were all to much in a hurry to get a deal for political gain vs what is right and best for USA, ME and world. Iran doesn't want a deal, it wants a bomb. The sanctions should be ratcheted up until they say they are serious about negotiations. The starting premise needs to be reset. This is not a negotiation between two good guys. This is a negotiation between the world and a rogue nation. A rogue nation that is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, sponsors terrorism around the world, wants to see the destruction of Israel and wants to see the destruction of the USA. Obama/Kerry and the ivory tower State Department need to understand this. Iran deserves no more standing than Germany or Japan as they surrendered at the end of WW2. The leadership in Iran is as bad or worse than that in Germany during WW2. A deal with Iran's supreme leader is not reliable just as deals with Hitler were also bogus. The fantasy needs to end. Reality needs to come forth. Congress needs to step in strong as many there see much more clearly the situation than do Obama/Kerry/Clinton have.
3
If Iran begins to feel hungry because Obama is starving it via sanctions Iran will not meekly approach Obama to discuss negotiations. No. It will start saber rattling and wreak havoc with our oil supply and all its Middle East neighbors. Obama knew this which is why he made up these negotiations. But he wasted time and gave false hope to his minions.
Best move is to back away. Act as if nothing will change. Then we'll waken some morning and we'll see the flashing siren lights on the Drudge Report saying Israel has just bombed Iran into oblivion. There will be a contented sigh within the Obama Administration though none of us will hear it.
Besd
Bes
Best move is to back away. Act as if nothing will change. Then we'll waken some morning and we'll see the flashing siren lights on the Drudge Report saying Israel has just bombed Iran into oblivion. There will be a contented sigh within the Obama Administration though none of us will hear it.
Besd
Bes
As many had predicted, this deal with Iran was doomed from day one, a pompously feckless exercise in futility. Obama's foreign policy continues to lurch from failure, the Russian reset, to catastrophe, the ISIS takeover of Iraq and Libya, Yemen, Egypt and Tunisia in chaos.
3
Republicans, conservatives, Tea party members, Ronald Reagan and Bibi are not surprised with Iran announcement that the rules have changed.
2
If that's what the supreme leader says that's what mr. Obama will do. After all it's the supreme leader and they need the sanctions lifted so they can get the resources to build their atom bombs and develop ICBM's.
Aw heck, mr Obama should simplify it all for them and give them a few bombs and an ICBM or two. He already gave them a drone.
Aw heck, mr Obama should simplify it all for them and give them a few bombs and an ICBM or two. He already gave them a drone.
2
Anyone who cannot advance some good faith trust to Iran is either ignorant of history or low in common sense. Consider the political reactions here vs. Iran. Iran is cautiously supportive while Obama is at odds with Congressional nay-sayers and underminers (the Corker bill). Even Saudi Arabia, Iran's biggest rival, praised the initial framework. Our biggest ally, Saudi Arabia, is a monarchy, a less democratic country than Iran, and we ignore these facts because they are our buddies. And, look at our historical relations with Iran since the Shah. I don't wonder why Iran does not trust us.
In the long term, the continued engagement with Iran can only benefit the middle east and Ali Khamenei points out that
“... this will become an experience that we can continue on other issues."
Having good relations with the 2 biggest rivals, the Saudi's and Iran is of major importance if the middle east is ever to sort out its problems. People need to see the Big Picture.
In the long term, the continued engagement with Iran can only benefit the middle east and Ali Khamenei points out that
“... this will become an experience that we can continue on other issues."
Having good relations with the 2 biggest rivals, the Saudi's and Iran is of major importance if the middle east is ever to sort out its problems. People need to see the Big Picture.
3
Ok, so the option dearly wanted by the hawks is the old Republican story: All war all the time isolationism America. Look folks, it's either negotiation or constant war, and Iran is no Iraq. You think a lot of Americans died in Iraq, Iran is much better prepared militarily, that's why the hawks are salivating over this. As I said, all war all the time isolationism is the Republican philosophy. Bring back the draft. That will take car of this war chest beating.
13
Obama and cohorts better never play poker….
2
Things do not change. James Bryce (Viscount) wrote in 1896, "In Iran no man believes another." Two different worlds.
3
Why not lift the sanctions? They are hurting Iranian civilians, including children?
Netanyahu wants us to bomb Iran. Sharon wanted us to bomb Iraq,
and we did. Was that a good thing? We removed a secular Sunni leader
to be replaced by a feckless Shia leader. Then the Sunnis got annoyed
and formed ISIL. Oh, and in the process, Nobel Laureate Joseph
Stiglitz says we blew away $3 trillion, or the cost of running the Us
Government for a year. Thousands of Americans were killed and
over a 100,000 Iraqis. The infrastructure of Iraq we bombed away. Netanyahu would like us to do to Iran what we did in Iraq. That would be too nonsensical even for the US Congress. The United States should look after
its own interests, not the mad dreams of a Likud nut case like Netanyahu.
Netanyahu wants us to bomb Iran. Sharon wanted us to bomb Iraq,
and we did. Was that a good thing? We removed a secular Sunni leader
to be replaced by a feckless Shia leader. Then the Sunnis got annoyed
and formed ISIL. Oh, and in the process, Nobel Laureate Joseph
Stiglitz says we blew away $3 trillion, or the cost of running the Us
Government for a year. Thousands of Americans were killed and
over a 100,000 Iraqis. The infrastructure of Iraq we bombed away. Netanyahu would like us to do to Iran what we did in Iraq. That would be too nonsensical even for the US Congress. The United States should look after
its own interests, not the mad dreams of a Likud nut case like Netanyahu.
4
If the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei thinks that he can do what Benjamin Netanyahu does with the Republican and Democratic Congress, he is gravely mistaken. He must either negotiate the best deal that he can get with the United States administration, France, Germany, England, Russia, and China or deal with a military solution. The choice is his.
If he wants a peaceful solution, "declaring that all economic sanctions would have to be lifted on the day any final agreement was signed and that military sites would be strictly off limits to foreign inspectors" is non-negotiable. The Congress, the American people, and the governments of Europe, Russia, and China will not accept these two conditions.
If the Ayatollah wants the sanctions lifted immediately, then he must destroy his entire nuclear program and accept low-grade nuclear materials that he wants from Russia.
If he wants a peaceful solution, "declaring that all economic sanctions would have to be lifted on the day any final agreement was signed and that military sites would be strictly off limits to foreign inspectors" is non-negotiable. The Congress, the American people, and the governments of Europe, Russia, and China will not accept these two conditions.
If the Ayatollah wants the sanctions lifted immediately, then he must destroy his entire nuclear program and accept low-grade nuclear materials that he wants from Russia.
3
Is this not part of the negotiations one side is describing issues important to them that must be resolved. Iran follows closely what is being said in the United States about the negotiations. Have negotiations become so rare and public that overreacts?
1
Junior media buyers in NYC ad agencies could have negotiated a better deal than Kerry and Obama Admin. Spineless negotiation is oxymoronic.
3
Given Obama's negotiating 'skills', I fully expect that he will agree to dismantle America's nuclear infrastructure in return for Iran's promise not to nuke NYC until 2025.
2
There is no deal and there never was. Obama and Kerry have lied again!!!!!
1
Oh brother.
It is still in negotiation any idiotic comments that says to stop the agreement when it has been totally negotiated should be ignored.
So much for Obama's wonderful "deal". I guess everything our Leftist-In-Chief said in his press conference about the agreement was a lie!
1
One more thing, this won't be another North Korea. North Korea this not suicidal. This cult is.
They can imagine nothing more ideal and spiritual than to bring down on there citizens complete destruction. Allah Akbar.
They can imagine nothing more ideal and spiritual than to bring down on there citizens complete destruction. Allah Akbar.
1
Iran is a small potato. U.S. interest in the middle east is Texas tea, black gold, oil, oil, oil. OPEC members hold around 75% of world crude oil reserves. The countries with the largest oil reserves are, in order, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Kazakhstan and Nigeria. Now where are all our military troops?
The nuke boys to worry about are the U.S., Russia and China. On Oct. 16, 1964, China detonated its first atomic bomb.
Russian submarine-- the SS-N-21 has a range of about 1,860 miles -- and the weapon would have a greater chance of reaching its target than an air-dropped bomb.
SSN Akula Class (Bars Type 971) Nuclear Submarine, Russia are deployed in the Pacific Ocean, so target cities would be Los Angeles. 8/6/09 CNN reported that two Russian attack submarines were cruising in the Atlantic off the East Coast of the United States. Well, there goes NY city.
Lets all admit that as humans we are all plagued with the same capricious, brutal, homicidal, warring, selfish, self serving, pompous, egotistical behavior which will always remain untouched and unchanged. In terms of human behavior, the more things seem to change....the more they remain the same. Man should stop making war in the name of liberty, justice, peace and in the name of God (all religions in the world). The true God is good and would not be blessing soldiers, war, weapons, nuclear bombs. murder and killing.
The nuke boys to worry about are the U.S., Russia and China. On Oct. 16, 1964, China detonated its first atomic bomb.
Russian submarine-- the SS-N-21 has a range of about 1,860 miles -- and the weapon would have a greater chance of reaching its target than an air-dropped bomb.
SSN Akula Class (Bars Type 971) Nuclear Submarine, Russia are deployed in the Pacific Ocean, so target cities would be Los Angeles. 8/6/09 CNN reported that two Russian attack submarines were cruising in the Atlantic off the East Coast of the United States. Well, there goes NY city.
Lets all admit that as humans we are all plagued with the same capricious, brutal, homicidal, warring, selfish, self serving, pompous, egotistical behavior which will always remain untouched and unchanged. In terms of human behavior, the more things seem to change....the more they remain the same. Man should stop making war in the name of liberty, justice, peace and in the name of God (all religions in the world). The true God is good and would not be blessing soldiers, war, weapons, nuclear bombs. murder and killing.
Just a naive civilian here, but are we really worried that the world's prime sponsor of terrorism guided by religious beliefs, the principal of which is the apocalypse, may develop nuclear weapons?
Some things are obvious if you don't concern yourself with powerful interests that will gleefully sell body bags and food ration kits in NY when they turn it onto glass.
Blockade their ports, cancel all landings rights, stop all trade, freeze all accounts, and break off all banking relations. Nothing incremental.
Don't shoot anyone or bomb anything. Apologize for supporting the Shah, ask for forgiveness, ask permission to open an Embassy and then begin the negotiations anew.
See how long the wackos stay in power when their elite have to vacation on Cuban beaches and their economy runs along trading only with Russia goods funneled through Syria.
If the prospect of a nuclear Iran is unthinkable, then better get some adults on the job. Or continue pretending, wishing and hoping.
Some things are obvious if you don't concern yourself with powerful interests that will gleefully sell body bags and food ration kits in NY when they turn it onto glass.
Blockade their ports, cancel all landings rights, stop all trade, freeze all accounts, and break off all banking relations. Nothing incremental.
Don't shoot anyone or bomb anything. Apologize for supporting the Shah, ask for forgiveness, ask permission to open an Embassy and then begin the negotiations anew.
See how long the wackos stay in power when their elite have to vacation on Cuban beaches and their economy runs along trading only with Russia goods funneled through Syria.
If the prospect of a nuclear Iran is unthinkable, then better get some adults on the job. Or continue pretending, wishing and hoping.
1
America and Obama need to stop begging these tyrants for a deal. It's embarrassing. Some say Obama's administration is the "second" Jimmy Carter administration. When it comes to Iran and the humiliation heaped upon America, they are right! HRC and Joe Biden were correct in 2008 when they both warned that Obama was not ready to be president. We should have listened to them.
2
Can't everyone see that Iran is simply delaying the whole process so that they continue to make progress toward having a nuclear weapon. POTUS will announce that he's extending the June 30 deadline because they are "near" a deal only to have to backtrack a second time and announce yet another extension. By this time Iran will be holding and it will be too late to do anything except start a military resolution. Just like every attempt by POTUS to have a foreign policy success, this one will end in utter failure - and with disastrous consequences.
2
I am for a diplomatic solution to stem Iran's nuclear aspirations. But if this latest announcement by Iran's supreme leader is more than just Negotiations 101, then President Obama must walk away from the deal.
2
I have been all for dipliomacy in solving Iran's, to me, unquestionable desire to make nuclear bombs. Now, however, their 79 year old theocrat, who is truly a dictator who answers to no human, has abolished any basis for a working agreement. Without fazed lifting of sanctions, we have no guarantee of Iranian compliance; and with Iranian military bases off the inspection list, we also have a virtual guarantee, considering Iran's untrustworthy history, that the agreement will be violated.
New facts require flexibility in anyone's thinking; and these new facts lead me to believe that crippling total sanctions need to levied against Iran pronto, and if Israel feels that it needs to take unilateral action (with absolutely no military or financial involvement by the US) then it should do so. It is quite clear to me that Israel is all bark and no bite when it comes to action against Iran. It wants "someone" to take military action against Iran, but that "someone who would bear all the expense, risk and death, would be the United States, not us.
Israel could not maintain their military edge without our almost now $4 billion a year. How they use that money is their business as long as our government continues to be willing to give it to them, but our involvement in Israel's defense or aggression beyond that should be zero, as we consider a lessening of foreign aid to the country to bring it more in line with our aid to other countries.
New facts require flexibility in anyone's thinking; and these new facts lead me to believe that crippling total sanctions need to levied against Iran pronto, and if Israel feels that it needs to take unilateral action (with absolutely no military or financial involvement by the US) then it should do so. It is quite clear to me that Israel is all bark and no bite when it comes to action against Iran. It wants "someone" to take military action against Iran, but that "someone who would bear all the expense, risk and death, would be the United States, not us.
Israel could not maintain their military edge without our almost now $4 billion a year. How they use that money is their business as long as our government continues to be willing to give it to them, but our involvement in Israel's defense or aggression beyond that should be zero, as we consider a lessening of foreign aid to the country to bring it more in line with our aid to other countries.
I doubt the Supreme Leader's words were for internal consumption. If this is seriously Iran's position, then there won't be a deal -- unless the Obama administration allows itself to be taken advantage of by Iran.
2
No need to cancel the deal by the Republicans, the Iranians beat them to the punch.
Could Bibi have been right about trusting the Persians?.
This charade was just a stall for time. By being fools we have made the world a more dangerous place.
The good side is we no longer have to worry about global warming.
The bad side is nuclear winter will surpass it.
Could Bibi have been right about trusting the Persians?.
This charade was just a stall for time. By being fools we have made the world a more dangerous place.
The good side is we no longer have to worry about global warming.
The bad side is nuclear winter will surpass it.
Just another in a long line of BHO foreign policy blunders. Of course, when Barry leads from behind, these are the types of outcomes one expects!
1
Don't get excited, folks. These comments are expected. No matter who may represent the U.S. in these talks, Iran's leaders will posture and demand. But the opinion that the U.S. is not acting from a position of power is naïve beyond description. Get off the lazy claptrap.
1
Last ditch attempt to convince Iran's secular-leaning population that the Ayatollah is looking for a better deal "for them." He knows that when all those young people begin to enjoy the benefits of 21st century life, his medieval regime will be toast.
Well of course they must. The whole deal is about what the US government can get in exchange for lifting sanctions. The idea that the sanctions stay in any form is a US delusion which I expect will sink the deal.
For more than a generation, the wicked Saudi regime has operated with abandoned, propped up by the American oligarchs whose servants are US politicians, including the President. It was all about oil. But that day is about to come to an end and Saudi Arabia is about to get their due comeuppance. Brace yourself, wicked Saudi Arabia. You heyday has passed. Only George Bush and the Bush family remain your friends.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-iran-deal-anatomy-of-a-disast...
"You set out to prevent proliferation and you trigger it. You set out to prevent an Iranian nuclear capability and you legitimize it. You set out to constrain the world’s greatest exporter of terror threatening every one of our allies in the Middle East and you’re on the verge of making it the region’s economic and military hegemon."
That says it all!
"You set out to prevent proliferation and you trigger it. You set out to prevent an Iranian nuclear capability and you legitimize it. You set out to constrain the world’s greatest exporter of terror threatening every one of our allies in the Middle East and you’re on the verge of making it the region’s economic and military hegemon."
That says it all!
1
This whole 'agreement' needs to be scrapped
Iran is the one dictating the terms... US is being taken for a ride
It is now revealed that sanctions NOT to be lifted over a period of time after it is verified Iran no longer on road to nuclear weapons but immediately
It only has just been found out ANY inspections will not be ' surprise' inspections but at time & date of Iran's choosing .
Plus inspections not by USA but by UN council in which Russia is the key player
The same Russia that has been supplying Iran with materials to .... Build a nuclear bomb
Cancel the deal !!!
Iran is the one dictating the terms... US is being taken for a ride
It is now revealed that sanctions NOT to be lifted over a period of time after it is verified Iran no longer on road to nuclear weapons but immediately
It only has just been found out ANY inspections will not be ' surprise' inspections but at time & date of Iran's choosing .
Plus inspections not by USA but by UN council in which Russia is the key player
The same Russia that has been supplying Iran with materials to .... Build a nuclear bomb
Cancel the deal !!!
16
Scrap the framework for continued multi-national negotiations? And replace it with what?
There is no final disarmament agreement; merely a narrowing of areas of disagreement. The process is ongoing.
Of course, your foolish incomprehension merely reflects the extent that Netanyahu's mendacity, his hysterical disinformation campaign, has succeeded in accomplishing this objective.
There is no final disarmament agreement; merely a narrowing of areas of disagreement. The process is ongoing.
Of course, your foolish incomprehension merely reflects the extent that Netanyahu's mendacity, his hysterical disinformation campaign, has succeeded in accomplishing this objective.
1
Okay, following your logical to scrap the deal then what? There will be no limitation on Iran's nuclear program and they can accelerate building a nuclear bomb. What do you suggest? Bombing Iran? Netanyahu of Israel seems to think this is the best way.
1
If Kerry had been smarter, he should have used a similar technique to the way Iran is using its Supreme Leader. Kerry's Supreme Leader should have been Congress. Unfortunately, Obama wants to dispense with Congress when he should have used it as an effective bargaining tool. Too bad, but par for the course.
7
So, it is Obama's fault the the Ayatollahs now add terms that precludes verification?
And, your point is Congress could/would get something done?
Yeah, that does sound about par for the course...which I agree, is too bad.
And, your point is Congress could/would get something done?
Yeah, that does sound about par for the course...which I agree, is too bad.
Congress is such a messy, bothersome group with so many differing opinions and experiences. It is much better to eliminate any confusion of improper opinions and just "do it". We can always "sit down and reason together with our friends in the Mid east. They have always been reasonable.
1
Ok folks, this is why you don't have rational adult style negotiations, or mutually agreed upon deals with neurotic, violent, oppressive, delusional, Nations. If you think this kind of talk is nutty, just wait till these loons have a bomb to play cards with.
11
Lies have short legs, an old say goes, and Iranians are not dummies.
The Nuclear deal end was done in a cheat way, as reported on the NYT article “Outline of Iran Nuclear Deal Sounds Different From Each Side” dated Apr.4, 2015.
The article reports that “We didn’t show them the paper. We didn’t show them the whole list”, so USA paper said that sanctions will be released step by step in the next 15 years, while the Iranian paper said that sanctions will be released immediately after the end of the dealings.
A joint deal should normally have a single output paper, if dealers know how to write a meeting report.
Iranians are now right to ask the application of their deal output paper.
I see therefore in the near future a restart of the Nuclear v/s Sanctions dealing, hoping then a more honest and serious behavior from the USA part, unless USA is accepting the Israel's and Saudi Arabia's pressing requests against the deal.
The Nuclear deal end was done in a cheat way, as reported on the NYT article “Outline of Iran Nuclear Deal Sounds Different From Each Side” dated Apr.4, 2015.
The article reports that “We didn’t show them the paper. We didn’t show them the whole list”, so USA paper said that sanctions will be released step by step in the next 15 years, while the Iranian paper said that sanctions will be released immediately after the end of the dealings.
A joint deal should normally have a single output paper, if dealers know how to write a meeting report.
Iranians are now right to ask the application of their deal output paper.
I see therefore in the near future a restart of the Nuclear v/s Sanctions dealing, hoping then a more honest and serious behavior from the USA part, unless USA is accepting the Israel's and Saudi Arabia's pressing requests against the deal.
2
Iran will never really dismantle it's program to build a bomb. Their goal is to rule the Middle East. The bomb is coming now or in 10 years I does not matter. We along with other nations must decide now to terminate their ability to do so. If we don't do this it will be too late and we will have another North Korea
10
There is no way to "terminate their ability to do so".
We will be very lucky if we survive Iran as a nuclear warrior. I doubt they will be as poverty stricken as North Korea is.
There is no way to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons sooner or latter. Dictatorial regimes do not put their citizens' aspirations at the top of their to-do list and will follow their ambitions at all cost.
A war with Iran is absolutely not an option. Even John McCain & Co are not crazy enough to go for it after a decade long experiance in Iraq, Afganistan and the upheavle in the Middle East and North Africa following the ridiculously called"Arab Spring". Air campain over Iran will only have a marginal effect and "boots on the ground" are not even a remote option. Besides, I don't believe any Western country will join America in such effort.
Obama, being level headed, knows this truth and has no illusions. What he tries to do is to gain 10 years or so, hoping that Iran will moderate over time and cease being so beligetent. That is the best he can hope for. Obama stands face to face with the world's grim realities and never drifts into populism and fantasies. I admire him for that.
And last: no country, not even Pakistan, ever contemplated seriously using nuclear weapons because even crazy regimes know what would follow. The real and only deterrent to Iran's ambitions is the nuclear capability of Israel and its western allies.
A war with Iran is absolutely not an option. Even John McCain & Co are not crazy enough to go for it after a decade long experiance in Iraq, Afganistan and the upheavle in the Middle East and North Africa following the ridiculously called"Arab Spring". Air campain over Iran will only have a marginal effect and "boots on the ground" are not even a remote option. Besides, I don't believe any Western country will join America in such effort.
Obama, being level headed, knows this truth and has no illusions. What he tries to do is to gain 10 years or so, hoping that Iran will moderate over time and cease being so beligetent. That is the best he can hope for. Obama stands face to face with the world's grim realities and never drifts into populism and fantasies. I admire him for that.
And last: no country, not even Pakistan, ever contemplated seriously using nuclear weapons because even crazy regimes know what would follow. The real and only deterrent to Iran's ambitions is the nuclear capability of Israel and its western allies.
4
Obama is not going to gain any years and he knows it. He lied to the American people about this deal which is worse than no deal!
I was with you til the last sentence. Israel is less trust worthy than Iran. Israel wants to drag the U.S. into another ME war. This time against Iran. No thanks.
Sometimes a placid exterior is the result of very low understanding of the situation. Obama is very calm.
He can either deal with the State Department in a non-frivolous manner; or he can deal with the CIA, NSA, Pentagon, Mossad, and IDF if he's simply going to waste everybody else's time.
1
The naysayers are probably reading way too much into Khamenei and Rouhani's pronouncements They're just giving voice to the aspirations of their people and staking out a bargaining stance.
3
Below are Tweets from the Iranian Supreme Leader's Twitter account, written yesterday. Why Obama decided to trumpet this "agreement" that clearly isn't close to being done yet is beyond me. Reminds me of the Bergdahl announcement.
Please, dear God, put an adult in the White House once this poor man is finished his term. Please.
Here are the Tweets (from @khamenei_ir):
"Hours after the #talks, Americans offered a fact sheet that most of it was contrary to what was agreed.They always deceive &breach promises."
"I trust our negotiators but I'm really worried as the other side is into lying & breaching promises; an example was White House fact sheet."
"It's all about the details.The disloyal side may want to stab #Iran in the back over the details;It is too early to congratulate.
#IranTalks"
Please, dear God, put an adult in the White House once this poor man is finished his term. Please.
Here are the Tweets (from @khamenei_ir):
"Hours after the #talks, Americans offered a fact sheet that most of it was contrary to what was agreed.They always deceive &breach promises."
"I trust our negotiators but I'm really worried as the other side is into lying & breaching promises; an example was White House fact sheet."
"It's all about the details.The disloyal side may want to stab #Iran in the back over the details;It is too early to congratulate.
#IranTalks"
6
You mean like George W Bush?
The only reason this deal is still on the table is because Obama wants to leave a legacy and is too naive to foresee that the only legacy he will leave with this deal is the legacy of the president who allowed Iran to get the bomb.
7
Yes - That will be Obama's legacy: a nuclear Iran!
Is the administration so desperate for a deal and so inept at negotiating that they don't know when to get up from the table?
8
Yes, they are. They care about the so called "Obama Legacy." Unfortunately, the Democrats in Congress are more interested in this than in the true nature of this ridiculous agreement!
Obama says there is either a deal or a war. Iran now declares any deal must not include effective inspections, which effectively and justifiably scuttles any deal. So, is America going to start another war?
Reading the comments, one has to question:
Are you the same people that back in 2002 and 3003 were thinking Iraq had WMD's and the best thing to do was to topple its regime?
Sure, go ahead again, and on behalf of our regional allies.
Are you the same people that back in 2002 and 3003 were thinking Iraq had WMD's and the best thing to do was to topple its regime?
Sure, go ahead again, and on behalf of our regional allies.
2
One has to question if these are also the same people who were trumpeting the "historic agreement" with North Korea that through the use of "intrusive inspections" was going to keep the "Korean peninsula free from Nuclear weapons."
Our government never learned a thing from Viet Nam, It will take 2 more generations before they even start mulling over the Mid East fiasco.. Hopefully Israel can keep knocking out the nuclear facilities of the madmen fanatics to give America time to elect a real leader who is concerned about protecting us and not worried about a legacy or an image.
Lies have short legs, an old say goes, and Iranians are not dummies.
The Nuclear deal end was done in a cheat way, as reported on the NYT article “Outline of Iran Nuclear Deal Sounds Different From Each Side” dated Apr.4, 2015.
The article reports that “We didn’t show them the paper. We didn’t show them the whole list”, so USA paper said that sanctions will be released step by step in the next 15 years, while the Iranian paper said that sanctions will be released immediately after the end of the dealings.
A joint deal should normally have a single output paper, if dealers know how to write a meeting report.
Iranians are now right to ask the application of their deal output paper.
I see therefore in the near future a restart of the Nuclear v/s Sanctions dealing, hoping then a more honest and serious behavior from the USA part, unless USA is accepting the Israel's and Saudi Arabia's blackmail.
The Nuclear deal end was done in a cheat way, as reported on the NYT article “Outline of Iran Nuclear Deal Sounds Different From Each Side” dated Apr.4, 2015.
The article reports that “We didn’t show them the paper. We didn’t show them the whole list”, so USA paper said that sanctions will be released step by step in the next 15 years, while the Iranian paper said that sanctions will be released immediately after the end of the dealings.
A joint deal should normally have a single output paper, if dealers know how to write a meeting report.
Iranians are now right to ask the application of their deal output paper.
I see therefore in the near future a restart of the Nuclear v/s Sanctions dealing, hoping then a more honest and serious behavior from the USA part, unless USA is accepting the Israel's and Saudi Arabia's blackmail.
1
Just as in any compromise, there is a certain level of risk inherent in this deal, no matter its shape or form. However, let's not ignore the tremendous amount of leverage this deal could grant us with respect to foreign relations in the Middle East (e.g., leverage against Saudi, who has consciously been dropping the price of oil to prevent growth of our shale industry) and other foreign powers (e.g., leverage against Russia and China, who have long enjoyed opportunities in Iran, be it oil transactions or business expansion, with little competition from the West). This can be a great opportunity for us, so there is good reason to be optimistic.
1
There he goes again DEMANDING everything his way ! LIke I said you CAN't trust muslim leaders
3
Iran knows well how to negotiate. We appear desperate and Iran keeps pushing for more. In the end Iran wants the sanctions lifted immediately and it will never agree to military and snap inspections. It will probably get both, with minor face saving complicated, confusing language to allow the U.S. to spin a different story.
The President is betting his legacy on this agreement. The immediate lifting of sanctions and weak oversight and insufficient inspections would be a clear path to an economically strong, nuclear Iran. It would be a disaster to the U.S.and would inject into an already inflamed Middle East a nuclear arms race. Not to mention Israel's reaction. We need to slow the process down and regroup. If that is not possible we must walk away.
The President is betting his legacy on this agreement. The immediate lifting of sanctions and weak oversight and insufficient inspections would be a clear path to an economically strong, nuclear Iran. It would be a disaster to the U.S.and would inject into an already inflamed Middle East a nuclear arms race. Not to mention Israel's reaction. We need to slow the process down and regroup. If that is not possible we must walk away.
2
I think this is absolutely a joke. I mean trying to stop Iran from enriching uranium active matter so that it can be very rich to produce nuclear bomb. I mean Iranian are rich and they have a lots of oil that can buy nuclear warhead from corrupt countries such as China , North Korea, Russia, other corrupt contries and use it against enemies.
2
If he's being truthful, then there's no deal.
2
Let us lift the sanctions on Iran and Cuba on the same day.
Iran is justifyably leary of Israel. Israel knows it should have no worries about any nuclear threat from Iran. Their own intelligence has reported this over the years. This is just a ruse to control Iran's oil fields and its distribution. The mulitnational oil industry smacks its lips and rubs its hands in glee over the prospect. The Iranians are worn down by the sanctions. The bluster is to save face by the Iranians. But Israeli and American hawks would rather just take it and make money on wars. Israel has already stolen Syria's oil, in league with the Saudi's and the Americans.
1
Sure! and 911 was just a ruse concocted by the greedy American capitalist oil companies headed by George Bush, Dick Cheney, the Koch brothers and the devil to keep the rich guys rich.
Your fantasy won't hold water or oil when Iran has the nukes. The rich bastions of the capitalists will be the first things attacked just ike the World Trade Center was. They attacks won't be on Podunk Iowa. No Americans no matter how much you despise them will "make money' on Iran having nukes.
Your fantasy won't hold water or oil when Iran has the nukes. The rich bastions of the capitalists will be the first things attacked just ike the World Trade Center was. They attacks won't be on Podunk Iowa. No Americans no matter how much you despise them will "make money' on Iran having nukes.
If true, makes it simple.
We walk.....no dea is better than a bad deal.
We walk.....no dea is better than a bad deal.
10
Let's just keep on trying. Iran's demand that sanctions be lifted when the agreement is executed is just a sign of how much the sanctions are hurting Iran. Netanyahu's demand that we make Iran recognize Israel's right to exist or scuttle the agreement is a sign of how dependent, demanding, and spoiled he has become. That's his job as PM. Reach out to your enemies and work with them instead of cursing them and bombing your weaker neighbors and blocking the State of Palestine and you might find peace for your people.
4
Indeed. Netanyahu's demand that recognition of Israel by Iran should be a precondition to an agreement is mind-boggling! Israel is not one of the parties involved in the negotiations and hence has no say in the matter. What's interesting is how the US media report every word that Netanyahu utters, engages him in countless one-on-one non-confrontational interviews while reporting NOTHING from the US's other partners in these negotiations and has failed to interview any of the Iranian leadership even once! Is it any surprise that most Americans have such a blinkered, one-sided view of the world?
It's hardly surprising to see Khamenei and Rouhani make these remarks, it's practically assured they are going to denounce any deal that does not provide Iran with unconditional lifting of economic sanctions. The pressure on the regime's coffers because of plummeting oil prices and funding of four proxy wars has taken a toll and the mullahs know if they don't get immediate relief, their hold on power is going to grow more tenuous. The practical issue the framework is that it's dead on arrival since it doesn't deliver on what the Iranians want and already the American, French and Iranian versions of what the parameters even mean are vastly different which is why by June 30, the deal is going to collapse just last the previous three negotiating rounds collapsed. Khamenei is an inflexible religious ideologue fully committed to keeping the theocracy in power and expanding it.
7
Is Ali Khamenei agreeing to anything on Iran's part?
2
He's playing his assigned role in the game. It's called "haggling".
There's a profound cultural difference between the American and Persian mindsets. In America, and throughout the West generally, the retail shopping experience involves little-to-no bargaining. It's about set, fixed prices set by the retail distributor take-it-or-leave-it, with some exceptions. Automobile purchases and leases involve some bargaining and bargaining skills most Americans don't have -- why they basically stink at it. They usually leave many thousands of dollars "on the table" out of ignorance -- in part because auto dealers are loathe to reveal just how low a price they will accept to "move metal"; how big a discount to the MSRP sticker price they will accept. They also rely on the opaque nature of the business, their salesmen's training, their own psychological skills and trade secrecy to keep buyers in the dark and off balance. All those give them an edge.
In the Middle East it's the same. A merchant's posted price in the local souk is really just the start point and they are expert hagglers.
What Iran's Supreme Leader is doing is haggling. He's raising the price of some aspect of any potential agreement to create something of value that can be traded later for something else deemed more valuable to Iranian interests. He's doing it to obtain future concessions. We sometimes call it "hostage taking".
There's a profound cultural difference between the American and Persian mindsets. In America, and throughout the West generally, the retail shopping experience involves little-to-no bargaining. It's about set, fixed prices set by the retail distributor take-it-or-leave-it, with some exceptions. Automobile purchases and leases involve some bargaining and bargaining skills most Americans don't have -- why they basically stink at it. They usually leave many thousands of dollars "on the table" out of ignorance -- in part because auto dealers are loathe to reveal just how low a price they will accept to "move metal"; how big a discount to the MSRP sticker price they will accept. They also rely on the opaque nature of the business, their salesmen's training, their own psychological skills and trade secrecy to keep buyers in the dark and off balance. All those give them an edge.
In the Middle East it's the same. A merchant's posted price in the local souk is really just the start point and they are expert hagglers.
What Iran's Supreme Leader is doing is haggling. He's raising the price of some aspect of any potential agreement to create something of value that can be traded later for something else deemed more valuable to Iranian interests. He's doing it to obtain future concessions. We sometimes call it "hostage taking".
Khamenei states, “The sanctions should be lifted all together on the same day of the agreement, not six months or one year later." He goes on to draw another very clear red line over the inspection of military sites, saying such sites would under no circumstances be opened up to foreigners.
The Sirens' song is Khamenei's temptation that although there will be no negotiations beyond the nuclear field, if the U.S. behaves well, this will become an experience that can be continued on other issues. He warns that if the U.S. repeats their bad actions, it will confirm that they cannot be trusted.
Khamenei has artfully dangled the carrot of hope for improving overall relations along with the fact that if he doesn't get his way and negotiations fail, the U.S. is at fault, and he is not concerned if they fail.
Immediate lifting of sanctions upon signing or implementing the agreement will remove important leverage with Iran to insure continued compliance with the agreement. The inability to inspect military sites closes the door to areas where potential violations could occur, with no way of verifying this.
If the purpose of the agreement is to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon and increasing breakout time to one year, these areas of disagreement should be deal breakers. Also, the fact that Khamenei states that the White House fact sheet is an example of lying and breaching promises is not an auspicious sign. The negotiators have a tough climb ahead.
The Sirens' song is Khamenei's temptation that although there will be no negotiations beyond the nuclear field, if the U.S. behaves well, this will become an experience that can be continued on other issues. He warns that if the U.S. repeats their bad actions, it will confirm that they cannot be trusted.
Khamenei has artfully dangled the carrot of hope for improving overall relations along with the fact that if he doesn't get his way and negotiations fail, the U.S. is at fault, and he is not concerned if they fail.
Immediate lifting of sanctions upon signing or implementing the agreement will remove important leverage with Iran to insure continued compliance with the agreement. The inability to inspect military sites closes the door to areas where potential violations could occur, with no way of verifying this.
If the purpose of the agreement is to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon and increasing breakout time to one year, these areas of disagreement should be deal breakers. Also, the fact that Khamenei states that the White House fact sheet is an example of lying and breaching promises is not an auspicious sign. The negotiators have a tough climb ahead.
5
So now, within days, Ayatollah Khamenei is contradicting Obama about the terms of the "framework" and demanding that sanctions be lifted immediately and inspections of military bases be off limits. Either our president was not truthful and the Ayatollah let the cat our of the bag - or the Iranians cannot be trusted to keep their word. Shocking!!
And, by the way, why are we not insisting on the immediate release of all American prisoners in Iran, including Amir Hekmati, an Arizona-born American citizen, and a decorated U. S. Marine combat veteran who has endured 3-1/2 years of torture - for committing the crime of wanting to visit his dying grandmother?
Increase the sanctions exponentially - till they cry "uncle" - or pussyfoot around this problem and wait for the horrors to come.
And, by the way, why are we not insisting on the immediate release of all American prisoners in Iran, including Amir Hekmati, an Arizona-born American citizen, and a decorated U. S. Marine combat veteran who has endured 3-1/2 years of torture - for committing the crime of wanting to visit his dying grandmother?
Increase the sanctions exponentially - till they cry "uncle" - or pussyfoot around this problem and wait for the horrors to come.
12
Iran will never let anyone into their military sites, no matter they say.
7
Actually there may be a silver lining to this dark cloud. If the European negotiating partners - along with Russia and China - find the failure of the agreement is on Iran's back and not the USA, they will be more willing to continue with the sanctions. If they perceive the US blew up the deal, they might back away from the sanctions. It would allow the Republicans in Congress to go all Rambo like and increase the sanctions and it give Israel and the USA a way to walk away from the schoolyard brawl that is going on. And all can say, thank you Ayatollah.
2
A commenter looks forward to the day when Khamenei is not around:
"Sometimes a deal isn't possible, but on the upside, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is 75, so we won't have to deal with him forever."
Khamenei's position is pretty solid, but what criticism is leveled at him (apart from the protests following Ahmadinejad's re-election in 2009) has come mostly from conservatives on the Assembly of Experts (the popularly elected body that picks, and can remove at any time, the Supreme Leader). Those critics think Khamenei isn't conservative enough. Their criticisms aren't strong enough, nor are they numerous enough, that Khamenei has any prospect of being removed, but you should know what his critics think his shortcomings are.
In other words, count your blessings. Khamenei is a pretty reasonable guy compared to some of the nut-cases out there.
"Sometimes a deal isn't possible, but on the upside, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is 75, so we won't have to deal with him forever."
Khamenei's position is pretty solid, but what criticism is leveled at him (apart from the protests following Ahmadinejad's re-election in 2009) has come mostly from conservatives on the Assembly of Experts (the popularly elected body that picks, and can remove at any time, the Supreme Leader). Those critics think Khamenei isn't conservative enough. Their criticisms aren't strong enough, nor are they numerous enough, that Khamenei has any prospect of being removed, but you should know what his critics think his shortcomings are.
In other words, count your blessings. Khamenei is a pretty reasonable guy compared to some of the nut-cases out there.
1
According to the Iranian Foreign Minister and head of its Nuclear Program, Iran will begin using its highest powered IR-8 centrifuges the day the deal Obama signed goes into effect. These centrifuges will enrich uranium 20 times faster than its current ones. Parliament was briefed on the plans and the Iranian news agency, FARS, publicized them.
It added that gas will be injected into the products.
Foreign Minister Zarif told parliament that Iran is capable of producing atomic weapons at any moment it wishes with its current and planned capabilities.
Once the genie is out of the bottle, it cannot be put back.
The deal signed by Obama and the EU prohibits such conduct but as the Iranians have made clear, they have no intention of honoring the Western interpretation of it. They have their own agenda and plans and no one will stop them, especially once sanctions are lifted.
And so will history read the final nail in the coffin of Obama's foreign policy failures.
Peace in our time.
It added that gas will be injected into the products.
Foreign Minister Zarif told parliament that Iran is capable of producing atomic weapons at any moment it wishes with its current and planned capabilities.
Once the genie is out of the bottle, it cannot be put back.
The deal signed by Obama and the EU prohibits such conduct but as the Iranians have made clear, they have no intention of honoring the Western interpretation of it. They have their own agenda and plans and no one will stop them, especially once sanctions are lifted.
And so will history read the final nail in the coffin of Obama's foreign policy failures.
Peace in our time.
9
Lifting sanctions right away: fair
Disallowing UN Inspectors on military sites: renders the treaty worthless and non-negotiable
I'll trade the first for ending "Death to America" chants as an automatic part of Friday prayers.
Obama is not the world's greatest negotiator, but fortunately he is not the one doing the actual negotiating here...
Disallowing UN Inspectors on military sites: renders the treaty worthless and non-negotiable
I'll trade the first for ending "Death to America" chants as an automatic part of Friday prayers.
Obama is not the world's greatest negotiator, but fortunately he is not the one doing the actual negotiating here...
We cannot seriously expect to get what we want without giving something they want. Ending nuclear work while keeping sanctions in place was always impossible.
How much for how much was always the question. With details to be worked out, both sides take a maximal position.
There is more wiggle room to the Iranian words, given how they have interpreted them in the past.
"Military sites" that have nuclear materialare already inspected, including Fordo. Therefore, they are not really refusing that. They are saying we can't wander about doing other things, not nuclear, under cover of claims it is nuclear. We did that in Iraq, and they won't let us do it to them. That is detail.
"Sanctions" mean many kinds of things imposed for many reasons. "All sanctions" means whatever we agree it means. Sanctions purported to be for other reasons are not included, and those are many.
Likewise, "implimentation" can mean doing it all and proving it was done, which is the US position, or something before that, which is their position in the "details."
Those who don't want any deal are spreading hype. Things are exactly as they were expected to be.
How much for how much was always the question. With details to be worked out, both sides take a maximal position.
There is more wiggle room to the Iranian words, given how they have interpreted them in the past.
"Military sites" that have nuclear materialare already inspected, including Fordo. Therefore, they are not really refusing that. They are saying we can't wander about doing other things, not nuclear, under cover of claims it is nuclear. We did that in Iraq, and they won't let us do it to them. That is detail.
"Sanctions" mean many kinds of things imposed for many reasons. "All sanctions" means whatever we agree it means. Sanctions purported to be for other reasons are not included, and those are many.
Likewise, "implimentation" can mean doing it all and proving it was done, which is the US position, or something before that, which is their position in the "details."
Those who don't want any deal are spreading hype. Things are exactly as they were expected to be.
10
@Mark: I agree with you for the most part but who gets to define what constitutes a military site? Khameini? The Revolutionary Guard? Needless to say you can do nuclear development at (or under) an amusement park if you really choose to do so. Personally I don't much care whether the Iranians manage to develop a handful of nukes but, for those who do, I can't imagine they're going along with the notion that the mullahs and the generals can unilaterally decide where the inspectors are permitted to go.
1
"who gets to define what constitutes a military site?"
That already was dealt with in the negotiations.
Obviously, they cannot unilaterally declare places off limits.
Just as obviously at least to them, we cannot unilaterally go anywhere on our own say so, because we could and in Iraq did abuse that. We bragged about how we abused it, and it is well known there.
What was agreed is a "commission of experts" to whom the West would present some reason to inspect a site. The commission would decide if it is a good faith investigation.
A "detail" is who is on the commission. There are plenty of decent options, not in the pocket of either side.
That already was dealt with in the negotiations.
Obviously, they cannot unilaterally declare places off limits.
Just as obviously at least to them, we cannot unilaterally go anywhere on our own say so, because we could and in Iraq did abuse that. We bragged about how we abused it, and it is well known there.
What was agreed is a "commission of experts" to whom the West would present some reason to inspect a site. The commission would decide if it is a good faith investigation.
A "detail" is who is on the commission. There are plenty of decent options, not in the pocket of either side.
Just bomb them now before they get nuclear weapons or we will all be sorry. They are making fools of us before the world for trying to negotiate with them. If there's one thing that the 20th century should have taught everyone it's that when a country goes rogue like Iran they cannot be negotiated with. If they wanted peaceful nuclear capabilities they can simply buy the fuel that they need. Someone in the club, if not the US then Pakistan or Russia can supply it. The only reason those centrifuges exist it to allow them to make a bomb. I am so disppointed in Obama, Kerry etc. I'm also disappointed that the senators and congressman who have this figured out don't have enough sense to talk to the president rather than publishing silly statements on foreign policy. That just makes Iran KNOW that we are not only stupid and naive but disorganized. Destroy these sites and they will come to the table. Let them just keep going and there will never be a deal.
6
All of this ridiculous chest thumping over Iran obtaining a very rudimentary nuclear weapons capability. The Middle East has had to accept the obfuscation of Isreali nuclear arms for decades. Their weapons likely include thermonuclear bombs capable of destroying every Arab city in the region.
The only reason the western powers tremble at the thought of a nuclear armed Iran is because the presence of such a weapon would put to rest any plans for some future military invasion. The U.S. has gotten used to being able to project its military might to any region of the globe where the 1% have a financial interest. An Iranian nuclear weapon means that such interference will be out of the question.
The only reason the western powers tremble at the thought of a nuclear armed Iran is because the presence of such a weapon would put to rest any plans for some future military invasion. The U.S. has gotten used to being able to project its military might to any region of the globe where the 1% have a financial interest. An Iranian nuclear weapon means that such interference will be out of the question.
1
You seem to ignore the very strong likelihood that Saudi Arabia and Egypt will be only slightly behind Iran in on turn bringing some "Sunni Specials" on line.
1
I don't have any independent way of verifying the true facts, but more conservative news outlets have reported the Ayatollah's remarks to be far more incendiary than calm disagreement over critical issues. Those outlets are reporting that the Ayatollah blasted the Obama administration for releasing the so-called "fact sheet" which they say affirmatively represents both the substance and extent of agreement between the two sides. Among other things, they indicate that he says that there is no deal until there is a deal, meaning that the negotiators proclaimed a premature victory.
Given these communications from Iran, the American people have every right to scrutinize every aspect of this entire mess, lest we find out that this arrangement is just a bunch of "sounds good" falsehoods and salesmanship, like "you can keep your doctor and health plan."
Given these communications from Iran, the American people have every right to scrutinize every aspect of this entire mess, lest we find out that this arrangement is just a bunch of "sounds good" falsehoods and salesmanship, like "you can keep your doctor and health plan."
4
It is so sad to see as to how domestic groups with vested agendas handcuff the President even when he tries to do things which are good for this country! This trend can only lead to making the United States increasingly irrelevant in the international scene; and that too by her (US) own, but very powerful groups! For God's sake, leave the President alone while he is doing something good for the entire country and her future generations!
2
There may be a "whipsaw" negotiation tactic being utilized here. The "Supreme Leader" sets a red line only to ultimately conced to off' set Congressional resistance to a deal. In any event, I remain confident in our negotiators to secure a verifiable long-term agreement to protect our interests or approbiately walk away from the table.
3
Any kind of peace in the middle east seems impossible to achieve. Obama tries to resolve conflicts in the world. I hope he has some success with Iran.
I hope Obama has some success with Israel.
1
The U.S. should remain steadfast on requiring a phased lifting of sanctions and the ability of UN inspectors to go anywhere deemed suspicious by a panel of international experts. Once international sanctions are lifted, reimposing them will be anything but a "snap." Allowing Iran exceptions for locations designated as "military" renders the agreement utterly worthless. U.S. policy has always been to assure that Iran doesn't develop a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it. Without the ability to verify compliance, this would be the bad deal the administration said it would never sign.
8
"the ability of UN inspectors to go anywhere deemed suspicious by a panel of international experts" is the Iranian position too, if you listen carefully. They just don't want the US to abuse it, as it so gleefully claimed it did in Iraq.
This is not a real problem, except if the experts don't accept Israeli forgeries "justifying" abuse of the inspections for non-nuclear purposes.
This is not a real problem, except if the experts don't accept Israeli forgeries "justifying" abuse of the inspections for non-nuclear purposes.
4
If Iran holds fast to these conditions, then there will be no deal and sanctions will remain in place. This has nothing to do with legacy or Netanyahu. Diplomacy should always be attempted, but that does not mean it will be successful. Obama knows this, will analyze the situation methodically and make a careful decision. That is who he is. People need to stop trying to act is if Obama's actions are dictated by narcissism - that is the purview of leaders like Bush. It is not in Obama's mature.
9
As to Obama's "careful analysis": his fundamental worldview is wrong. He thinks the Iranians can be trusted. Thus, his analysis will also be wrong because, as we programmers say," garbage in, garbage out."
8
Agree; completely....
4
Ah, did you notice that there are five other nations on our side of the table. You say with disdain "Obama," when in fact you should say the United States of America, England, France, Germany, Russia, China -- all of them by the nuclear powers and representing some 35 percent of the people of the world.
When the present Tea Party moments and future generations have a chance to look back, they will remember President Obama as the one who brought us back in contact with Cuba and Iran, winning us allies, reducing threats, as advancing the goal of world peace.
His Nobel will prove to be well-deserved.
His Nobel will prove to be well-deserved.
6
Neither Cuba nor Iran look to be US allies anytime soon, if ever.
3
No one ever said they would be or should be. And they are different. Cuba is a small island of a few millions 90 miles from us and incapable of threatening us (unless used as a base for another power as in 1963). It hurts us as much or more than them to continue the isolation policy that by now has become plain stupid. Iran is a nation of 80 million, a regional power in the middle of the world's powder keg, the Middle East. It can cause us and the entire world harm and we can cause it as much harm as we can and not stop that. So we do well to find other ways to check it, not befriend it, not make or seek to make it any ally but to check it.
I don't think C said that Cuba and Iran will be you allies, just that you're back in contact with them.
Clearly this is a negotiating tactic. The two sides will find a way to lift the sanctions, probably not at once. Iran will find a way to develop nuclear weapons and the means to develop them. War will not occur tomorrow but appeasement guarantees a war will come.
8
First, for all the posters who seem to think that Obama is willing to sign anything, just to have a "legacy," do you really think he wants to go down in history as another Chamberlain? None of us can tell what is going on in President Obama's mind, and most people realize that his legacy will be determined by the long-term results of the Iran negotiations, not just signing a piece of paper.
In terms of the deal itself, if Iran sticks to Ayatollah Khamenei's demands, there will be no deal. His terms amount to show-stoppers.
The only real question is what action the U.S. would take if the negotiations end without agreement, and Iran continues to develop a nuclear bomb. Would the country support another ground war in the Middle East, or would it even support an air war without any idea what the consequences might be? One of the major criticisms of Bush's invasion of Iraq was that we had no end-game, and this scenario may repeat itself unless we have a so-far undisclosed end-game planned for Iran.
In terms of the deal itself, if Iran sticks to Ayatollah Khamenei's demands, there will be no deal. His terms amount to show-stoppers.
The only real question is what action the U.S. would take if the negotiations end without agreement, and Iran continues to develop a nuclear bomb. Would the country support another ground war in the Middle East, or would it even support an air war without any idea what the consequences might be? One of the major criticisms of Bush's invasion of Iraq was that we had no end-game, and this scenario may repeat itself unless we have a so-far undisclosed end-game planned for Iran.
1
"If this deal doesn't go through..."
Did you watch Obama's interview with Thomas Friedman?
If nothing else was clear from that interview (frankly, quite a lot was, to me), Obama made quite clear that he'd done his homework on what sorts of agreements with foreign countries require Congressional approval, and which don't. Obviously the agreement can be broader if Congress approves it. But even if Obama has to trim what he can agree to, it's clear that (1) he is confident he can agree to the main points of this deal whether Congress approves or not; and (2) he is confident that Iran will consider even a trimmed-down deal worth doing (assuming Iran thinks the deal is worth doing at all, which remains to be seen).
To imagine that Obama would get this far while still leaving his fate at the hands of Congress requires naivete that is, to put it mildly, astonishing. If Iran wants to do this deal, and Obama wants to do this deal, this deal will get done.
Did you watch Obama's interview with Thomas Friedman?
If nothing else was clear from that interview (frankly, quite a lot was, to me), Obama made quite clear that he'd done his homework on what sorts of agreements with foreign countries require Congressional approval, and which don't. Obviously the agreement can be broader if Congress approves it. But even if Obama has to trim what he can agree to, it's clear that (1) he is confident he can agree to the main points of this deal whether Congress approves or not; and (2) he is confident that Iran will consider even a trimmed-down deal worth doing (assuming Iran thinks the deal is worth doing at all, which remains to be seen).
To imagine that Obama would get this far while still leaving his fate at the hands of Congress requires naivete that is, to put it mildly, astonishing. If Iran wants to do this deal, and Obama wants to do this deal, this deal will get done.
5
A "deal" won't mean anything if it is just between Obama and the Ayatollah.
For one thing Obama can't lift the sanctions with a stroke of his pen.
For one thing Obama can't lift the sanctions with a stroke of his pen.
5
For a second, let's forget Iran is pursuing a full fledged nuclear and uranium enrichment operation with separate dark military sites. Let's also forget that Iran hates the West, and openly advocates for the destruction of Israel.
Let's just focus on the fact that Iran currently supports multiple terrorist and destabilizing groups around the world. By allowing more money to flow into their economy and increasing their ability to do business with neighboring countries, the United States is indirectly supporting the same groups we and our allies are fighting against. That's illogical, even for a President who is far removed from reality (Obama).
Keep in mind, this comment didn't even touch on the dangers a fully functional nuclear system poses, nor did it touch on the fact that Iran advocates for the destruction of Israel. Add that into the mix, and well, you're bargaining with terrorists.
Let's just focus on the fact that Iran currently supports multiple terrorist and destabilizing groups around the world. By allowing more money to flow into their economy and increasing their ability to do business with neighboring countries, the United States is indirectly supporting the same groups we and our allies are fighting against. That's illogical, even for a President who is far removed from reality (Obama).
Keep in mind, this comment didn't even touch on the dangers a fully functional nuclear system poses, nor did it touch on the fact that Iran advocates for the destruction of Israel. Add that into the mix, and well, you're bargaining with terrorists.
21
"Let's just focus on the fact that Iran currently supports multiple terrorist and destabilizing groups around the world."
Let's not. This is a nuclear deal, not Israel's problems with Hezbollah and Hamas and the Palestinians more generally.
Let's not. This is a nuclear deal, not Israel's problems with Hezbollah and Hamas and the Palestinians more generally.
8
MarkThompson:
"Lets not"? Of course who you are 'dealing with' matters.
If it is true that verification is not possible, then it's a bad deal, for us. Israel's problems have nothing to do with it. And, if the deal can not be verified then we should keep all sanctions in place; Iran is going to do what they're going to do.
Let them do it with an economy in shambles.
Ryan: Really?? You think Obama's divorced from Reality; what did you think of Bush-Cheney?!
"Lets not"? Of course who you are 'dealing with' matters.
If it is true that verification is not possible, then it's a bad deal, for us. Israel's problems have nothing to do with it. And, if the deal can not be verified then we should keep all sanctions in place; Iran is going to do what they're going to do.
Let them do it with an economy in shambles.
Ryan: Really?? You think Obama's divorced from Reality; what did you think of Bush-Cheney?!
2
It's not a "deal" if both Nations don't intend to keep their end of the bargain.
A number of commenters oppose lifting the sanctions even if Iran does what is required of it up front and continues to do that indefinitely. These commenters never say exactly when they WOULD lift the sanctions. At the end of 10 years, for example? 15 years? Some framework provisions are to last 25 years -- would those commenters wait till then to lift the sanctions? Or what?
Why would Iran agree to take all of the steps required of it, and then accept that the sanctions will be lifted some day way down the road if and when the US is convinced that Iran is a nice country? Wouldn't that leave Iran in exactly the same situation it's in now -- only after having made very many significant concessions? Why in the world would anyone in his right mind take such a deal? Those who imagine that's how it's going to turn out are engaging in borderline delusional thinking, and I'm not sure which side of the border that thinking is on.
As for those who say the sanctions, once lifted, can't easily be "snapped back," of course they can be -- and would be. More important, if Iran breached any of its obligations, the US and others would promptly impose far worse sanctions on Iran than are now in place, and might even bomb Iran.
This is a non-issue, even if it helps to sell newspapers. Most of what Iran is required to do will be required right up front. If it does those things, and the IAEA certifies that, Iran will rightfully expect that the sanctions will be lifted.
Why would Iran agree to take all of the steps required of it, and then accept that the sanctions will be lifted some day way down the road if and when the US is convinced that Iran is a nice country? Wouldn't that leave Iran in exactly the same situation it's in now -- only after having made very many significant concessions? Why in the world would anyone in his right mind take such a deal? Those who imagine that's how it's going to turn out are engaging in borderline delusional thinking, and I'm not sure which side of the border that thinking is on.
As for those who say the sanctions, once lifted, can't easily be "snapped back," of course they can be -- and would be. More important, if Iran breached any of its obligations, the US and others would promptly impose far worse sanctions on Iran than are now in place, and might even bomb Iran.
This is a non-issue, even if it helps to sell newspapers. Most of what Iran is required to do will be required right up front. If it does those things, and the IAEA certifies that, Iran will rightfully expect that the sanctions will be lifted.
2
You've really missed the point. He said categorically that military installations would not be inspected. That means that Iran will simply continue to develop a nuclear weapon and a delivery system on military bases away from prying eyes. You nor I are not experts in what has to be done to insure compliance but the issue isn't the timing of the sanctions it's the degree of transparency that he's willing to accept.
Your position is based on the idea that what the Administration has presented to the American people is at least similar to what the Iranians are looking at in their interpretation of the "framework." Sounds like what the Iranians are looking at is a concession by the West, where conditions will return to what they were prior to the sanctions being first initiated. Plus they keep the processed nuclear materials they have generated since the first sanctions were put in place. Plus parts of Iran would be permanently off limits to any inspectors.
If we were to yield to the supreme leader's demands, this deal would make things much, much worse.
Consider this:
1) The article says that inspections have regularly taken place at Fordo and other sites that are in or on military bases or compounds.
2) The article says that the supreme leader demands that there be no inspections on bases or compounds
3) Ergo, if the deal were agreed to, Iran would be subject to fewer inspections, less scrutiny and could move speedily toward the production of nuclear weapons. It's basic logic
Consider this:
1) The article says that inspections have regularly taken place at Fordo and other sites that are in or on military bases or compounds.
2) The article says that the supreme leader demands that there be no inspections on bases or compounds
3) Ergo, if the deal were agreed to, Iran would be subject to fewer inspections, less scrutiny and could move speedily toward the production of nuclear weapons. It's basic logic
4
It is interesting that lot of readers here thought it was nearly done and I, as an Iranian expat, knew all along that there were more to it, nevertheless a big step in the right direction and anyone with a little experience in negotiation knows this kind of thing is customary. I am not surprised that they are talking about not disclosing or subjecting some of the military sites to the ongoing verification, given that US is still holding a sword above their heads (threat of military strike and bunk buster bombs so on so forth) and the way I know them, they do not call this a proper environment for negotiations. If the sanctions are lifted, I am hoping they can open up the secret military sites at least for initial verifications, after all, can anyone tell me which country allows inspectors from other countries inspect their military sites if they are not the subject of the negotiations. US and allies have the eye in the sky and use other means to spy into their affairs, however they are and they are protecting themselves. The main point in this , is to verify that those nuclear sites operate within the scope of the agreed plan and non-proliferation treaty; anything more, is considered as an unwanted interference in the sovereignty of an independent country. The whole point is to promote peaceful negotiations rather than engaging in a military confrontation and for war lovers, I say you have not learnt from the world history: these actions have never ever solved any problems.
2
The supreme Ayatollah had better change his mind or this deal is kaput. We would be fools to trust Iran.
13
"declaring that all economic sanctions would have to be lifted on the day any final agreement is signed and that military sites would be strictly off limits to foreign inspectors."
Clearly he is posturing. But, if not...then there is no deal. Sanctions get cranked up, his economy eventually implodes, the Israelis probably bomb the sites. All as it should be.
Clearly he is posturing. But, if not...then there is no deal. Sanctions get cranked up, his economy eventually implodes, the Israelis probably bomb the sites. All as it should be.
17
The lifting of sanctions can be a negotiating point of compromise. Iran, obviously, wants to have the sanctions removed immediately. The U.S. and some of its allies want to remove the sanctions only when Iran has closed down Fordo and dismantled the agreed upon number. Well, it's clear that some of this could be phased. Some sanctions would be removed immediately; otherws would be removed once certain conditions are fulfilled; and so forth. Hopefully, this agreement is not an 'either-or' type but ones of many intermediate compromises. Each side has to give up something in order to get an overall agreement. But, in doing that (especially if it's done with complete verification all around), everyone will gain because the world will be a safer place.
3
Negotiations are hard, making deals even harder, dead American soldiers are the hardest. Let's try peace before another war.
9
Iran doesn't mind trying war. They're already doing it (in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere). They know Obama is bluffing if he ever mentions force.
1
We were or at war in all of those countries and lost everyone of them. This is not a bluff they have the leverage.
I have read and heard that Saudi Arabia was the biggest military arms importer in the world, larger than even India, for 2014. And now the U.S. is supplying more military ams for Saudi Arabia to support its attack on Yemen. It is difficult to figure out what Saudi Arabia is doing with all these weapons or are they just flowing through Saudi Arabia for another destination?
3
I was once negotiating a restaurant deal. A couple days after we agreed on everything the seller upped the terms. I walked away on principal. The US and Europe should also walk away. Let the sanctions continue.
31
Don,
I've negotiated many deals. Sometimes the parties renege after reaching a handshake deal. Sometimes they renege after reaching a signed deal. It happens. Not in a deal like this, though. The parties don't agree to announce a "framework" if they don't really believe the deal is down to the short strokes. It stimulates discussion, and helps to sell newspapers, to point out that some open items remain, or to stress that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed," but the reality is that this is a done deal -- UNLESS it gets torpedoed by the Iranian government. I really don't think our government is in a position to torpedo it (assuming, of course, that Obama remains committed to it). If Congress balks, Obama will just do the deal to the extent he can do it without Congressional approval. Iran might prefer to have Congress' blessing, but my strong hunch is that Iran will take the deal -- if it gets approved in Iran -- with or without Congress' blessing.
I've negotiated many deals. Sometimes the parties renege after reaching a handshake deal. Sometimes they renege after reaching a signed deal. It happens. Not in a deal like this, though. The parties don't agree to announce a "framework" if they don't really believe the deal is down to the short strokes. It stimulates discussion, and helps to sell newspapers, to point out that some open items remain, or to stress that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed," but the reality is that this is a done deal -- UNLESS it gets torpedoed by the Iranian government. I really don't think our government is in a position to torpedo it (assuming, of course, that Obama remains committed to it). If Congress balks, Obama will just do the deal to the extent he can do it without Congressional approval. Iran might prefer to have Congress' blessing, but my strong hunch is that Iran will take the deal -- if it gets approved in Iran -- with or without Congress' blessing.
I have to wonder how much this move was influenced by Netanyahu's bloviated talk.
3
Ultimately this is all speculation.
We need to give the parties to the end of June and then evaluate the merits of the agreement.
We need to give the parties to the end of June and then evaluate the merits of the agreement.
Occasionally it becomes necessary for America to decide for itself what is in its own self-interests. If "almost all major figures in the Iranian establishment have come out in support of the framework agreement," it makes sense for America to pursue a similar non proliferation model.
If we follow the GOP and Likud we will get more wars.
If we follow the GOP and Likud we will get more wars.
3
If this deal doesn't go through, at least Secretary Moniz has a solid understanding of Iran's nuclear capabilities today. It won't all have been in vain.
4
Lots of "the sky is falling" posts after the Supreme Ruler moves a piece on the board. President Obama is "a fool," "gullible," "naive," and so on. "Bibi," the right's darling (they're too stupid to realize they are, to him, Larry, Curly and Moe) "was right," "knew what he was about," etc. The Supreme Rule is rubbing Bibi's nose in it, knowing Israel's not at the table. He's posturing, giving Bibi a taste of the false hope that President Obama will give away the store in a rush to cement his legacy. It's called shadow-boxing. Take a chill, people; let this play out. There won't be a deal tomorrow. And if, in the end, there's no deal, there's no deal.
9
Meanwhile, an enormous amount of time has been wasted, time the Iranians have undoubtedly been using to advance their nuclear weapons capability. As to moving any pieces on the board, the Supreme Leader's insistence on lifting all sanctions the day any deal is signed, not to mention keeping all their nuclear material, and initiating no inspection zones in Iran, sound more like check, and checkmate. Take a chill, indeed.
2
To the President's credit, all White House statements have been holding the line on the principles we laid out in the original announcement. Unfortunately, the Iranian Supreme Leader is holding the line at a position which does not agree with ours.
Sometimes a deal isn't possible, but on the upside, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is 75, so we won't have to deal with him forever.
Sometimes a deal isn't possible, but on the upside, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is 75, so we won't have to deal with him forever.
5
"Death to America, Death to America, Death to America."
As Thomas Friedman recently pointed out, "Death to America" is a chant so dear to Iranians that Friedman saw those words permanently installed in tile in a Tehran building.
But Iranian protesters chant "Death to …" many other people as well, including their own Supreme Leader.
Don't take my word for this. The NY Times has often reported it. See the link below, for example, where the quoted passage beneath it appears in a 2009 NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/world/middleeast/08iran.html
"The protests … included the most aggressive gestures aimed at the Islamic republic yet, witnesses said, with some protesters burning posters of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader."
As Thomas Friedman recently pointed out, "Death to America" is a chant so dear to Iranians that Friedman saw those words permanently installed in tile in a Tehran building.
But Iranian protesters chant "Death to …" many other people as well, including their own Supreme Leader.
Don't take my word for this. The NY Times has often reported it. See the link below, for example, where the quoted passage beneath it appears in a 2009 NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/world/middleeast/08iran.html
"The protests … included the most aggressive gestures aimed at the Islamic republic yet, witnesses said, with some protesters burning posters of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader."
3
We should yield to Supreme Leader on these points. In context he is not being unfair, for at least two reasons. First, Obama and Kerry made it clear they are determined to push this Frankenstein Monster of an accord through, no matter what. This is their crowning diplomatic achievement and their shared resolve to get a signed deal is manifest. Given that reality, and their many concessions already made to get the Iranians to start, then to continue negotiating, and then to finalize the agreement's framework, it is comparatively silly to let these further concessions be the tail that wags the dog and sinks the talks. Secondly, Supreme Leader is artfully calling the US bluff on sanctions. Obama/Kerry promised that sanctions can be reimposed swiftly if Iran fails to comply with the agreement. If that is true, what harm is there in lifting the sanctions once Iran signs on the dotted line? From the beginning Obama put himself in the terribly weakened posture of someone who would do anything to keep the other guy at the table. It is now time for him to reap what he sowed and to get this over with.
7
What's the point of an agreement? Just to lift the sanctions? The sanctions may be lifted without an empty agreement that does nothing to fundamentally limit, or contain, the Iranian nuclear program.
The twisted course of the ongoing negotiation suggests this is another twist. There will be others. In the end it also suggests if there is no deal finally it will be because the Iranians could not make one and the president will have done his utmost to secure an agreement. Iran will be the loser, not the United States, Europe, Russia and China will have lost nothing for the effort.
1
If Iran has used the negotiations simply to buy time while working fervently to build an atomic bomb, or five, then that is all they need to call the process a great success. The Administration can continue negotiating until that day.
If a deal is signed after Iran attains a nuclear capability, then the lifting of sanctions would be the triumphant conclusion for Iran.
Afterwards, their support of international terrorism and their lust for regional hegemony would be everyone's problem.
If a deal is signed after Iran attains a nuclear capability, then the lifting of sanctions would be the triumphant conclusion for Iran.
Afterwards, their support of international terrorism and their lust for regional hegemony would be everyone's problem.
2
The Republicans position on these negotiations is dictated by their hatred of the president, not by our national interests. They want these negotiations to fail, so they can hurl more invective and scorn at the president. Arguments purportedly based on the details are disingenuous, because their desire for failure for failure's sake is palpable. God forbid that Obama should succeed at anything. It's too bad they are indifferent to the fact that the goal of these negotiations is far superior to the result that awaits any triumph of their cynicism and hatred.
People of authentic good will, on the other hand, can only have one perspective on this: the cautious hope that these, and any negotiations with a goal of avoiding war, will succeed. People of authentic good will will experience sorrow, not glee, if these negotiations fail.
People of authentic good will, on the other hand, can only have one perspective on this: the cautious hope that these, and any negotiations with a goal of avoiding war, will succeed. People of authentic good will will experience sorrow, not glee, if these negotiations fail.
7
The Republicans did not say Obama lied. Iran did.
The Republicans did not say Iran will have immediate breakout capability - Obama did.
The Republicans did not say Iran will have immediate breakout capability - Obama did.
1
A commenter expresses a widespread sentiment:
"I think the [US] administration wanted an agreement with Iran more than Iran wanted an agreement with the West."
That's what I thought too. But when I read the "framework" terms, I stopped thinking that. To make the concessions it made, Iran must want this deal a lot more than I'd thought. Cutting its LEU stockpile from 10,000 kg to 300kg, giving up 2/3 of its centrifuges (and using only the first-generation version), etc., etc., etc.? Clearly Iran wants this deal very badly. Maybe the US does too but, if so, its negotiators sure fooled the other side about the extent of that desire, and reached a really good deal for the US.
Those who criticize this deal for the US either:
1. Haven't actually read the deal terms; or
2. Have an unrealistic view of just how much power the US has here.
"I think the [US] administration wanted an agreement with Iran more than Iran wanted an agreement with the West."
That's what I thought too. But when I read the "framework" terms, I stopped thinking that. To make the concessions it made, Iran must want this deal a lot more than I'd thought. Cutting its LEU stockpile from 10,000 kg to 300kg, giving up 2/3 of its centrifuges (and using only the first-generation version), etc., etc., etc.? Clearly Iran wants this deal very badly. Maybe the US does too but, if so, its negotiators sure fooled the other side about the extent of that desire, and reached a really good deal for the US.
Those who criticize this deal for the US either:
1. Haven't actually read the deal terms; or
2. Have an unrealistic view of just how much power the US has here.
5
You mean the deal terms as presented to the American people by the Adminstration, don't you? Apparently, the Iranians aren't taking the Administration very seriously, either.
2
A little perspective please: Israel is the one with 200 or so nuclear weapons, as well as a fleet of submarines that give it the ability to smash Iran to smithereens in the unlikely event that Iran strikes first. Moreover, Iran has no nuclear bombs. As far as trust is concerned, Israel nuclear arsenal is secretive, they deny they have an arsenal. Best way to peace in the Middle East: lift the sanctions , allow Iran to make a bomb, if that's what they want- they'd be crazy to attack Israel. Besides, the point of this whole charade is Israel's desire to regime change Iran ,with the U.S. serving as the occupying force. That what we did in Saddam's Iraq, with dire consequences. Don't get pulled in again, America.
12
No problem making a deal with Iran. But if they insist on certain unpalatable demands, such as all sanctions dropping at one time, then the US must be able to walk away from the table. Wanting something too much is not a good bargaining position.
14
"No deal is preferable to a bad deal."
Bibi's statement, of course -- but the question is whether this is a "bad deal" or not. If Iran takes the deal, it will be a good one for the US.
Remember: Iran can walk away too. The has no authority to negotiate any deal with Iran. Nor does any other member of the P5+1. Iran is talking to them only because it wants to get out from under sanctions. It's willing to give quite a bit to accomplish that (frankly, much more than I'd expected). But if it's pressed too far, Iran can simply walk away. Sanctions are very inconvenient, but crippling? Please. If this deal doesn't get done, Iran will just keep doing what it's already doing: bolster its ties with other world powers (i.e. Russia and China), and strike business deals with other countries that can be done despite the sanctions (e.g. a "barter" deal to supply energy to India).
The US isn't going to attack Iran. We all know that. And if the US did, that would only accelerate Iran's efforts to distance itself from the West, and would quickly expose the very real limits of US power.
Bottom line: Iran needs to like this deal too, not merely the US. The US got the better deal here, and we'd be really foolish to give that up.
Bibi's statement, of course -- but the question is whether this is a "bad deal" or not. If Iran takes the deal, it will be a good one for the US.
Remember: Iran can walk away too. The has no authority to negotiate any deal with Iran. Nor does any other member of the P5+1. Iran is talking to them only because it wants to get out from under sanctions. It's willing to give quite a bit to accomplish that (frankly, much more than I'd expected). But if it's pressed too far, Iran can simply walk away. Sanctions are very inconvenient, but crippling? Please. If this deal doesn't get done, Iran will just keep doing what it's already doing: bolster its ties with other world powers (i.e. Russia and China), and strike business deals with other countries that can be done despite the sanctions (e.g. a "barter" deal to supply energy to India).
The US isn't going to attack Iran. We all know that. And if the US did, that would only accelerate Iran's efforts to distance itself from the West, and would quickly expose the very real limits of US power.
Bottom line: Iran needs to like this deal too, not merely the US. The US got the better deal here, and we'd be really foolish to give that up.
3
It's only a good deal if we retain leverage to force the Iranians to comply. This is forfeited once the sanctions are lifted.
12
If Israel has skin in the game so does Iran. According to Bibi, Iran may annihilate Israel. And Israel could do that right now because they already are sitting on a huge nuclear arsenal. Iran needs at the very least three months to a bomb. Israel can bomb Iran in a 'few days' to smithereens. As for Bibi being right - he has been crying wolf, wolf for the past decade. How right is that? We cannot make countries do what we and Israel want. Netanyahu's statement that Fordo is impervious to bombing is beyond comprehension. Which country would have facilities primed so that they can be bombed. What gives Israel the right to pre-emptive bombing? What do we ( really Israel) want? Make Palestinians of the Iranians in the lands which have been theirs for centuries. It is not some nouveau country thrust upon their land. They are a "RACE" in their own homeland. They are a proud people. Push them too hard and we will end up with naught. Israel should be very careful what it wishes for since they have skin in the game. Iran's distrust of us has a history behind it. We cannot just afford to be nonchalant about it. The Iranians have agreed to nuclear inspections and that does not mean all military facilities. They too are concerned about their country just like everyone else.
5
It's strikingly obvious that nothing has in fact been signed, that the parties to the negotiations have divergent descriptions of what they are negotiating to achieve ("the immediate lifting of sanctions" vs. "blocking the path to an Iranian nuclear weapon") and now that the US is in the weaker position. Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that there is very little clarity being offered by the Obama Administration. Suggesting that we can trust the Iranians to secretly agree to our demands while publicly telling their people something completely different is highly irregular and does not conform to normal diplomatic practice, least of all with numerous foreign entities witnessing the proceedings. But what is most shocking and distressing is that this Democratic Party leadership we have voted into office is not being forthright. The explanations being offered for the crumbling non-deal are embarrassing in their desperate immaturity. Nothing is as it has been represented and promised by the White House & State to be.
11
If the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei thinks that he is the immoral equivalent of Benjamin Netanyahu, then let the people of Iran suffer accordingly. England, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the United States are trying to resolve this issue with a peaceful solution. If the Ayatollah and Iran prefer war, as does Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel, then let there be war.
3
"It's hard to see this as anything but the end for a deal. Netanyahu must be cheering."
I have virtually no doubt that some Iranian official will sit Khamenei down and explain to him that it's unreasonable to expect that sanctions will be lifted just because Iran signs a deal. Iran first must do what the agreement calls for it do up front. Then and only then should sanctions be lifted. On the other hand, if the US has in mind that Iran must comply for some long period of time before sanctions get lifted, the US would be unreasonable.
Almost certainly, the deal will be:
1. Iran must do what it's required to do up front -- a great deal.
2. Once the IAEA inspectors certify that Iran has done that, the sanctions get lifted.
3. The sanctions stay off unless and until the IAEA inspectors say Iran has breached its obligations (including its obligations to allow inspections).
This may be confusing to Khamenei and his US-government counterparts, but I'm confident it's clear to the negotiators and that they consider this to be a non-issue.
I have virtually no doubt that some Iranian official will sit Khamenei down and explain to him that it's unreasonable to expect that sanctions will be lifted just because Iran signs a deal. Iran first must do what the agreement calls for it do up front. Then and only then should sanctions be lifted. On the other hand, if the US has in mind that Iran must comply for some long period of time before sanctions get lifted, the US would be unreasonable.
Almost certainly, the deal will be:
1. Iran must do what it's required to do up front -- a great deal.
2. Once the IAEA inspectors certify that Iran has done that, the sanctions get lifted.
3. The sanctions stay off unless and until the IAEA inspectors say Iran has breached its obligations (including its obligations to allow inspections).
This may be confusing to Khamenei and his US-government counterparts, but I'm confident it's clear to the negotiators and that they consider this to be a non-issue.
3
Yes, and #2 is essentially what UN Security Council Resolution 1696 says so it makes sense that lifting it would have to satisfy that requirement. That the IAEA is satisfied of the peaceful nature of their nuclear program (or that as a minimum they are in compliance with whatever the final terms agreed on are.
President Obama and Kerry are so desperate that by the time this thing comes down, Iran will be giving up nothing and gaining everything. Either way - with or without a deal - isn't it obvious that Iran is going to build a bomb? So why are we at the table with them? And why, with an issue as crucial to the safety and security of our country, does this administration want to skirt the Congress? The Congress represents the only vote the American public has in this discussion. Don't we matter any more? Over and above ever other issue our country faces, on this one, the people deserve to be heard.
19
This is text book negotiating. Leave the decision maker behind the curtain until the other side thinks they have a deal. Let's see what Obama does.
6
Only a fool would believe that Iran wants to give up it's nuclear ambitions.
22
"Some of their enriched uranium will stay with them…"
Well, yes. They claim they need it to run nuclear power plants. Keep in mind that they're obligated to keep it at 3.67% pure or lower (that's LEU), and that they're reducing their LEU stockpile from 10,000 kg to 300 kg. That strikes me as a pretty major concession.
If either side gave away too much here, it was Iran.
Well, yes. They claim they need it to run nuclear power plants. Keep in mind that they're obligated to keep it at 3.67% pure or lower (that's LEU), and that they're reducing their LEU stockpile from 10,000 kg to 300 kg. That strikes me as a pretty major concession.
If either side gave away too much here, it was Iran.
2
Many commenters make the same point:
"Military sites off limits? That should kill any deal we hoped to make."
The Times was kind enough to post the "framework" last week when this deal got announced. I assume you read it -- if not, you should. You'll notice there's nothing in there about inspections of Iranian military sites, especially the unannounced "any time, anywhere" inspections Netanyahu is demanding.
What country would allow international inspections of its military sites? Are people who insist on this really thinking it through?
"Military sites off limits? That should kill any deal we hoped to make."
The Times was kind enough to post the "framework" last week when this deal got announced. I assume you read it -- if not, you should. You'll notice there's nothing in there about inspections of Iranian military sites, especially the unannounced "any time, anywhere" inspections Netanyahu is demanding.
What country would allow international inspections of its military sites? Are people who insist on this really thinking it through?
3
Whether it is Sunnis or Shites, we are all still the infidels to them.
In regards to Iran, a country that has millions of people chanting, "Death to America", they should be required to have international inspections by the IAE as their number #1 goal appears to be, "DEATH TO AMERICA, THE GREAT SATAN".
In regards to Iran, a country that has millions of people chanting, "Death to America", they should be required to have international inspections by the IAE as their number #1 goal appears to be, "DEATH TO AMERICA, THE GREAT SATAN".
1
What a bunch of suckers - Obama and Kerry wanted it so bad Khamenei could smell the fear. Game over. If Obama is desperate enough to go for this massive act of bad faith, the Congress wont be. Let's see Obama try on the "executive agreement not a treaty" gambit - the Democrats wont see the White House for twenty years.
21
When someone agrees to the price of your rug, you raise the price. The tactics of the Iranians are as old as humanity.
7
If we can live with a nuclear North Korea and Pakistan we can live with a nuclear Iran. A deal will be made because there is economic and geo-political benefit to both sides that has little to do with nuclear weapons. When you get past the noise and follow the money you get a deal.
7
Problem with that line of reasoning, which is good, is what if we get to the end of the line with one of these nuclear nations we're 'living' with.
The U.S. was taken by surprise when Pakistan tested a nuclear missile. Although it had been a campaign platform, the CIA analysts thought it was a bluff, and that's not something you want to be caught off guard with. (Source of that was an NPR interview I heard many years ago).
The U.S. was taken by surprise when Pakistan tested a nuclear missile. Although it had been a campaign platform, the CIA analysts thought it was a bluff, and that's not something you want to be caught off guard with. (Source of that was an NPR interview I heard many years ago).
And a Saudi nuclear state, and an Egyptian one, and a Turkish one...
This "When do the sanctions get lifted?" issue is a red herring, and I expect it will be solved very easily and quickly by the negotiators. Iran would be unreasonable to expect sanctions to be lifted merely because it signs an agreement. But once it signs, AND does what the agreement requires it to do right off the bat – a very great deal – sanctions should be lifted and should remain off unless and until Iran breaches its obligations.
Frankly, this seems obvious to me, and I suspect that's exactly what the negotiators for both sides anticipate will be the deal. This is a non-issue.
Frankly, this seems obvious to me, and I suspect that's exactly what the negotiators for both sides anticipate will be the deal. This is a non-issue.
5
There is some distance here between the Iranians' demand for immediate living, Kerry's "phased lifting" and the French's "symbolic lifting".
An immediate lifting after only initial compliance would be a surrender of all future compliance requirements.
An immediate lifting after only initial compliance would be a surrender of all future compliance requirements.
2
"An immediate lifting after only initial compliance would be a surrender of all future compliance requirements."
I'll bite -- why is that?
I'll bite -- why is that?
1
Pretty easy to imagine why Iran would want to have its military bases not open to inspection by the West when the West is constantly threatening war. Maybe if WE (esp. the US and Israel) agree to make OUR bases open to THEIR inspection they'll reciprocate.
I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not holding my breath.
9
With our congress flexing its muscles and Netanyahu's pronouncements of dooms day scenario, Ayotollah's remarks puts the things in proper perspective-we do not hold all the cards and our own record in world affairs is not as trustworthy either as we would like to boast, especially when it comes to Middle East.
4
Netanyahu is demanding that Iran allow unannounced inspections of its military sites -- anywhere, any time. But I don't hear Netanyahu offering to let inspectors look at Israeli military sites -- even with an appointment made months in advance, much less unannounced. Maybe Bibi should make that offer, just to show he's a fair-minded guy.
14
This is scary. On further thinking about this deal, I am starting to move more to Netanyahu's side. Remember, Israel is a tiny country; just ONE bomb would destroy Israel, in its entirety.
I wonder how Americans would feel if our nation was just about the size of New Jersey, with most of our population contained within reach of a single nuclear weapon (or a coordinated attach of several dirty bombs) - either launched by our enemy from less than 1800 miles away, or delivered from another nation literally on our doorstep, like Palestine or Lebanon via terrorist cells that were actively supported by an enemy that has sworn to annihilate America. What would we do?
In the above case, I wonder if we would be so sanguine about letting our enemy continue on its march toward obtaining atomic weapons.
Iran wants to destroy Israel. Iran almost NEVER seems to keep its word, and has - in spite of sanctions - continued to develop nuclear capability.
That said, Netanyahu has not helped with his diabolical attacks on Palestinian civilians. Something has got to give. Why doesn't Netanyahu ease up a bit, to see if that would make any difference with Iran.
This is getting scarier by the month.
I wonder how Americans would feel if our nation was just about the size of New Jersey, with most of our population contained within reach of a single nuclear weapon (or a coordinated attach of several dirty bombs) - either launched by our enemy from less than 1800 miles away, or delivered from another nation literally on our doorstep, like Palestine or Lebanon via terrorist cells that were actively supported by an enemy that has sworn to annihilate America. What would we do?
In the above case, I wonder if we would be so sanguine about letting our enemy continue on its march toward obtaining atomic weapons.
Iran wants to destroy Israel. Iran almost NEVER seems to keep its word, and has - in spite of sanctions - continued to develop nuclear capability.
That said, Netanyahu has not helped with his diabolical attacks on Palestinian civilians. Something has got to give. Why doesn't Netanyahu ease up a bit, to see if that would make any difference with Iran.
This is getting scarier by the month.
9
What he says and what the signed deal says may be different. What signed deal says is what matters before jumping to conclusions. Man, I thought I was a hot head but compared to commentators on the Internet, I am the Buddha. I agree with the sanctions being lifted on a set day, rather than have it go around and around. Otherwise the West should not have a deal and see how it goes.
I don't think Iran is making a nuclear weapon. They either already have some or they know how to make it. Either way, if they wanted it, there's absolutely no way to prevent it short of genocide. I don't think this is worth it for various reasons but mainly that even if Iran had a bomb, I don't think they'd use it. At this point, they do have the upper hand: if sanctions aren't lifted, they will be pressed into a corner. I think it is best to engage them and wait for the old people to die out.
I also think if he says no inspection of military sites, what is a military site is the next question. If the places where the nuclear research facilities are military site, then the West shouldn't sign to a deal and find out if Iran will develop the bomb anyway or not. But since they say that they want nuclear research for civilian development, then there should be no problem with inspections of those sites.
Everyone has to say what they need to say to pander to their audiences. The final question is what actually happens. Violence never solves the world's problems in the long term.
I don't think Iran is making a nuclear weapon. They either already have some or they know how to make it. Either way, if they wanted it, there's absolutely no way to prevent it short of genocide. I don't think this is worth it for various reasons but mainly that even if Iran had a bomb, I don't think they'd use it. At this point, they do have the upper hand: if sanctions aren't lifted, they will be pressed into a corner. I think it is best to engage them and wait for the old people to die out.
I also think if he says no inspection of military sites, what is a military site is the next question. If the places where the nuclear research facilities are military site, then the West shouldn't sign to a deal and find out if Iran will develop the bomb anyway or not. But since they say that they want nuclear research for civilian development, then there should be no problem with inspections of those sites.
Everyone has to say what they need to say to pander to their audiences. The final question is what actually happens. Violence never solves the world's problems in the long term.
2
Neither the NPT nor Iran's Safeguards Agreement requires Iran to allow inspections of Iran's military sites -- unless Iran has reported, or the IAEA claims to suspect, that "nuclear material" is located there. Neither has ever happened.
About a decade ago, Iran voluntarily started answering questions about "possible military dimensions" of its nuclear program -- a phrase so beloved to the US government that it's since been shortened to "PMD." Iran stopped answering those questions after a few years, pointing out that it wasn't required to answer them, that no other country was asked such questions, and that each answer seemed only to generate still more questions.
I don't blame Iran. Nobody demands to inspect US or Israeli military sites -- especially unannounced, at any time, as Netanyahu now insists. And Iran was forthcoming for quite a while. For example, when Iran was asked to let inspectors look at Parchin, its huge military research facility, it said: "OK, you can look at any facility at Parchin you choose, and you don't have to tell us which one until you get there, but you can only look at the one you pick." On the appointed day, the inspectors announced which facility they wanted to see, and they were allowed to look around to their heart's content. They reported nothing suspicious. A few years later, the US demanded that Iran allow inspectors to look at another facility at Parchin. Iran said "No. The deal was one, and you got to pick it. That's all. No more."
About a decade ago, Iran voluntarily started answering questions about "possible military dimensions" of its nuclear program -- a phrase so beloved to the US government that it's since been shortened to "PMD." Iran stopped answering those questions after a few years, pointing out that it wasn't required to answer them, that no other country was asked such questions, and that each answer seemed only to generate still more questions.
I don't blame Iran. Nobody demands to inspect US or Israeli military sites -- especially unannounced, at any time, as Netanyahu now insists. And Iran was forthcoming for quite a while. For example, when Iran was asked to let inspectors look at Parchin, its huge military research facility, it said: "OK, you can look at any facility at Parchin you choose, and you don't have to tell us which one until you get there, but you can only look at the one you pick." On the appointed day, the inspectors announced which facility they wanted to see, and they were allowed to look around to their heart's content. They reported nothing suspicious. A few years later, the US demanded that Iran allow inspectors to look at another facility at Parchin. Iran said "No. The deal was one, and you got to pick it. That's all. No more."
5
You are probably correct. America is to blame.
All true, but the major economies of the world are not required to trade with Iran, either. As a condition of entering the community of civilized nations, Iran must be willing to prove the benign character of their intentions.
People trust the United States, and even Israel, because there is more benefit than risk in that trust. Iran, on the other hand, has a terrible track record.
People trust the United States, and even Israel, because there is more benefit than risk in that trust. Iran, on the other hand, has a terrible track record.
1
"You are probably correct. America is to blame."
To blame for what?
To blame for what?
When one read the Wiki Leaks from all of the international players, not just American and sympathetic regimes, it was repeatedly proven the Iran does not recognize the difference between words and deeds. Saying something is as the same as doing it.
Iranian demands, history and current proxy wars with Saudi Arabia precisely reflect the plan to snub western diplomacy, build nuclear weapons and reestablish a Persian Caliphate. As ridiculous as that dream is, the world will suffer grievously should we choose to ignore the danger. Just ask the people of Yemen.
Iranian demands, history and current proxy wars with Saudi Arabia precisely reflect the plan to snub western diplomacy, build nuclear weapons and reestablish a Persian Caliphate. As ridiculous as that dream is, the world will suffer grievously should we choose to ignore the danger. Just ask the people of Yemen.
12
He's made an offer we will refuse. Hard to know whether this is bluster but even liberals like me won't go along with this. I trust our President before a strongman for whom who no one cast a ballot. If the talks fail, it will be a tragedy for the world but we have more time here than there.
5
This deal is an absolute sieve. It has been coming together and falling apart in equal measure in equal from the beginning and I'm afraid it will never be whole. The administration has made a supreme and good-hearted effort, but I think it's time to surrender to common sense. If Iran wants to do this the hard way, we can do it the hard way: Ramp up the sanctions even more ... and wait.
21
For guys like Obama and Kerry, how history is going to remember you is important. And it aint looking too good.
You don't want to be labeled as the guys who paved the way to Iran's first terrorist Nuke.
They broke rule no 1. "You don't negotiate with terrorists!"
Just a matter of time before something really bad happens again.
You don't want to be labeled as the guys who paved the way to Iran's first terrorist Nuke.
They broke rule no 1. "You don't negotiate with terrorists!"
Just a matter of time before something really bad happens again.
22
If ever, this demonstrates the importance of withholding judgment until all of the facts are in. Those of you who gushed with praise of Obama, and those who delight that the negotiations may have failed- each of you may be wrong. This process might go on and on and on with no result except extensions. Neither side wants a failure. After all this process began 10 years ago.
7
I think what everyone kind of forgets is that it does not matter if these countries get nuclear bomb capabilities. Let's say Iran develops a nuclear bomb, does anyone think they would actually use it? If Iran, or any country for that matter, uses a nuclear bomb against another country what is going to happen to them? The entire world would join to completely annihilate them, that is what would happen. I think they know the consequences of such an action. It's very sad actually that we have not evolved enough yet to get past the point that if someone else has a nuclear bomb then I have to have one.
2
Feb 2015 - Iran blew up mock American war ships with missiles in their version of war games.
Feb 2014 - 35th anniversary of Iran was celebrated by millions of Iranians shouting Death to America.
Why are we surprised by the fact that -
"military sites would be strictly off limits to foreign inspectors"
Feb 2014 - 35th anniversary of Iran was celebrated by millions of Iranians shouting Death to America.
Why are we surprised by the fact that -
"military sites would be strictly off limits to foreign inspectors"
16
While it is lovely to reach out to other nations, it is not wise to make ' deals ' with ones who have been yelling ' Death to America " for decades !
21
While I very much wanted, and still do, to support the administration on an agreement with Iran, I am having increasing reservations about this tentative agreement. There are just too many ands, if or buts, to put it too plain. Power can be described as when person A wants some thing that person B has or has control over, person B has power over person A. Person A regains power once they stop desiring what person B is or has control over. I think the administration wanted an agreement with Iran more than Iran wanted an agreement with the West, thereby leaving more control than safe or desirable in the hands of the Iranians. I know the administration would be unwilling to do this, and would be sen as caving to the Republicans and deserting our European allies, but in some fashion, it must communicate to the Iranians it is more than willing to walk away from this deal, double down on sanctions and even begin to explore military options if necessary. I do not think the Iranians are trustworthy and may even be more likely to use a nuclear weapon if it obtained one. The best way to seal a deal here is not unlike buying a new car: state your terms and be very willing to walk away. Then we will see who really wants a deal and how much they are willing to give for it. As the deal stands at present, it is not a good deal for the US or for the prospects of peace and stability in the region.
10
With every passing day its becoming clearer we don't have a deal but rather a framework for dropping sanctions gracefully, and allowing Iran to get itself out of its current economic bind, until the next confrontation occurs with Iran closer to, if not with, nuclear capabilities. And is there any real real illusion that this "deal" will not end up in an arms race in the region?
11
Iran knows we are a weakened country and is taking advantage of it. Our wars have been based on lies and our leadership is in turmoil. We are hated and disrespected around the world. So of course they have the upper hand. You can't bargain with liars. McCain and his ilk are salivating.
3
I read a lot of comments accusing Iran of dishonesty with none of them providing any evidence. But Iran has every right to be suspicious about the U.S. government and its intention; just check the long list of hostile actions done by the U.S government,orchestrating a coup against democratically ellected prime minister of Iran-Mosadeq, giving asylum to the criminal Shah, supporting Sadam with weaponry and intelligence in Iraq war against Iran,helping Sadam to aquire and use chemical bombs against Iran(according to CIA), shooting down Iranian civilian plane in Persian Gulf killing 290 people on board and then awarding the captain of the warship with medal of honor, supporting terrorist groups like MEK, making Iranian people suffer for 30 years by sanctions, supporting every dictatorship in the region opposing Iran namingly Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, threatening iran with military action on regular basis...
And the list just gets longer and longer.
And the list just gets longer and longer.
13
I wind up shaking may head in amazement at those who find any merit whatsoever in the Iranian theocratic dictatorship while at the same time excoriating the US. Iran is one of the worst violators of human rights, be it freedom of expression, suppression of women and the brutalization of gays. Iran supports the despots of the Assad regime in Syria, the terrorists of Hezbollah, the pro-genocidal Palestinians of Hamas, the murderous Shiites of Iraq and now the Houthis barbaric attempted takeover of Yemen.
In the past, Iranians lied again and again to the UN 's nuclear watchdog organization and will likely continue to do so. It's Supreme Leader just last week led a mob ranting "Death to the US" and "Death to Israel." It's leading military general less than a week ago said in no uncertain uncertain terms that regardless of an agreement on the nuclear question, his country still intends to "bury" Israel.
And now Iran's despotic Supreme Leader has an interpretation of when sanctions should end which undermines his own negotiators' comments on the "deal." All this underscores how foolish the Obama Administration and the EU now appear in even thinking they could reach a reasonable agreement with Iran's Islamist thugocracy...
In the past, Iranians lied again and again to the UN 's nuclear watchdog organization and will likely continue to do so. It's Supreme Leader just last week led a mob ranting "Death to the US" and "Death to Israel." It's leading military general less than a week ago said in no uncertain uncertain terms that regardless of an agreement on the nuclear question, his country still intends to "bury" Israel.
And now Iran's despotic Supreme Leader has an interpretation of when sanctions should end which undermines his own negotiators' comments on the "deal." All this underscores how foolish the Obama Administration and the EU now appear in even thinking they could reach a reasonable agreement with Iran's Islamist thugocracy...
3
Among the negotiating parties, some quarters within the US aside, there is very little support for continued sanctions. They have strengthened the Iranian hard-liners, given control of smuggling and the black market to the Revolutionary Guard and quashed exports, particularly to Europe. Deal or no deal sanctions would have withered.
As this article notes this may be (probably is) tactical rhetoric designed for domestic consumption, a la Khruschev's staged banging of a shoe on the podium at the UN, while bellowing "We will bury you". And that was at a time when the Soviet Union was a far greater threat than Iran is today.
The Iranian populace is rather young, well educated and western focused. The hard line leadership is very out of synch with them. Of course, no one has a crystal ball. But, if the Iranian leadership had broad domestic support, there would have been no negotiations in the first place.
Finally, the fear that Iran would use a nuclear weapon is not supported by logic and the facts "on the ground". Any such use would be pre-empted by Israel and/or the US. And if it were not, the retaliation would devastate Iran.
As this article notes this may be (probably is) tactical rhetoric designed for domestic consumption, a la Khruschev's staged banging of a shoe on the podium at the UN, while bellowing "We will bury you". And that was at a time when the Soviet Union was a far greater threat than Iran is today.
The Iranian populace is rather young, well educated and western focused. The hard line leadership is very out of synch with them. Of course, no one has a crystal ball. But, if the Iranian leadership had broad domestic support, there would have been no negotiations in the first place.
Finally, the fear that Iran would use a nuclear weapon is not supported by logic and the facts "on the ground". Any such use would be pre-empted by Israel and/or the US. And if it were not, the retaliation would devastate Iran.
13
So inspection is limited. The nuclear sites that they are able to keep are the ones that would be most difficult to destroy and probably take more that one bombing. There will be no gradual lifting of sanctions to see if they comply. Some of their enriched uranium will stay with them. so now we have limited inspection, limited destruction of their nuclear program, limited removal of their enriched nuclear material and unlimited billions coming to them when the sanctions are lifted. And, all of this is being dictated by the person who just recently shouted to his followers, "Yes. Death to America."
13
More inspections of Iranian nuclear activities than of Israeli nuclear activities (zero).
Too much over-reaction to these statements. This is politicing. Get over it.
8
This is great news. We are still at the table. The Ayatollah speaks. The dealing is continuing. Iran is having the internal discussions. The US is having, I don't know, some kind of internal discussion. A year ago I was thinking is this the best peace in the Middle East that can be achieved: Continual tribal and religious warfare, Jihadist rhetoric and escalation of aggression, saber rattling in the US, economic sanctions to increase the poverty and misery in certain countries? US should step out, oil or no. But Mr. Obama's instincts were right to keep after this and maybe, just maybe, this might be a first small step in bringing order to this region of the world. I would love to hear Jimmy Carter's take on this development after he worked diplomatically to bring Egypt and Israel to a peace treaty that still holds. We've spent a lot of treasure on bringing Peace to the Middle East.
13
This is an informative article, but how important is the United States is this?
If the other powers lift their sanctions, does it become that important what the US does? What seems to be the reaction of the others? These need to be discussed.
If the other powers lift their sanctions, does it become that important what the US does? What seems to be the reaction of the others? These need to be discussed.
1
For all you faint of heart, do keep in mind that if sanctions are cancelled in their entirety one day, they can be reinstated the next day.
And we have ways of finding out if nuclear activity is taking place on Iranian military bases; our spy satellites are the best in the world and we have assets in Iran who can tip us off to any mischief.
Apparently the Iranian people want this agreement to work. There's the matter of internal politics in Iran to take into account, and the Supreme Leader wants to show that he too has muscle and has played a role in the negotiations.
The worst thing we could do now is to continue with more Republican idiocy, or listen to more of Netanyahu's deal-breaking nonsense. Diplomacy takes a good deal of patience, which Kerry and Obama have in abundance, and I trust them to make it all work.
Also keep in mind that this agreement opens the door to cooling off our relationship with Iran. It strengthens Israel's defensive posture, and may take some pressure off the Iranian adventures to increase the power of Shi'a Muslims by decreasing the power of the Sunni's. A freer Iran is in our best interests for obvious reasons, but also because increased freedom and prosperity would provide pressure against the Iranian hard-liners.
Not to worry. Kerry and Obama, and the British, French and Germans have this one nailed.
And we have ways of finding out if nuclear activity is taking place on Iranian military bases; our spy satellites are the best in the world and we have assets in Iran who can tip us off to any mischief.
Apparently the Iranian people want this agreement to work. There's the matter of internal politics in Iran to take into account, and the Supreme Leader wants to show that he too has muscle and has played a role in the negotiations.
The worst thing we could do now is to continue with more Republican idiocy, or listen to more of Netanyahu's deal-breaking nonsense. Diplomacy takes a good deal of patience, which Kerry and Obama have in abundance, and I trust them to make it all work.
Also keep in mind that this agreement opens the door to cooling off our relationship with Iran. It strengthens Israel's defensive posture, and may take some pressure off the Iranian adventures to increase the power of Shi'a Muslims by decreasing the power of the Sunni's. A freer Iran is in our best interests for obvious reasons, but also because increased freedom and prosperity would provide pressure against the Iranian hard-liners.
Not to worry. Kerry and Obama, and the British, French and Germans have this one nailed.
13
"...we have ways of finding out if nuclear activity is taking place on Iranian military bases..."
Right, like when the CIA found out about the fall of the Soviet Union, the Pakistani Bomb, Iraqi WMD, etc, right?
Right, like when the CIA found out about the fall of the Soviet Union, the Pakistani Bomb, Iraqi WMD, etc, right?
Lifting sanctions on day 1 is OK. Not having access to military sites is not.
But hey, at least we're talking.
But hey, at least we're talking.
The start time for lifting sanctions may be negotiable but inspection of sites? No.
7
This may seem strange even if the Ayatollah's remarks are not well received here, but it is nice to see Democracy happening in Iran.
3
I totally agree. But even START treaties with Russia required inspections. I would also like there to be inspections of Israel's arsenal by the IAEA inspectors.
I am not a fan of Bibi Netanyahu, but let's step back a minute and consider this:
1. He has 'skin in the game'. If Iran an acknowledged sponsor of terrorists decides to annihilate first the 'little Satan', Jerusalem = Hiroshima......
2. How can you deal with people for 12 years, and when these negotiations started Iran had 100 centrifuges and now we are 'getting them to go down' to THOUSANDS of centrifuges? And with that the ayatollah's are already speaking out of both sides of the mouth, before the ink is even dry.
I am starting to understand Bibi and why he spoke to Congress.
3. Why was the option of war not even on the table during Kerry/Obama's negotiations in Switzerland? Didn't we learn from WWII that despots, whether secular like Hitler and Tojo only fear war --- where they will lose ---- more than anything else?
Unfortunately we now feel re the "deal with Iran" the same type of euphoria we all felt when the Arab Spring started. Look what that created. We should have dealt with Iran the same way Eisenhower dealt with the Germans in WWII: Unconditional Surrender.
1. He has 'skin in the game'. If Iran an acknowledged sponsor of terrorists decides to annihilate first the 'little Satan', Jerusalem = Hiroshima......
2. How can you deal with people for 12 years, and when these negotiations started Iran had 100 centrifuges and now we are 'getting them to go down' to THOUSANDS of centrifuges? And with that the ayatollah's are already speaking out of both sides of the mouth, before the ink is even dry.
I am starting to understand Bibi and why he spoke to Congress.
3. Why was the option of war not even on the table during Kerry/Obama's negotiations in Switzerland? Didn't we learn from WWII that despots, whether secular like Hitler and Tojo only fear war --- where they will lose ---- more than anything else?
Unfortunately we now feel re the "deal with Iran" the same type of euphoria we all felt when the Arab Spring started. Look what that created. We should have dealt with Iran the same way Eisenhower dealt with the Germans in WWII: Unconditional Surrender.
39
Now that hardline on both sides, Israel and the Ayatollah, have weighted in, it is time for the moderate negotiation teams to meet half way in the middle in the final agreement. Surprisingmy Israel is a hardline in this negotiation considering it is not part of the 6 1 talk.
3
Ayatollah Khamenei is the Supreme Leader, not the Iranian negotiating team. His word, not theirs, is final.
Give them a finger, they'll take the hand. Give them a hand, they'll take the arm. What kind of a wimpy superpower are we? Enough. There is little to be lost by having Iran with its current regime be ostracized. True, they'll get their bomb regardless. After Iraq and Lybia, it is clear that every dictatorship needs the bomb to sustain itself.
37
Just like Netanyahu needs (and has) the bomb to sustain himself.
GW Bush, his necons, Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu tried the robust, strident, interventionist and "premptive" war approach in 2003. Made the situation worse for westerners and Israel.
Been there, done that.
GW Bush, his necons, Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu tried the robust, strident, interventionist and "premptive" war approach in 2003. Made the situation worse for westerners and Israel.
Been there, done that.
We should neither be shocked nor even surprised that Iran is now attempting a "Bait-and-Switch." It is in fact a similar tactic to the "Hide-the-Locus-of-Authority" shell game which they have used more than once, whereby the government denies accountability for a given action but blames it on the Revolutionary Guards. It is also similar to the routine of a car salesman who says, just when you think everything has been agreed upon, "I have to clear this with my Sales Manager."
7
The way this "deal" has been going, expect the Administration to roll out a 1959 Edsel of an agreement, and point to the incredibly low mileage it has.
I agree with one part of what Khamenei has said: lift the sanctions the day the deal is signed. It is then truly a deal. Otherwise, it just goes on and on. The US and other countries should find ways of establishing enough trust in Iran's program before the final deal is signed, not after.
18
Yes. I think the imam who really calls the Iranian shots , is much more interested in getting the sanctions lifted than he is in honoring any agreements with America ( as in " Death To ! " )
1
Military sites off limits? That should kill any deal we hoped to make.
63
Although I am not particular fan of Fox "news" or Ted Cruz, it may be time to try out the newly redesigned 30,000 pound bunker busting bombs, dropped in tandem, by B2 bombers. Will it be too little, too late, still permitting them to develop a bomb 10 years later? I can't answer that, but judging from my take on history (Munich-"Peace in our time") I would say allowing this charade to continue, will result in the Ayatollah developing his atomic bomb, and the loss of many more lives than the 50 million of WW II. And they will be ours.
36
Right, like we know where they have hidden the refined uranium and plutonium.......... brilliant.
1
Ten years? At this rate the Ayatollahs might have more than one bomb at the end of January, 2017.
The $300 million recently allocated for 20 highly upgraded GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, will probably end up being one of the all-time best uses of our tax dollars ever spent.
35
Yeah that strategy has really worked in the past. Learn from the past or be doomed to repeat it.
At almost every turn, Iran's mullahs have clearly demonstrated their lack of desire for a real deal, but rather to test the West and especially Obama's desire for any kind of deal, even a bad one. If Iran can maintain its refining capacity, missile work and lack inspections and receive billions in sanctions relief then it gains everything. If not, it continues its "war economy" as Khamenei eloquently puts it and continues on its current path. That is the true strategy being pursued here and we would be wise to meet it head on.
18
Within the capabilities of the ordinary citizen, I have been a strong supporter of a workable solution to the Iranian nuclear problem.
However, if the demands of the 'Supreme Leader' are as reported, the whole deal is off for this American.
However, if the demands of the 'Supreme Leader' are as reported, the whole deal is off for this American.
21
Just as U.S have Republican paranoias that will do whatever they can to derail Obama and the deal, Iran also have hardliners that loathe U.S and consequently refuse any dealings with the 'devil'. So this stance from Ayatollah is not so surprising; he has to accommodate his hardline parties.
No body said this negotiation would be a cakewalk. Besides, the bridge between U.S and Iran had been burned for last several decades, and amending it cannot be done in few simple strokes. It requires collective effort, and most importantly,
resiliency. The moderates of both parties must stay the course, and not detracted by hardline propagandas from their mission to accomplish what could be a monumental achievement in peace.
No body said this negotiation would be a cakewalk. Besides, the bridge between U.S and Iran had been burned for last several decades, and amending it cannot be done in few simple strokes. It requires collective effort, and most importantly,
resiliency. The moderates of both parties must stay the course, and not detracted by hardline propagandas from their mission to accomplish what could be a monumental achievement in peace.
3
Very sensible comment considering the United States' history of interference in Iranian politics.
In the Middle East, going against your hawks doesn't get you upset editorials and a lawsuit, it often gets you assassinated. Anwar Sadat made the best deal with Israel any Arab leader ever has, and was murdered for it. I wouldn't expect the ayatollahs to cave, even assuming they want to.
Khamenei's words, as presented here, reveal NYT's first-time effort at fairness. Clearly, his course is not the absolute dogmatism usually portrayed. When he specifically indicates June 30 is not a hard-and-fast deadline, unlike the Administration and USC, this implies an openness not reciprocated by our side.
Moreover, the Iranian point about sanctions is absolutely correct. The sanctions violate international law. If the US were immediately to give assurances on that score, the second point about inspections in military areas would be far easier to negotiate. All the Iranians want is a show of good faith, which is increasingly receding from view.
Moreover, the Iranian point about sanctions is absolutely correct. The sanctions violate international law. If the US were immediately to give assurances on that score, the second point about inspections in military areas would be far easier to negotiate. All the Iranians want is a show of good faith, which is increasingly receding from view.
7
I have been a reluctant advocate of the proposal considering that Iran has advanced so far in spite of the sanctions being imposed and with the awareness that the country would ultimately succeed in obtaining nuclear capability. I do not feel that, in time, and without violence that the country could be stopped. However the conditions reported today are most disheartening.
Giving up all the sanctions immediately is not a big issue but any piece of ground could be called a military base and be off limits allowing Iran to proceed in secret and a faster pace to their ultimate goal. If the Republicans in the Senate were not going to defeat this proposal, the Iranians unfortunately and probably have. Secretary Kerry deserves credit for his efforts but unfortunately it all appears to have gone for naught.
Giving up all the sanctions immediately is not a big issue but any piece of ground could be called a military base and be off limits allowing Iran to proceed in secret and a faster pace to their ultimate goal. If the Republicans in the Senate were not going to defeat this proposal, the Iranians unfortunately and probably have. Secretary Kerry deserves credit for his efforts but unfortunately it all appears to have gone for naught.
6
Would everyone please stop this doomsday comments. The Ayatollah is also a politician/leader who wants to play a role in this nuclear deal, so far he is succeeding in fooling you Americans into believing that his demands is written in stone. It is not! Once he realizes the consequences of not approving a deal he will be the first to capitulate.
No deal is preferably to a bad deal. This latest development is unsurprising and is of course to be expected of Iran. The Iranians do not conceive of "negotiations and deals" in the same manner as Europe and the USA. This is one of the hallmarks in the difficulty of negotiating with them and one of the main reasons we don't ahve a deal. Perhaps we never will. The Iranians, for all their apparent good faith negotiations have enormous egos and are guilty of having the highest impression of themselves.
14
you could say that about Americans as well
Remember, Islamic Republic (of Iran): good. Islamic State (of Iraq & Syria): bad. At least this week. "We have always been at war with Oceania."
6
Love the Orwellian reference!
1
The NY Times and virtually all its Op. Ed writers have extolled the Iran deal and complimented President Obama’s bold new vision and Kerry’s indefatigable work. I can see what this deal does for Iran:
• It frees up its frozen funds in the West—more than $100 billion according to Iran. With which it can provide more funds to Hezbollah and Hamas and Bashar in Syria and of course it can fund more murderous attacks on Jews worldwide.
• It will be allowed to become a nuclear threshold state, which will prompt its neighbors to do the same and thus choke the Middle East with nuclear weapons. In fact if Iran quits the deal or cheats it will be able to have a bomb within a few months, after all Obama said they can do that now within 3 months (could Bibi have been right all along?)
• Iran will overnight become the most powerful most threatening new power in the Middle East barring none: Iraq, Syria and Lebanon will in short order become vassal states.
Can someone please explain why this is good for America? More precisely what are we in America gaining as a result of this deal? Your answer should not be about Netanyahu, Israel or any of the other countries in the Middle East—they have already let us know they don’t like this deal—it’s really not for us to tell them they will. Just what is the product of President Obama’s and Secretary Kerry’s new vision? I hope the response is not something like “peace in our time” or is it?
• It frees up its frozen funds in the West—more than $100 billion according to Iran. With which it can provide more funds to Hezbollah and Hamas and Bashar in Syria and of course it can fund more murderous attacks on Jews worldwide.
• It will be allowed to become a nuclear threshold state, which will prompt its neighbors to do the same and thus choke the Middle East with nuclear weapons. In fact if Iran quits the deal or cheats it will be able to have a bomb within a few months, after all Obama said they can do that now within 3 months (could Bibi have been right all along?)
• Iran will overnight become the most powerful most threatening new power in the Middle East barring none: Iraq, Syria and Lebanon will in short order become vassal states.
Can someone please explain why this is good for America? More precisely what are we in America gaining as a result of this deal? Your answer should not be about Netanyahu, Israel or any of the other countries in the Middle East—they have already let us know they don’t like this deal—it’s really not for us to tell them they will. Just what is the product of President Obama’s and Secretary Kerry’s new vision? I hope the response is not something like “peace in our time” or is it?
65
We gain by trading with Iran and we lose nothing if Iran gets the nuke. We are the US, not Israel. We are 12,000km away and we have rings of Bush's ballistic missile shield protecting us. The only MIRV that can get through only exist in Russia and China and our own base. American businesses and those of our allies are lossing out not trading with Iran all in the name of keeping Israel safe which is not our responsibility. Israel is neither our ally nor our friend base on the way it has been hehaving.
1
It’s not just about Israel. It’s about us. We are empowering a country that has been an historical power long before we came on the scene. The current ruling class is the US, Europe, Russia and China are you wishing for another member of the club here? A member who would tip the current mix towards the authoritarian regimes? We are not going to be happy when Iran decides like Russia to reassert its ancient empire—it encompassed all of the Middle East and of course all of the oil. Nothing Iran is doing now comforts anyone in the Middle East nor us. I have yet to hear about what’s so great about this situation.
2
Actually, Iran will move *further* from the nuclear threshhold. Currently, it is an estimated two or three months from making a bomb, with only partial inspections. Under the agreement, it will be one year from making a bomb, with full inspections to insure that it doesn't cheat. This of course assumes that Khameni is willing to compromise. if not, well, we are right back where we were, no worse off.
2
It is my feeling that the other nations desperately want to do business with Iran and so would gladly lift the sanctions. I suspect if you asked they probably are fine with Iran having nukes. It is those without nukes that feel vulnerable.
I have just started Judith Miller's new book. Already, just based on history, that region of the world hold long grudges and wait patiently to get even. So Saddam turned on "friends" and thus eventually they turned on him. In reality, everybody loses but nobody seems to care. Thinking we can trust Iran and have an adult agreement for the good of everybody is naive. Maybe Obama knows that, but even a pretend agreement would look good on his resume.
I have just started Judith Miller's new book. Already, just based on history, that region of the world hold long grudges and wait patiently to get even. So Saddam turned on "friends" and thus eventually they turned on him. In reality, everybody loses but nobody seems to care. Thinking we can trust Iran and have an adult agreement for the good of everybody is naive. Maybe Obama knows that, but even a pretend agreement would look good on his resume.
6
You are correct that Middle Easterners hold grudges for decades, and they don't really trust anybody who isn't in the tribe. In that vein, remember that Saudi Arabia and the gulf Emirates are mostly Sunni where Iran is Shiite, and Iranians are ethnically Persian, not Arab. That any of Iran's neighbors would trust them at all runs counter to thousands of years of tribal history (currently being played out in Yemen).
Ha. Good luck with that Grand Ayatollah. Iran has never ever been trustworthy, throughout its history. It's Persia. It's proud of its culture, thinks it was the greatest one to exist on Earth, and thinks the US and everyone else is a bunch of dupes. After all, if Iran gets a nuke, they have a totally different bargaining position on anything.
That said, I don't think war is a credible option. And I do think Obama is pursuing the most rational and logical policy. Peacefully solving this situation is in everyone's long term interest. So even though I think the Iranian leadership is a bunch of liars and thieves, I also see no alternative other than bargaining to be able to monitor them.
Bombing, that is a way way last resort. Not the first option, like so many GOP candidates for President lead you to believe.
P.S. Ayotallah - if you want to scuttle a deal, just keep talking, you clown.
That said, I don't think war is a credible option. And I do think Obama is pursuing the most rational and logical policy. Peacefully solving this situation is in everyone's long term interest. So even though I think the Iranian leadership is a bunch of liars and thieves, I also see no alternative other than bargaining to be able to monitor them.
Bombing, that is a way way last resort. Not the first option, like so many GOP candidates for President lead you to believe.
P.S. Ayotallah - if you want to scuttle a deal, just keep talking, you clown.
17
Perhaps the Ayatollah believes the Administration in Washington is ripe for the taking.
Ah because US is a saint country and Israel is the second saint ?
This shows the naivete of Obama to think that anyone can really expect good faith from these religious fanatics who have attained political control. And it shows the irresponsibility of Obama to all of us that he would jeopardize our security by his foolish Polyanna beliefs.
It didn't take long for Netanyahu to be proven correct about this deal with Iran.
It didn't take long for Netanyahu to be proven correct about this deal with Iran.
53
Our security? Since when did Iran have the mean to send an nonexistence nuke our way? We are 12,000 km away.
8
What rubbish. We don't know what this religious fanatic will do ultimately, but the worst thing that can happen is that we won't reach an agreement and will be back to the not very good options we had before -- sanctions, and, if they don't work, war. In no way have negotiations jeopardized our security.
3
If the agreement is signed the international community could not pose any sanctions on the Iranian regime just for suspending their nuclear weapons program. So the Iranians can slowly take control over the Shia part of Iraq and continue their terror campaigns in much of the middle east without interruption.
The truth is that the "west" is weak and divided. It did not stop N. Korea or Pakistan from developing nuclear weapon capabilities and it will not stop Iran or other middle eastern countries either.
The truth is that the "west" is weak and divided. It did not stop N. Korea or Pakistan from developing nuclear weapon capabilities and it will not stop Iran or other middle eastern countries either.
10
The West didn't not stop Israel either and in fact the U.S. and France lend a hand in giving Israel nukes.
3
Wow , that didn't take long now did it?? I wonder how far President Obama and secretary of the state Kerry will go to accomodate the Iranian people ??
6
And there you have it. The price you thought you had agreed upon to purchase that fine Persian rug, was and will continue to be, forever changing and always more expensive.
8
Tough sell for Kerry and Obama but if anyone can sell this to the american electorate they can. Their goal is a deal period. The spin will be glorious to behold.
5
If the deal does not go through essentially as it has been agreed upon, we need to pull out and tighten the sanctions. Let them drink their oil. And the Iranian people will need to be told that their Great Leader has subjected them to this.
4
Did anybody really believe Iran and its Supreme Leader were on board with these, or any other nuclear negotiations? I was not fooled, and said so a few days ago in one of these comment spaces. These countries loathe each other, and anyone who was reading between the lines about the recent talks could see that fact.
Now the Ayatollah believes he can dictate the details of next round of negotiations, as if from on-high. He will never be present in any of them, except for his menacing, ghostly presence over the heads of whomever Mr. Kerry is talking to. Back to square one, eternally, just like with the North Koreans, and with Israel and the Palestinians. World politics today. Get used to it.
4
This is the fourth time I've said this, Obama and the G5 have been talking to the wrong Iranian Government. He is setting up a future nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran because he suffers from wishful thinking and is deaf to the continuious Iranian "Death to America" chants. Time is running out and Obama apparently can't figure that out he's been talking to the wrong government all this time.
7
Americans ought to know playing to the base when they see it. Of course many are looking for any excuse to trash President Obama. Especially at moments like this when so many are running for the exits, it can't be easy to be him.
3
This agreement looks still-born if Iran sticks to a demand to lift all sanctions upon signature, and if IAEA inspectors can't go into Iranian military facilities. That's not exactly the rigorous verification regime needed. Sorta "Trust me, but don't verify."
5
Patience, we must have patience. Khamenei's latest statements about immediate removal upon signature of the sanctions, no inspection of military sites - just posturing. We need to stay the course on these issues. As far as the June 30 not being sacrosanct - they need a deal far more than we do. People were rejoicing in the streets of Iran when this was announced. Now he's going to string it out. We need to stay the course and let the dust settle.
3
As long as we have our noses in the Middle East, we can almost count on perpetual war. They will bankrupt us...just like we did the Soviets.
2
Everyone knew this would be the case.
They see the weakness of this administration, the gullibility, the eagerness for any kind of legacy and they, finally, played their last card.
Now, will this administration cave or show some resolve in this?
They see the weakness of this administration, the gullibility, the eagerness for any kind of legacy and they, finally, played their last card.
Now, will this administration cave or show some resolve in this?
10
Iran's supreme leader speaks like a man who believes that time is on his side. He is not burdened by a four year political cycle and seems prepared to wait out the P5+1. After watching him speak -- with an air of calm authority and wisdom -- I am now more certain than ever that the President Obama, in dire need of a legacy that will eclipse the dismal failures of his foreign policy for the last 6.5 years, will capitulate.
6
You mean you want Obama to capitulate! Our country's image has slowly recovered from the destructive policy of the Bush Administration, yet you have no guts to mention that. Where have you been when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" and then the discovery that there were no WOMD! Have you forgotten that Bush had no idea what to do after that? Four thousand Americans died in Bush Iraq war and you criticize a President who is trying his best not to have another senseless war!
1
Is this a surpirse? Ayatollah so!
20
2 conditions. Military sites off-limits should be a non-starter for our side. The reason we want a deal with Iran is to keep an eye on their weapons development. On the other hand, sanctions lifted immediately seems reasonable, since it's the reason the Iranians want a deal in the first place.
3
Reading the comments, one has to ask the question:
(a) Does most believe that America is the only country with internal politics and other countries have no right to or possibility of internal politics?
(b) Did anyone listen to President Obama's speech where he detailed that they are working on a tie breaker on what is purely military site or not?
(a) Does most believe that America is the only country with internal politics and other countries have no right to or possibility of internal politics?
(b) Did anyone listen to President Obama's speech where he detailed that they are working on a tie breaker on what is purely military site or not?
41
It's always great to get the input of the Ayatollah. Greatly appreciated to know what he wants. But, here's a clue: The International Community has a somewhat different viewpoint. Somewhat. But thanks for your comments. You can be sure your views will be given all the consideration they properly deserve.
2
Hmmmmm, maybe Netanyahu was onto something? If you can't trust the people at the table, then why did we waste all this time. Unfortunately, the Iranian people will suffer for their stubborn leaders. Sanctions are a must.
7
Military sites are off limits to inspections that search for military weapons?! That's so preposterous, how did negotiations possibly get this far before such a condition was revealed?
Once those sanctions are lifted, it's unlikely they'll be reinstated. Iran can agree to anything, then just cheat, the same way North Korea did... But try reasoning with them once they have a nuclear arsenal.
Once those sanctions are lifted, it's unlikely they'll be reinstated. Iran can agree to anything, then just cheat, the same way North Korea did... But try reasoning with them once they have a nuclear arsenal.
2
Enough is enough. Time to go home. If the Iranians are serious -- a highly doubtful proposition -- they will come back for more. This is not the souk and we are not shopping for a rug. They have over-played their hand, humiliated our President and Secretary of State and shown their contempt for our country. And this is BEFORE they are supposed to abide by the outcome. They are fools and knaves, and we must not give them the power to inflict a nuclear catastrophe.
10
Is anyone really surprised ? It was the only thing that got them to the table, and forgo the sanctions before we can see if they honor "any" agreement is absurd
5
Iran's political system doesn't have "supposed" competing parties. Every one drinks from the same bucket. So the opposing factions might all be agreeing same way all republicans or all democrats would agree with something but the Iranian leaders have to always hedge and be vague to accommodate all these factions.
There goes the deal. The ayatollah just waited for the right moment to kill it.
2
Sorry dude, if you wanted that in the deal, should have been there when it was agreed to. Now...you can drop dead. We'll not negotiate anymore. Hope you like sanctions.
2
Does anyone notice that we are negotiating the concept of nuclear bomb-making with the top Muslim cleric of the Shiite sect? Why does the Administration keep insisting that Islam is a peaceful religion when Muslim religious leaders are so militant?
4
This is one convoluted deal. It seems as if we have somehow managed to alienate our allies while allowing Iran to dismiss every key element of this comprehensive framework. They continue to chant "death to America" and refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist. They also refuse to allow inspections and they basically claim that nothing at all has changed. Sounds like they are hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons come hell or high water as fast as possible. In the mean time, the rest of our so called Arab allies in the region are scrambling to acquire their own WMD to counteract the emerging threat.
This deal is off to a great start. Can't wait to see where we are a few months from now.
This deal is off to a great start. Can't wait to see where we are a few months from now.
4
Hopefully the US doesn't cave to these ridiculous demands. It's time for a reality check about what we're really dealing with.
3
Wow, what a surprise!
T"he theocratic dictator who has been espousing death to America, Death to Israel" during every prayer for the past several decades, and openly supporting Revolutionary Guard actions in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, Argentina and Venezuela now wants to curtail inspections on his nuclear weapons development facilities and lift all sanctions without any guarantee of Iranian adherence to the deal.
Not even the anti Israel pro Hamas NY Times commentators can rationalize this action by the 'Supreme Leader'.
T"he theocratic dictator who has been espousing death to America, Death to Israel" during every prayer for the past several decades, and openly supporting Revolutionary Guard actions in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, Argentina and Venezuela now wants to curtail inspections on his nuclear weapons development facilities and lift all sanctions without any guarantee of Iranian adherence to the deal.
Not even the anti Israel pro Hamas NY Times commentators can rationalize this action by the 'Supreme Leader'.
12
As in the case of our many agreements with North Korea, this deal will be a total sham. At least North Korea would always pretend that they were playing along until they had an actual bomb ; Iran doesn't even intend to do that.
3
Anyone who thought that the Iranians would agree to the deal that Obama was trying to sell to the American people (as a "win", no less) is either naïve, a poor student of history, or willfully blind. The Iranians would NEVER agree to unrestricted inspections, and anything that they DID agree to would be skirted in those restricted sites.
Once the restrictions are lifted, getting a coalition to get the U.N. to act against Iran would be even harder than the last time(s). That's why we MUST insist that they prove their compliance before lifting ONE restriction.
While I applaud Obama's desire for diplomacy over conflict, this Persian tiger has proven its strips on more than enough occasions.
The GOP is wrong about a lot...but they're unfortunately correct in this case. Israel is right to be concerned that they're in danger and Obama really doesn't have the chops to protect/support/stand with our allies.
Once the restrictions are lifted, getting a coalition to get the U.N. to act against Iran would be even harder than the last time(s). That's why we MUST insist that they prove their compliance before lifting ONE restriction.
While I applaud Obama's desire for diplomacy over conflict, this Persian tiger has proven its strips on more than enough occasions.
The GOP is wrong about a lot...but they're unfortunately correct in this case. Israel is right to be concerned that they're in danger and Obama really doesn't have the chops to protect/support/stand with our allies.
5
Re the Ayatollahs comment that "I’m really worried as the other side is into lying and breaching promises, an example was the White House fact sheet..."
Hmm. Was he thinking of "“For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.”, which was Obama in August 2011?
Or, still in Syria, Obama's classic "a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized" from August 2012? Followed up by the Barack Obama/Robin Thicke classic of Sept 2013, "“I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”
Or Obama's citation of Yemen as model for a US backed counter-insurgency, back in September 2014?
Or Obama's pre-election claim that " we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq" from December 2011?
Or (bit of a longshot), perhaps the Ayatollah is still hung up on Politifacts 2013 Lie of the Year, 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'. OK, probably not.
Hmm. Was he thinking of "“For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.”, which was Obama in August 2011?
Or, still in Syria, Obama's classic "a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized" from August 2012? Followed up by the Barack Obama/Robin Thicke classic of Sept 2013, "“I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”
Or Obama's citation of Yemen as model for a US backed counter-insurgency, back in September 2014?
Or Obama's pre-election claim that " we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq" from December 2011?
Or (bit of a longshot), perhaps the Ayatollah is still hung up on Politifacts 2013 Lie of the Year, 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'. OK, probably not.
4
There is no deal. There never was a deal. It was all a fantasy in the minds of Obama and Kerry. This "deal" was based on as much reality as Benghazi being caused by a video, Yemen being a success story, red lines in Syria, the Russian reset, al Qaeda on the run, Bergdhal being a hero...I could go on and on. There was no agreement on sanctions, verification, the Fordo facility, IAEA violations, etc. Obama thinks that just because he stands in the Rose Garden and gives a speech that it becomes fact. I'm still amazed at how many people in this country still put any value in the nonsense that comes from POTUS.
5
"They are always trying to deceive and break promises.”
If you like your health care/doctor, you can keep it. Period.
Looks like Obama is consistent both in domestic and foreign affairs.
If you like your health care/doctor, you can keep it. Period.
Looks like Obama is consistent both in domestic and foreign affairs.
4
This is clearly a serious challenge----but nobody who claims the discussion is already over has proposed a better solution. I am thankful that we have a President willing to talk to his adversaries and attempt to make peace before jumping into yet another disastrous war of choice, benefiting only the military industrial complex and war profiteers. If the Israelis feel they must make war, let them have at it----However, most thinking Americans know that yet another middle east war will bring no real benefits or security to the United States.
2
So...there is no agreement
2
I think Khamenei is simply trying a last min Rope-a-Dope. He knows or should know that this is the last,best chance for a deal that will come Iran's way in his life time. Scuttling the deal will only confirm to the hard liners in this country (and with the Likud in Isreal) that the Iranians are not to be trusted and that racheting down on the sanctions are the only thing that will bring them around.
Maybe John Bolton has been right all along.
4
I say fine, no deal with Iran, but Secretary Kerry should keep negotiating. I also say re-institute the draft, so our neocon chickenhawks like Tom Cotton, Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol won't send our troops off on another misguided war without everyone having skin in the game. I'm tired of our country fighting Israel's wars.
1
OKAY USA ... Lift the sanctions with the understanding that they come back immediately if Iran violates any portion of the agreement.
Movement forward is FAR BETTER THAN NO MOVEMENT AT ALL ...........
Movement forward is FAR BETTER THAN NO MOVEMENT AT ALL ...........
2
Your statement, while appealing on its face, has no basis in experience. Moreover, it isn't even logical in the abstract.
You can't just turn sanctions on and off, off and on. Can't turn on a dime. And it makes us look weak, which we are, sadly.
Just withdraw from the negotiating table and double down on the sanctions. Let Iran choose guns or butter. The less butter it chooses, the more difficult things will be for its leadership. Most times, but not always, an autocratic regime will have difficulty controlling its people when they have nothing and nothing to lose.
You can't just turn sanctions on and off, off and on. Can't turn on a dime. And it makes us look weak, which we are, sadly.
Just withdraw from the negotiating table and double down on the sanctions. Let Iran choose guns or butter. The less butter it chooses, the more difficult things will be for its leadership. Most times, but not always, an autocratic regime will have difficulty controlling its people when they have nothing and nothing to lose.
2
"Trust but verify" - Ronald Reagan. Words worth remembering where nuclear deals are to be worked out.
4
Iran is demanding a sweetheart deal. Don't give it.
1
Real agreements are made when Both Parties appear after the signing of the agreement, and announce their approval.
1
This is a little surprising considering how opptimistic and positive praise other leaders were championing prior; it was speculated that they reflected Khamenei's view, however this has proven not to be the case.
If the deal is not found acceptable on their end then sanctions should remain and the US should bow out and continue to seek coalition members to further leverage deal-making possibilities (Russia, China). I find the inspections to be unenforceable (Iraq) in either event and hopefully this fact will not be lost in the process.
If the deal is not found acceptable on their end then sanctions should remain and the US should bow out and continue to seek coalition members to further leverage deal-making possibilities (Russia, China). I find the inspections to be unenforceable (Iraq) in either event and hopefully this fact will not be lost in the process.
4
What has been lost for some time now, is the reality of more sanctions achieving more results. Russia, China, India and others announced even before this interim agreement was signed that they were going to ignore further Iranian sanctions.
So, any more UN sanctions are automatically out the window. Iran has joined China in an Asia based banking system, totally isolated from the dollar and euro, so any banking sanctions would be useless. (SWIFT isn't the only way to transfer money).
All of the other countries in the negotiations are talking about making a deal...not breaking a deal, so if a deal is broken, the rest of the world will blame the US and Israel, not Iran.
Basically, the US would be alone with their sanctions...and they can't punish everybody, so the sanctions idea is done.
The spin that more sanctions would get a better deal is a paid for dream of the republicans.
So, any more UN sanctions are automatically out the window. Iran has joined China in an Asia based banking system, totally isolated from the dollar and euro, so any banking sanctions would be useless. (SWIFT isn't the only way to transfer money).
All of the other countries in the negotiations are talking about making a deal...not breaking a deal, so if a deal is broken, the rest of the world will blame the US and Israel, not Iran.
Basically, the US would be alone with their sanctions...and they can't punish everybody, so the sanctions idea is done.
The spin that more sanctions would get a better deal is a paid for dream of the republicans.
1
Tough talk and playing hardball are part of negotiations. Particularly in light of Netanyahu's bombastic comments, it's hard to imagine Iran not responding in turn. But the bottom line will be delivering to the citizens who have been proud of approaching normalcy. Stay tuned.
12
So its Netanyahu's fault that Iran is a dishonest broker? Bibi voiced his concerns strongly.. and he will be proven correct - tragically. But in the interim he is not a party to the negotiations. Why does it bother you so much what he thinks?
1
Iran's not negotiating with Israel--they are negotiating with the U.S. and 5 other nations.
The Ayatollah addresses the US--"Americans offered a fact sheet that most of it was contrary to what was agreed. They always deceive & breach promises."
To blame Netanyahu for this is dumb.
The Ayatollah addresses the US--"Americans offered a fact sheet that most of it was contrary to what was agreed. They always deceive & breach promises."
To blame Netanyahu for this is dumb.
1
"Tough talk and playing hardball are part of negotiations."
Is the U.S. talking tough and playing hardball? My observation is that whenever Iran threatens to walk, Obama/Kerry give another concession.
Is the U.S. talking tough and playing hardball? My observation is that whenever Iran threatens to walk, Obama/Kerry give another concession.
4
so we keep talking- sooner or later they will have to make a choice - sanctions lifted over a period of time and military sites open for inspection- - and an agreement or no sanctions lifted and no sites open and no agreement. Hang in there guys- we are dealing with world peace- so take the time necessary.
16
"so we keep talking- sooner or later they will have to make a choice"
Not necessarily. Every time Obama declares a "red line" for completing an agreement, Iran drags their feet until the very end, then Kerry and Obama announce that they will resume negotiation a few months later. This has happened over and over during Obama's administration. Meanwhile, Iran is working feverishly under ground to build a nuke. Once they get it, they will say "negotiations with the Great Satan are over." We can now defend ourselves.
Not necessarily. Every time Obama declares a "red line" for completing an agreement, Iran drags their feet until the very end, then Kerry and Obama announce that they will resume negotiation a few months later. This has happened over and over during Obama's administration. Meanwhile, Iran is working feverishly under ground to build a nuke. Once they get it, they will say "negotiations with the Great Satan are over." We can now defend ourselves.
1
It is really sad to see that the U.S and the world has become a hostage of those with Nuclear pretensions. Lifting the Sanctions and reciprocate reducing the research and development of Nuclear weapons is what a civilized Nation would for the well being of it's citizensdo but we are dealing with Ayatollahs and a very fanatic adversary that go to the negotiation table with ultimatums based on the "Nuclear Clause" if you don't do what I said I will develop a Nuclear weapon. They don't seem to realize that some of their adversaries already have more than one. As a son of the 21st century I agree with a civilized way to discuss but I am more convinced day by day that unfortunately this is not the way to deal with a fanatic Iran.
15
Please do not be disrespectable to Men of God. Would people in the west like non-Christian people to use disrespectable words to address or talk about their Popes, Archbishops, or Rabbis. An Ayatollah is a man of God. A Muslim man of God is no more fanatic than the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, or Chief Rabbi (in occupied Palestine). Would you describe the Pope as a fanatic, etc. If not, stop describing the Ayatollahs in this way.
Fanatical Iran? That's a pretty narrow minded view considering how many 'fanatical' regimes the US has created, funded, armed and propped up in the past century.
In Iran alone, the US overthrew Iran's democratically elected government and installed the dictator Shah, and his brutal SAVAK military police...basically Saddam. He was so bad, that the naturally western leaning Iranians would rather have the Ayatollahs than the Shah.
In the 80's, the US backed Saddam in his almost decade long war with Iran, which resulted in over a half a million Iranian deaths, and the US still supported Iraq after they used chemical weapons on Iran and the Kurds.
The US shot down an Iranian airliner, and not only have never apologized for the tragedy, but gave the captain of the Vincennes a medal.
The US has repeatedly and openly threatened to bomb Iran, with some military and political leaders openly suggesting Iran be nuked. Even without specifically mentioning nukes, all options are on the table, tacitly includes the nuclear option.
And that's just what the US has done to Iran. They love fanatical regimes. As long as the US gets what it wants, you can do what you like to your people and your neighbors.
Saudi, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen are all places where the US allows, (and funds and arms and supports), regimes which brutalize their citizens and attacks their neighbors.
So you might want to paint that fanatic label with a wider brush.
In Iran alone, the US overthrew Iran's democratically elected government and installed the dictator Shah, and his brutal SAVAK military police...basically Saddam. He was so bad, that the naturally western leaning Iranians would rather have the Ayatollahs than the Shah.
In the 80's, the US backed Saddam in his almost decade long war with Iran, which resulted in over a half a million Iranian deaths, and the US still supported Iraq after they used chemical weapons on Iran and the Kurds.
The US shot down an Iranian airliner, and not only have never apologized for the tragedy, but gave the captain of the Vincennes a medal.
The US has repeatedly and openly threatened to bomb Iran, with some military and political leaders openly suggesting Iran be nuked. Even without specifically mentioning nukes, all options are on the table, tacitly includes the nuclear option.
And that's just what the US has done to Iran. They love fanatical regimes. As long as the US gets what it wants, you can do what you like to your people and your neighbors.
Saudi, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen are all places where the US allows, (and funds and arms and supports), regimes which brutalize their citizens and attacks their neighbors.
So you might want to paint that fanatic label with a wider brush.
1
When Obama took a victory lap and spiked the ball as soon as the 'framework' for a deal was reached, he said that Khamenei had issued a FATWA against developing nuclear weapons and that we have nothing to fear about Iran going nuclear.
Now, Khamenei has issued a FATWA that all sanctions be lifted on the day of signing any deal. He also said that military facilities will be verboten for visits by inspectors.
Thus dies the much ballyhooed deal with Iran.
The end.
Now, Khamenei has issued a FATWA that all sanctions be lifted on the day of signing any deal. He also said that military facilities will be verboten for visits by inspectors.
Thus dies the much ballyhooed deal with Iran.
The end.
10
A Fatwa is significantly more than merely speaking a negotiating tactic.
The much ballyhooed deal is still alive and well...and the only country really whining about it is the US...and most Americans are for negotiations.
The much ballyhooed deal is still alive and well...and the only country really whining about it is the US...and most Americans are for negotiations.
Thing about that fatwa regarding the not building of nuclear weapons... No one can find anything along those lines being published. For a fatwa to take effect, it needs to be publicly issued like a new US law is put into the federal register.
The strongest negotiating position is always to walk away. We have fought the good fight, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that Iran has never intended on giving in on their nuclear ambitions. We give them until June and walk away. BATNA applies. Pox on their house.
19
The IRRATIONALITY of the America position is beyond human thinking. America wants Iran to STOP, but on its part it will think of ways to EASE the sanctions (maybe in a 100 years). Perhaps the results of the European Wars (labelled by the colonial powers as "World Wars") where nations had to surrender UNCONDITIONALLY to America, still is found to be the UNIVERSAL American wish; in spite of the more recent Viet Nam war. Dream On.
1
With these statements from the leadership of Iran, it is increasingly clear that (a) regional politics and the nuclear stand-off are related, and (b) achieving the nuclear agreement on terms and arrangements satisfactory to the USA is unlikely to occur. This means that sanctions will not be lifted, and Iran will fight back by supporting challenges to regional stability in what remains an economically strategic part of the world. This will only enhance international insecurity and instability for an indefinite period of time into the future.
4
You talk about international affairs, but focus on "Satisfactory to the USA"; What about satisfaction for Iran?
1
All this means is that all parties are still negotiating until the final agreement is signed. Iranian leaders have to spin to soothe their radical right wingers, just like the Americans do.
2
To the contrary, their plan is to sign something and have the sanctions lifted IMMEDIATELY. Then they can start backing out of the deal and cheating.
1
The president said, "If Iran cheats, the world will know." He seems to believe that somehow the information will become known. It's time for the president to explain this statement and reconcile it with the Iranian's position.
It's also time for the president to explain whether he would ever agree to the Iranian terms on early lifting of sanctions.
It's also time for the president to explain whether he would ever agree to the Iranian terms on early lifting of sanctions.
8
If we want to have leverage, we cannot sign a deal.
If we want a deal badly, we cannot have leverage and sanctions must go forthwith.
Catch 22.
But, because Obama has staked his legacy on getting a deal, my hunch is that they will forego all leverage and lift sanctions, and then the spinmeisters will go to work to explain to all gullible Americans how wonderful the deal is.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
If we want a deal badly, we cannot have leverage and sanctions must go forthwith.
Catch 22.
But, because Obama has staked his legacy on getting a deal, my hunch is that they will forego all leverage and lift sanctions, and then the spinmeisters will go to work to explain to all gullible Americans how wonderful the deal is.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
42
Negotiations mean both sides have to deal. Iran was never going to capitulate and nether was the west. Nobody is going to get everything...that's why it's called negotiating.
If the US doesn't like the deal, they can always walk away, or the next president can overturn the deal...but that doesn't mean the rest of the world will do the same.
If every body else likes the deal and the US doesn't, US sanctions really won't do or mean very much.
If the US doesn't like the deal, they can always walk away, or the next president can overturn the deal...but that doesn't mean the rest of the world will do the same.
If every body else likes the deal and the US doesn't, US sanctions really won't do or mean very much.
This is a chess game. Both sides need to play to complex hometown audiences. Patience.
132
I think that the supreme leader of Iran just pout the US in check.
2
Your statement assumes that both countries are similar. Surely, they are not. In the United States, public opinion is hugely important. In Iran - not so much.
4
The Islamic State is playing chess; our own Administration . . . maybe checkers. Poorly.
I hope this is just internal politicking, and the comment about Saudi Arabia (well, insult really) hopefully points to that. Or maybe is just a basic negotiation tactic to try and push for faster sanction relief and more restricted inspections in the final deal. Obviously these are conditions which the US and its allies cannot agree to, and the Ayatollah has to know as much. If they stick with them as absolutes, well then we just wasted alot of time and money to come back to the same stalemate we were at before.
If it isn't a negotiating tactic, then these stipulations speak to a deep deep political divide within the Iranian government, and a strong split between that government and its people, who's support for a deal was a major factor in getting Pres. Rouhani elected (as much as it can be called an election). The people want sanction relief, and the vast majority know that the bomb isn't going to do them any good anyway. Losing the deal may very well destabilize the country and bring about mass protests as there were during the Ahmadinejad years.
This is one treacherous situation, but no more than if we simply stuck with the status quo and made no attempt at negotiation. Certainly it will not be the last twist and turn before the deal is signed.... or rejected.
If it isn't a negotiating tactic, then these stipulations speak to a deep deep political divide within the Iranian government, and a strong split between that government and its people, who's support for a deal was a major factor in getting Pres. Rouhani elected (as much as it can be called an election). The people want sanction relief, and the vast majority know that the bomb isn't going to do them any good anyway. Losing the deal may very well destabilize the country and bring about mass protests as there were during the Ahmadinejad years.
This is one treacherous situation, but no more than if we simply stuck with the status quo and made no attempt at negotiation. Certainly it will not be the last twist and turn before the deal is signed.... or rejected.
What a wonderful argument for the separation of mosque and state, Ayatollah.
8
"What a wonderful argument for the separation of mosque and state, Ayatollah"
Should be line ONE of the agreement for BOTH sides!!
Should be line ONE of the agreement for BOTH sides!!
Anyone surprised? Also the idea that sanctions can or should be lift because they can easily be reinstated is ludicrous. That assumes that all countries will agree to re-impose sanctions which will never happen. So Iran gets its financial footing in place and then builds bombs and there is nothing we can do.
What is sad is the incompetence of this Administration. One of the proposals was/is to have Iran send its nuclear matter to Russia! This is the same Russia that is threatening to use nuclear bombs on the West! The one invading Ukraine and soon the Baltics.
I wonder if our President for once will admit he is/was wrong when Iran destroys Tel Aviv in 4 years with nuclear missiles? No, he'll probably blame Bush!
What is sad is the incompetence of this Administration. One of the proposals was/is to have Iran send its nuclear matter to Russia! This is the same Russia that is threatening to use nuclear bombs on the West! The one invading Ukraine and soon the Baltics.
I wonder if our President for once will admit he is/was wrong when Iran destroys Tel Aviv in 4 years with nuclear missiles? No, he'll probably blame Bush!
5
Couldn't agree more! Perhaps the Editorial Board of the Times will also admit their mistake. Probably not.
A "deal" was struck a few days ago and we already have some Iranian chieftain dictating how the sanctions should be lifted. Shabby! More and more talk on this will never lift the cloak of low class and shabbiness regarding people like this.
5
The only reason Iran is pretending to negotiate is that they want the sanctions lifted. Iran has not given up its nuclear ambitions. The Iranians are not stupid, far from it. They know us better than we know them. They know Mr. Obama wants a “legacy”, and they know he is weak in foreign policy as he does not seem to know the world, and so they think this is their best chance of getting the best possible deal - which, if they don’t like, they won’t sign.
Iran wants the sanctions lifted because they are effective. Sanctions are beginning to cripple their economy and make a nuclear program more difficult to implement. They will appear to "agree" to almost anything to accomplish sanctions removal, as their intention of complying with any "agreement" is to “comply” selectively. They will continue to move toward nuclear capability.
What we should do or should have done is keep the sanctions going, and tighten them.
Have we not learned from North Korea? It is a bedrock dictum and principle of Iranian policy that Iran deserves a bomb - who are we to tell them otherwise, they ask? In their book, any means to achieving that goal is permissible, including lying and cheating.
Iran wants the sanctions lifted because they are effective. Sanctions are beginning to cripple their economy and make a nuclear program more difficult to implement. They will appear to "agree" to almost anything to accomplish sanctions removal, as their intention of complying with any "agreement" is to “comply” selectively. They will continue to move toward nuclear capability.
What we should do or should have done is keep the sanctions going, and tighten them.
Have we not learned from North Korea? It is a bedrock dictum and principle of Iranian policy that Iran deserves a bomb - who are we to tell them otherwise, they ask? In their book, any means to achieving that goal is permissible, including lying and cheating.
17
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. N.Korea is an example of how sanctions don't work. N.Korea is the most heavily sanctioned country on the planet. They don't trade with anybody except China...and even they're nervous about N.Korea.
Still, with all of the sanctions, N.Korea has nukes. If sanctions didn't work for N.Korea, why would they prevent Iranian nukes?
Another difference is that nobody else wants to trade with N.Korea, while pretty much all the world wants to trade with Iran. Nobody really cares if the US wants sanctions...they can do what they like. That doesn't mean the rest are going to go along with them.
Still, with all of the sanctions, N.Korea has nukes. If sanctions didn't work for N.Korea, why would they prevent Iranian nukes?
Another difference is that nobody else wants to trade with N.Korea, while pretty much all the world wants to trade with Iran. Nobody really cares if the US wants sanctions...they can do what they like. That doesn't mean the rest are going to go along with them.
The Iranians have obviously read "Negotiating to Yes." They will allow more intrusive inspections if the sanctions are lifted early. There is a good chance they will violate the deal after sanctions are lifted because "snap back" sanctions are impractical to reimpose. The administration is so anxious for a deal that they will lift sanctions early.
9
Well that should mean that there is no deal and of course the leaders of Iran don't understand or care about MAD. And of course it would not be mutual and if Obama is in charge they would not be destroyed either. Just send them packing, increase the punishment and allow others to do as they please to delay their programs. Simple!!
1
The deal is bad because it will give legitimacy to Iran's leadership for decades to come, and the values of Iran's current leadership contradict all of our values (democracy, human rights, minority rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.). We should be finding ways to encourage a new generation of leaders in Iran, not making deals with the twisted bunch currently in charge.
12
The US has a long history of doing deal with twisted bunches in charge of countries. Saudi, Iraq, Pakistan, China, Russia, Yemen...even Syria have all been best pals with the US, until the US didn't need them.
But when they were pals, they could do anything they wanted to whomever they wanted, and the US wouldn't lift a finger to stop them...in fact, the US would help them with as much money, arms and help that they wanted...as long as the US needed them.
So please...your outrage is a tad insincere. How many people have died in American involved wars...and how many in Iranian?
Every conflict in the middle east for decades has one thing in common; American involvement, so before blaming everything on the mad mullah's, maybe pass some blame on to everybody else who was involved.
But when they were pals, they could do anything they wanted to whomever they wanted, and the US wouldn't lift a finger to stop them...in fact, the US would help them with as much money, arms and help that they wanted...as long as the US needed them.
So please...your outrage is a tad insincere. How many people have died in American involved wars...and how many in Iranian?
Every conflict in the middle east for decades has one thing in common; American involvement, so before blaming everything on the mad mullah's, maybe pass some blame on to everybody else who was involved.
Whatever it takes Iran must not be allowed to acquire/develop nuclear weapons period. It would result in the entire Middle East becoming even more de-stabilized than it is now and the large Arab countries fearing Iran would all seek to acquire atomic bombs. In a region as bloody and fractured as the Middle East it would be like pouring gasoline on a raging house fire. No way. Iran needs to understand that unless they accept the reasonable deal "as is" that sanctions will be drastically tightened. Surprisingly, according to most media, Russia, China and the EU are signed on to such an increased punitive punishment program of economic sanctions to keep the "mad mullahs" from getting weapons of mass destruction. As a last resort the tyrants in Tehran need to understand that the international community will not tolerate them having nuclear missiles. If this means the combined air forces of the U.S., EU, and Israel have to make round the clock bombing runs to take out not only Iran's nuclear facilities but all her oil refineries and terminals, ports and airfields, government buildings, etc. so be it. The price must be made to be too high for these dangerous and wily Persian potentates to be willing to pay. Whatever happens a "line in the sand" must be drawn on not allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction must be halted here and now. If not now when? If not here where? Is the whole world willing to risk incineration by Islamic radicals?
17
Precisely. The clock is ticking
1
"Iran needs to understand that unless they accept the reasonable deal "as is" that sanctions will be drastically tightened. Surprisingly, according to most media, Russia, China and the EU are signed on to such an increased punitive punishment program of economic sanctions to keep the "mad mullahs" from getting weapons of mass destruction."
Yes, Russia and China agree with that principle, but does Obama?
Yes, Russia and China agree with that principle, but does Obama?
1
Even the Iranians are on board with most of the points of the framework. It's the details that have to be hammered out, and both sides are going to try to get their best deal right to the end.
As for sanctions, Russia and China are going along with this deal, but that doesn't mean they will go along with whatever the US wants, if a deal isn't done. They have already said they pretty much plan on ignoring sanctions regardless of what happens. The only country in the negotiation talking about killing a deal, is the US.
If the US kills a deal, they will be the only country with sanctions against Iran...which means sanctions probably won't be very effective.
But, it's a free country, and free to do what it wants.
As for sanctions, Russia and China are going along with this deal, but that doesn't mean they will go along with whatever the US wants, if a deal isn't done. They have already said they pretty much plan on ignoring sanctions regardless of what happens. The only country in the negotiation talking about killing a deal, is the US.
If the US kills a deal, they will be the only country with sanctions against Iran...which means sanctions probably won't be very effective.
But, it's a free country, and free to do what it wants.
2
This really is tough. As much as my liberal sensibilities want to stick a daisy in the rifle, really Rouhani is issuing threats to the Saudi's, Yemen is in complete collapse, the Saudi's will look to acquire a nuclear arsenal, and most likely the end of economic sanctions will enrich a war coffer during a time when the Iranians may be working on nuclear weapons in uninspected military sites.
I don't know if negotiators (from the international community) could ever stick enough of a wedge into the cog that is spinning real fast to slow it down or if the people in the Middle East will choose nothing but war for themselves. In which case, what option does the world have but to let them fight it out until they want peace.
I don't know if negotiators (from the international community) could ever stick enough of a wedge into the cog that is spinning real fast to slow it down or if the people in the Middle East will choose nothing but war for themselves. In which case, what option does the world have but to let them fight it out until they want peace.
9
Exactly why Israel... who lives next door will be forced very soon to take its own military action. They will.... when they are done you will all quietly thank him while condemning him at the same time
What a wonderful deal Barack has negotiated for Iran. They get their economy humming with the lifting of sanctions and allow them continue to keep thousands of centrifuges on the side to develop the Bomb in a moments notice. Add the fact that military installations will be off limits to inspections and you get a sense that the clown in the WH is truly the Manchurian Candidate and/or an incompetent, mediocre affirmative action graduate of the Ivy League. I tend to believe he's both.
5
I think you've misunderstood. The demands that the ayatollah is making are not what Obama and Kerry negotiated. Your criticisms of Obama are misplaced because you think he did something that he didn't do.
I am a peaceful man, and always hope for peace. At the same time I am pragmatic.
Either we nuke them now, or they nuke us later (and we nuke them in return). Given that is the way it is, and will be, I think the most rational thing to do is just nuke them already.
Now, I don't mean wipe the entire nation of Iran off the map. That would be barbaric. I think we should attempt to nuke their Ayatollah leaders and leave the civilian government as intact as possible.
While we are at it, we might as well nuke North Korea too. The same situation. China and Russia won't do a thing. They know it. We know it. They know we know they know it.
Lets just do this already and get it behind us all.
If anyone sees a end to this that does not involve the detonation of nukes please illuminate how that happens?
Either we nuke them now, or they nuke us later (and we nuke them in return). Given that is the way it is, and will be, I think the most rational thing to do is just nuke them already.
Now, I don't mean wipe the entire nation of Iran off the map. That would be barbaric. I think we should attempt to nuke their Ayatollah leaders and leave the civilian government as intact as possible.
While we are at it, we might as well nuke North Korea too. The same situation. China and Russia won't do a thing. They know it. We know it. They know we know they know it.
Lets just do this already and get it behind us all.
If anyone sees a end to this that does not involve the detonation of nukes please illuminate how that happens?
By surrounding them all around with our weapons and assuring them that the first nuclear trigger they pull will be their last.
No need for a Pearl Harbor here.
No need for a Pearl Harbor here.
The factsheets issued by Iran and the P5+1 vary in length and have become the bone of contention. Although many in Iran support the deal, others say they have given away too much for too little.
Javad Zarif faced a particular grilling from critics over the differences between the American factsheet and the version promoted inside Iran.
The US factsheet speaks little about the lifting of sanctions and the timetable for it. The Iranian version is ambiguous about the level to which Iran will have to cut its programme.
The conflict in Yemen hasn't come at a more appropriate time! Perhaps Saudi Arabia did want to scuttle the deal!
Javad Zarif faced a particular grilling from critics over the differences between the American factsheet and the version promoted inside Iran.
The US factsheet speaks little about the lifting of sanctions and the timetable for it. The Iranian version is ambiguous about the level to which Iran will have to cut its programme.
The conflict in Yemen hasn't come at a more appropriate time! Perhaps Saudi Arabia did want to scuttle the deal!
The Supreme Leader appears to be a very shrewd man! He said nothing and let the negotiators act. Now he speaks out and points out what he doesn't like! Indeed this makes it all the more difficult to reach a conclusive agreement with Iran! But Netanyahu's hawkish solution, would not resolve the dispute neither!
2
Buyer's remorse? Iran agreed to too many things up front in the framework without getting sanctions relief spelled out. I know it is a all or nothing deal but now getting the P5+1 to lift sanctions as they want might prove to be very difficult.
1
So what? Remove the sanctions as the terms are stop enrichment or get bombed by Israel and Dick Cheney. The sonner the taste for economic enrichments hits the middle class the quicker the men of religion will loose control.
2
Peace-making and the complex negotiations involved are never easy as the latest demands for the immediate lifting of sanctions made by Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei indicate. The Ayatollah, unlike Congressional Republicans and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reportedly has veto power over any final deal, has clearly entered directly into the final negotiations adding another layer of difficulty to the "P5+1" negotiating team led by Secretary of State John Kerry. President Obama has already stated that sanctions would be lifted gradually allowing them to "snap back" if the terms of an agreement were violated. Hopefully, this will turn out to be more about semantics than substance. If Iran is willing to meet the requirements of the deal quickly, then it should also be possible to lift the sanctions quickly. For example, perhaps there will be a "D-Day" (as in Deal or Determination Day) for all the inspections and verifications to be performed that would, if met, result in the lifting of sanctions.
In negotiations, having a second bite at the apple is a great position to be in
1
It really doesn't matter what Iran says in public. We hold all the cards and we determine when to lift sanctions. If Iran does not comply with our understanding of the agreement then the sanctions do not get lifted. Simple stuff.
6
To take this stance, the US has to be willing to walk away. Do you really believe Obama is willing to do this?
4
NO WAY, his legacy is far more important to our dear leader than preventing the mad mullahs form get the bomb.
There is another scenario. The other world powers can lift the sanctions whether the US does or doesn't.
1
my guess is that he's not too keen on the Corker/Menendez bill. ..But I could be wrong. "TEHRAN — Iran’s supreme leader challenged on Thursday two of the United States’ bedrock principles in the nuclear negotiations, declaring that all economic sanctions would have to be lifted on the day any agreement is signed and that military sites would be strictly off limits to foreign inspectors."
The Iranian president doesn't think the June 30th deadline is "important"? More stalling and subterfuge from the Iranians while they're nuclear program continues. How long have they avoided inspections and stalled for? Three years now?
6
Really?
What did Secretary Kerry actually agree to in President Obama's "deal"?
Does he know?
The Iranians appear to know.
According to POLITICO, '...Iranian President Hassan Rouhani demanded the sanctions be lifted “the same day” of an agreement.'
That's exactly what the Iranian Supreme Leader is suggesting, isn't it?
"Iran's nuclear programme will continue and none of our nuclear facilities will shut down"
-Iran state tv Channel One bulletin, quoting Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.-
Iran appears to know what Obama and Kerry have agreed to...even if the Obama Ministry Of Truth spokesman...Josh Earnest...is confused.
What did Secretary Kerry actually agree to in President Obama's "deal"?
Does he know?
The Iranians appear to know.
According to POLITICO, '...Iranian President Hassan Rouhani demanded the sanctions be lifted “the same day” of an agreement.'
That's exactly what the Iranian Supreme Leader is suggesting, isn't it?
"Iran's nuclear programme will continue and none of our nuclear facilities will shut down"
-Iran state tv Channel One bulletin, quoting Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.-
Iran appears to know what Obama and Kerry have agreed to...even if the Obama Ministry Of Truth spokesman...Josh Earnest...is confused.
10
The cold war, standoffs with North Korea and Iran, worry about Pakistan, and a whole host of international nuclear concerns are all symptomatic of a world groveling in the minor details of nuclear power.
We need only gaze at the omnipresent blazing brilliance of our own star, the sun, to see the final outcome of the adoption of nuclear weapons. If only one could really gaze at the sun, they would learn the futility of nuclear weapons as seen in that great nuclear sphere.
Everyone come to your senses and finalize the agreement.
We need only gaze at the omnipresent blazing brilliance of our own star, the sun, to see the final outcome of the adoption of nuclear weapons. If only one could really gaze at the sun, they would learn the futility of nuclear weapons as seen in that great nuclear sphere.
Everyone come to your senses and finalize the agreement.
3
Finalize the agreement even if it leads to proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East? As Iran has described the "agreement," they are free to develop nuclear bombs which will only lead to Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations to seeking the bomb. And we will have lost all leverage with Iran by lifting sanctions without gaining anything. "Come to your senses" should include opening your eyes and recognizing Iran doesn't see the world the way you do.
We need to make sure that the US Senate get final approval over the deal. Obama will give in on anything for the sake of his legacy. Sen. Corker is on the right path. Final deal requires Senate Approval just like a treaty.
17
The Constitution limits all of the federal government, not just the executive. The advice and consent clause applies to treaties. Inasmuch as this deal is an Executive Agreement, the Senate is free to carry on as usual.
1
Sorry,but why now do we disregard the Constitution? Is our trade with China now illegal in your opinion? Why would Americans trust a change in the Constitution if the Senate has the inability to allow the Executive Branch to negotiate? We are lucky to have a President that values a diplomatic solution rather than a declaration of war on Iran. A President that appreciates the service of our warriors, not wanting to place them as victims of lies such the previous Bush administration did in Iraq. America should negotiate with the Iranians, placing a greater value on their lives ,exhausting the opportunities before American blood is spilled,that is why the majority of Americans elected the President, again and again.
Why do you assume that the U.S. will agree to the Ayatolla's demands? It's a negotiation. Relax.
1
I would respect Obama far more if he walks away from these negotiations than to continue on this path including lifting of sanctions. Does anybody really believe they can be "snapped back" that easily? How can reasonable people trust Iran?
19
Snapped back? They would be codified in any treaty. Automatic.
The Persian Supreme Leader is another politician holding on to an outdated right wing ideology in order to promote his party's interests. They're the same in every culture.
1
What Khameini is stating is fair. No one has a right to impose sanctions when there is no proof that Iran has militarized nuclear technology. US cannot be trusted to broker a fair deal since they have a pahological hatred towards Iran.
3
Only a fool like Obama cannot see these extended 'negotiations' are just a ruse to give the Iranians time to advance their nuclear bomb agenda. Wake up and smell the baklava!
34
Baklava is Turkish, but I get your point otherwise.
Obama is no fool. Have you read the framework agreement? If not please go read it . It is very short. You will then wonder how Iranians ever agreed to sign it without feeling humiliated.
So many people are judging the agreement without ever reading it, just relying on their favorite cable new channel to "explain" it to them. Those same "news" men got you to agree to a war in Iraq. Isn't it time to wake up and smell the big money funding them?
So many people are judging the agreement without ever reading it, just relying on their favorite cable new channel to "explain" it to them. Those same "news" men got you to agree to a war in Iraq. Isn't it time to wake up and smell the big money funding them?
1
If the Supreme Leader considers the terms of the framework to be "lies", one wonders what the expectations were and how they differ from what's being sold by the president. Is there a separate set of negotiations going on?
It does appear as though the Iranians are going to demand the sanctions be lifted very quickly, and the US will likely comply as it has to all their strict demands. Say "good bye" to any leverage over compliance in the future.
It does appear as though the Iranians are going to demand the sanctions be lifted very quickly, and the US will likely comply as it has to all their strict demands. Say "good bye" to any leverage over compliance in the future.
6
difficult man, this supreme leader. Does he understand MAD?
Consider the evidence: He lived through a bloody war of attrition (Iran/Iraq) that cost millions of his countrymen's lives, including many thousands of children forced to bear arms, and is full-on pursuing the 21st century Persia/West & Shiite/Sunni version of nuclear brinksmanship.
What do you think?
What do you think?
He is exactly what he has always said that he was. It is the STUPID, cowardly Western European nations and the USA that REFUSE to understand who they are dealing with. Do you folks in California believe in the Devil, you know: Satan? Well Iran is always calling the USA the Big Satan, but they are the Satan and if they ever got the BOMB they would reek havoc all over the World. We must put a stop to this agreement at all costs.
Proving once again that the mideast is a place of ultimatums,
threats and ideology over common sense no matter what country
we are talking about there.
threats and ideology over common sense no matter what country
we are talking about there.
12
Well first common sense is not common and their culture is different. It might be that common sense tells them that Obama will always cave so keep pushing. Seems logical to me.
So we may have the Ayatollah to thank for wrecking this deal. Awesome!
By the way, the second paragraph of this article says that the deal "would guarantee that Iran will not make nuclear weapons." I guess that's a typo and the NYT meant to say that the deal would guarantee that Iran WILL make nuclear weapons. If it's not a typo I'm curious to know how the NYT knows about this "guarantee"- I guess it's similar to the one Neville Chamberlain got from Adolf Hitler.
By the way, the second paragraph of this article says that the deal "would guarantee that Iran will not make nuclear weapons." I guess that's a typo and the NYT meant to say that the deal would guarantee that Iran WILL make nuclear weapons. If it's not a typo I'm curious to know how the NYT knows about this "guarantee"- I guess it's similar to the one Neville Chamberlain got from Adolf Hitler.
14
I see the NYT changed paragraph 2 (in my online edition of the paper.) I trust that was in response to my comment above.
If you would allow me to edit all of your articles involving the Middle East, civil rights and academic freedom you would have a very sensible newspaper.
If you would allow me to edit all of your articles involving the Middle East, civil rights and academic freedom you would have a very sensible newspaper.
2
All the liberal commentators were lauding what was in fact only a pseudo verbal agreement last week - as if there was a real concrete written agreement that resulted in the complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program that had saved the fate of the world. And of course with multiple bashing of Israel, Netanyahu and conservatives and Republicans.
As I posted then, anyone who thinks that Iran can be trusted is smoking a pipe dream.
The fact is the regime who runs and controls Iran will never give up it's goal of nuclear weapons. And the bogus pseudo agreement of last week was not even designed to keep that from happening. Obama and Kerry sold the farm in order to have any kind of agreement whatsoever - verbal and vague or otherwise. And they along with the NYTs and it's legion of liberal posters in the comments section have been played for fools. Again.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32231750
As I posted then, anyone who thinks that Iran can be trusted is smoking a pipe dream.
The fact is the regime who runs and controls Iran will never give up it's goal of nuclear weapons. And the bogus pseudo agreement of last week was not even designed to keep that from happening. Obama and Kerry sold the farm in order to have any kind of agreement whatsoever - verbal and vague or otherwise. And they along with the NYTs and it's legion of liberal posters in the comments section have been played for fools. Again.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32231750
12
It's not just liberal commenters and the media, it's the president, himself. According to the NYT (4/2/15):
"The White House has promised a lobbying campaign by the president unlike any seen since he pushed through health care legislation.”
What, if anything, is the president selling right now?
"The White House has promised a lobbying campaign by the president unlike any seen since he pushed through health care legislation.”
What, if anything, is the president selling right now?
4
Enough already. I would vote for Obama as president in every election for the rest of my life, if I could, but this no kind of deal and he should just say so and walk away. I don't want to hear any more about how there is no viable alternative. Sanctions have reduced Iranian oil exports by 60%, according to other news stories. There is no good reason not to reduce the exports to as close to 100% as possible for a few months for starters and then take more drastic steps if the ayatollah still hasn't heard the sweet voice of reason over the shouts of "Death to America."
35
Even a child knows you don't get your dessert until you've eaten your vegetables. A deal isn't a deal until both sides have put as they say "some skin in the game".
11
"'I trust our negotiators, but I’m really worried as the other side is into lying and breaching promises, an example was the White House fact sheet,' he said, referring to the document negotiators released at the end of the Lausanne talks."
I read this passage many times to be able to understand who said it. In the text it is Mr. Khamenei, but, who is, in fact, into "lying and breaching promises" in many years of History? I guess it is Iran.
With all its crossed references and the confusing situation about who is our ally and who is our enemy according to the country in which the conversation (or the fight) is taking place, or who is involved, it is difficult to judge if this deal is better than no deal or the other way round.
I read this passage many times to be able to understand who said it. In the text it is Mr. Khamenei, but, who is, in fact, into "lying and breaching promises" in many years of History? I guess it is Iran.
With all its crossed references and the confusing situation about who is our ally and who is our enemy according to the country in which the conversation (or the fight) is taking place, or who is involved, it is difficult to judge if this deal is better than no deal or the other way round.
IT is Understandable that Mr. Khamenei will Reserve Judgement till the Final Text is produced.
AS for Yemen, there is No Evidence that Iran is supplying any Weapons as Yemen especially for the past five decades has been awash with Weapons and they need No New Supplies.
THIS conflict is between Ethnic Houthis that happen to be Shia and the House of Saud.
AND this is a territorial dispute rather than a religious one as in 1915 when the British started dismantling the Ottoman Empire they rewarded the House of Saud with non-Arab lands for their cooperation as is shown in the map below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadhramaut#/media/File:Arabia_1914.png
REGARDING the Saudis matching or competing with Iran with a population of four times and a highly educated/advanced technological and industrial base, one would understand why that is next to impossible not to mention the fact that Iran has a six decade head-start on its Nuclear Program.
THE New Adventures of Saudi Arabia Is A Destabilizing Factor In A Volatile Region No Matter What Excuse They Drum Up And Without Any Doubt Is A Highly Risky Affair For The Survival Of The House Of Saud.
AS for Yemen, there is No Evidence that Iran is supplying any Weapons as Yemen especially for the past five decades has been awash with Weapons and they need No New Supplies.
THIS conflict is between Ethnic Houthis that happen to be Shia and the House of Saud.
AND this is a territorial dispute rather than a religious one as in 1915 when the British started dismantling the Ottoman Empire they rewarded the House of Saud with non-Arab lands for their cooperation as is shown in the map below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadhramaut#/media/File:Arabia_1914.png
REGARDING the Saudis matching or competing with Iran with a population of four times and a highly educated/advanced technological and industrial base, one would understand why that is next to impossible not to mention the fact that Iran has a six decade head-start on its Nuclear Program.
THE New Adventures of Saudi Arabia Is A Destabilizing Factor In A Volatile Region No Matter What Excuse They Drum Up And Without Any Doubt Is A Highly Risky Affair For The Survival Of The House Of Saud.
No State or head of State wishes to be perceived as 'caving' to pressure. Neither would one wish to be viewed as anything but a shrewd and strong negotiator and leader. With that in mind, giving the Ayatollah some leeway in his public statements is realistic. However, at the end of the day, putting military sites 'off limits' to investigators in writing agreed to by the west would negate the usefulness of the treaty entirely. But both sides know that, it just signals more negotiation which is why the stage is being set by Rouhani to extend June into 'the sky will not fall' whenever.
1
Obviously we do not have an "agreement" as heralded. This will be a true test of whether the Administration's goal is to achieve a meaningful solution and avoid a Middle East nuclear arms race, or whether the goal was to a superficial achievement for the president's personal legacy. Especially in that part of the world, we have seen attempts by the US to "force" a resolution only lead to greater divisiveness.
5
So the sages of commenters think it prudent to lift all sanctions in one day, even before answering at least some of the 12 questions regarding Iran's military weapons program. Of course, allow them everything in order to face; Iran's long history assures us the current regime will be stable, wise, honest, and transparent. Now tell me, what bridges are currently for sale (other than in Iran)?
Do some people out there really wish to bring down our country and bring the Middle East to the brink of total disaster?
Do some people out there really wish to bring down our country and bring the Middle East to the brink of total disaster?
9
America’s greatest new partner in peace,
has now sent their navy to offer relief,
from bombs being dropped with a Saudi motif,
on Houthis who’ve caused Yemen nothing but grief.
Parking their vessels just off the shore,
will pressure the Saudis to even the score.
ISIS unites us, but we cannot ignore,
that Iran is kick-starting a third global war.
Framing agreements with a country whose actions,
are fanning the flames of the war of the factions,
is not in our interest, not worth the transaction,
when the deal is replete with unknowns and abstractions.
In the framework we’ve seen, our upside is slight,
the wars they began, they’ll continue to fight,
they’re keeping their prisoners, not even contrite.
It’s a bevy of carrots with no sticks in sight.
Once sanctions are lifted Iran will make millions,
then funnel those funds to their war-making minions,
and despite all the back pats and rosy opinions,
the cost of this deal will be paid by civilians.
And when there’s an arms race, what happens then?
The Saudis will nuke up, so let’s not pretend.
The Jews under threat and forsaken by friends,
from never forget, to, oh no, not again.
When Iran breaks their word and the truth is revealed,
when it turns out that all that we’ve read wasn’t real,
all the words written in defense of this deal,
should be chewed up and eaten with crow as a meal.
has now sent their navy to offer relief,
from bombs being dropped with a Saudi motif,
on Houthis who’ve caused Yemen nothing but grief.
Parking their vessels just off the shore,
will pressure the Saudis to even the score.
ISIS unites us, but we cannot ignore,
that Iran is kick-starting a third global war.
Framing agreements with a country whose actions,
are fanning the flames of the war of the factions,
is not in our interest, not worth the transaction,
when the deal is replete with unknowns and abstractions.
In the framework we’ve seen, our upside is slight,
the wars they began, they’ll continue to fight,
they’re keeping their prisoners, not even contrite.
It’s a bevy of carrots with no sticks in sight.
Once sanctions are lifted Iran will make millions,
then funnel those funds to their war-making minions,
and despite all the back pats and rosy opinions,
the cost of this deal will be paid by civilians.
And when there’s an arms race, what happens then?
The Saudis will nuke up, so let’s not pretend.
The Jews under threat and forsaken by friends,
from never forget, to, oh no, not again.
When Iran breaks their word and the truth is revealed,
when it turns out that all that we’ve read wasn’t real,
all the words written in defense of this deal,
should be chewed up and eaten with crow as a meal.
54
Very artful. I disagree with the opinion but this is real nitty gritty art. Thanks.
1
Well if we really wanted to and did not mind whatever might happen Iran would be destroyed in about 6 weeks.
While I don't agree with you, your comment is certainly well done.
2
I challenge the legitimacy of so-called "leader's" right to lead a country that did not elect him and who came to power at the barrel of a gun.
If the Mafia violently overthrew the government of Italy would anyone view the Mafia as Italy's legitimate rulers? Same thing here.
That fact that these religious despots overthrew another bunch of despots, the shah and his crew, does not confer one iota of legitimacy upon the present bunch of despots.
If the Mafia violently overthrew the government of Italy would anyone view the Mafia as Italy's legitimate rulers? Same thing here.
That fact that these religious despots overthrew another bunch of despots, the shah and his crew, does not confer one iota of legitimacy upon the present bunch of despots.
10
I challenge the legitimacy of so-called "leaders" whose elections are bought by corporate money and couldn't lead a child out of a paper bag.
Yes. Negotiations and deals work better with mutual respect. Iran is not a country that you can browbeat into doing things it does not want to. And as long as all the pathways to a nuclear weapon is clearly shut, there is nothing wrong with agreeing to both his demands.
Then play ball for the next 15 years with the trust but verify approach. Respect gets you a long way in the arena of diplomacy.
Then play ball for the next 15 years with the trust but verify approach. Respect gets you a long way in the arena of diplomacy.
7
Our 'deal' with Iran, should it come off as written or if it fails and Iran continues on the development road, the Saudis are in an excellent bargaining position to receive increased aid and missles from the west to counter such a threat in return for not just buying the Nuclear expertise and having it installed turn key. I seriously doubt that just promises from the Obama administration will sway the Saudis or the other Sunni nations in the region to just 'trust' the expertise and military capability of the USA to defend them. What a difference six years can make!
3
well then the US should just forget about this deal. We learned in Iraq that the inspections don't work anyway.
41
Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons. All that WMD talk was just a pack of lies from the bloodthirsty chickenhawk warmongers of the GOP.
1
Is that what you learned "in Iraq"? I seem to recall W called off inspections and started a war so we could find all those weapons he was sure were there but we could never find, meanwhile enabling Iran to dominate the government of Iraq. That worked out really well.
1
"We learned in Iraq that the inspections don't work anyway."
They worked very well in Iraq. Bush just chose to ignore that and invade anyway. Then he still didn't find what they inspectors were looking for, because it wasn't there.
They worked very well in Iraq. Bush just chose to ignore that and invade anyway. Then he still didn't find what they inspectors were looking for, because it wasn't there.
2
There a reason sensitive negotiations are not done in public.
2
It was obvious that this negotiation would fail from the start.
Obama, get it now?
Obama, get it now?
65
Being a bit premature, aren't we?
12
So what do we do? The sanctions really can't be any tighter. Bombing may well not work and has a ton of negative ramifications. Frankly, that seems like a policy disaster to me. Waiting until Iran has a bomb and just deterring them is possible, but not exactly appealing. So that left negotiations. If they fail, what has been lost?
9
The Supreme Leader has repeatedly declared that Iran would never surrender its "nuclear rights."
4
Erdbrink writes:
"Iran’s supreme leader challenged on Thursday two of the United States’ bedrock principles in the nuclear negotiations, declaring that all economic sanctions would have to be lifted on the day any agreement is signed and that military sites would be strictly off limits to foreign inspectors."
Inspecting Iran's military sites is a "bedrock principle?" Odd that it didn't make it into the US' version of the framework.
As for when the sanctions are lifted, I expect that will be far less important an issue than it is now shaping up to be. Khamenei can't reasonably expect the sanctions to be lifted just because Iran signs an agreement. On the other hand, the US can't justify waiting, say, 10 years to see whether Iran fully performs. I suspect the negotiators for both sides actually agree on this: Iran has to do whatever the agreement calls for up front -- deactivate centrifuges, stop producing LEU, whatever -- and the sanctions will be lifted. If Iran later violates the agreement, the sanctions will be re-imposed. I doubt this is as big a deal as some would make it.
"Iran’s supreme leader challenged on Thursday two of the United States’ bedrock principles in the nuclear negotiations, declaring that all economic sanctions would have to be lifted on the day any agreement is signed and that military sites would be strictly off limits to foreign inspectors."
Inspecting Iran's military sites is a "bedrock principle?" Odd that it didn't make it into the US' version of the framework.
As for when the sanctions are lifted, I expect that will be far less important an issue than it is now shaping up to be. Khamenei can't reasonably expect the sanctions to be lifted just because Iran signs an agreement. On the other hand, the US can't justify waiting, say, 10 years to see whether Iran fully performs. I suspect the negotiators for both sides actually agree on this: Iran has to do whatever the agreement calls for up front -- deactivate centrifuges, stop producing LEU, whatever -- and the sanctions will be lifted. If Iran later violates the agreement, the sanctions will be re-imposed. I doubt this is as big a deal as some would make it.
5
Any idea what it would actually take to "re-impose" sanctions? Highly unlikely. Once they're lifted, they're as good as gone.
The risk of ending the sanctions too soon is increased by Iran's intransigence, which has been the basis for much the US's relenting thus far (in the interest of "reaching a deal"), and the president's eagerness for a deal.
The risk of ending the sanctions too soon is increased by Iran's intransigence, which has been the basis for much the US's relenting thus far (in the interest of "reaching a deal"), and the president's eagerness for a deal.
5
It's hard to see this as anything but the end for a deal. Netanyahu must be cheering.
9
What is the need to mention Netanyahu here? This impediment is created solely by Iran, and the mistake of the US in "negotiating" with a person that lacks authority, Rouhani. A basic principle of negotiation is that one only deals with a person with full authority to bind the other side. An entry level claims examiner handling a $1,000 claim knows this. But we naively send someone with authority, make concessions, and then find out that the person with whom we negotiated did not have the authority.
Another ridiculous point is the separate statements by the US and Iran. If two parties go to court and tell the judge that they have a settlement, the recite the terms of the settlement in an agreement or a statement before the court. If one side says we settled for $1 and the other says the figure is $2, there is no deal and the judge would be livid.
Yet we foolishly announce an accord and Obama goes out on a full court press selling his understanding of the deal. It is now apparent that sanctions will be lifted only over time and with compliance by Iran, and that we can inspect Fordo was not agreed to at all.
I am not a supporter of Obama but was willing to see if these negotiations bore fruit because I believe that foreign policy and national security should not be a partisan issue. But this confirms the worst suspicions and confirms the thought that Obama is so desperate for a deal that he has ignored the most basic principles.
Another ridiculous point is the separate statements by the US and Iran. If two parties go to court and tell the judge that they have a settlement, the recite the terms of the settlement in an agreement or a statement before the court. If one side says we settled for $1 and the other says the figure is $2, there is no deal and the judge would be livid.
Yet we foolishly announce an accord and Obama goes out on a full court press selling his understanding of the deal. It is now apparent that sanctions will be lifted only over time and with compliance by Iran, and that we can inspect Fordo was not agreed to at all.
I am not a supporter of Obama but was willing to see if these negotiations bore fruit because I believe that foreign policy and national security should not be a partisan issue. But this confirms the worst suspicions and confirms the thought that Obama is so desperate for a deal that he has ignored the most basic principles.
8
Netanyahu isn't cheering.
The threat of war from Israel's neighbors has existed since 1949.
Had Israel lost any of those wars of annihilation, is there any doubt that there wouldn't be a Jew alive in the Jewish homeland today?
Mr. Webb, unless and until you live in a land where your neighboring nations, under the control of the Iranian Revolutionary guard state on a daily basis their desire to annihilate you, you can not comment on Mr. Netanyau's happiness or anger concerning his foreign policy.
The threat of war from Israel's neighbors has existed since 1949.
Had Israel lost any of those wars of annihilation, is there any doubt that there wouldn't be a Jew alive in the Jewish homeland today?
Mr. Webb, unless and until you live in a land where your neighboring nations, under the control of the Iranian Revolutionary guard state on a daily basis their desire to annihilate you, you can not comment on Mr. Netanyau's happiness or anger concerning his foreign policy.
6
Maybe Bibi wasn't wrong after all.
74
There's a first time for everything!
1
No, you don't understand, at least according to mainstream commentariat, this is all still the fault of Israel. Perhaps if we only conceded more to the Islamic Republic they'd behave reasonably . . . .
5
Looks like we have been talking to the wrong people in Iran.
For rational negotiators, those two conditions would be a deal breaker. But with our "JV" who knows? After all, when they pushed the reset button with Russia, the Administration withdrew all demands and/or plans that Putin found objectionable -- for nothing in return.
For those who say the critics of the Administration have no alternate plan, here's one. Withdraw from negotiations and double down on the economic sanctions. See what happens.
For rational negotiators, those two conditions would be a deal breaker. But with our "JV" who knows? After all, when they pushed the reset button with Russia, the Administration withdrew all demands and/or plans that Putin found objectionable -- for nothing in return.
For those who say the critics of the Administration have no alternate plan, here's one. Withdraw from negotiations and double down on the economic sanctions. See what happens.
14
Mr. Dana. Economic sanctions hurt only the little guy.
I have to wish that the Supreme Leader and the Iranian president had made their remarks a few years ago, instead of today. It would have saved everyone a ton of money in jet fuel, hotel bills, dining and entertainment...and that doesn't even take into account the Swiss chocolate. So much for the greatest foreign policy arms control triumph since the SALT treaties. This one is apparently not worth the non-paper it isn't written on.
47
Beg to differ O'Brien. This deal will happen because Iran and Obama want it to happen.
3
Obama promised jobs, and the negotiators have them all.
They need to string things out a bit more. No one wants to get sent home and lose all those benefits. They probably use secret service personnel to train them for their jobs.
They need to string things out a bit more. No one wants to get sent home and lose all those benefits. They probably use secret service personnel to train them for their jobs.
I believe he has been making his remarks for decades at daily prayer services, "Death to America, Death to Israel"
2
It's depressing. No matter how hard the United States tries we can't erase the hatred and mistrust that started in the Middle East a thousand years ago and previous American administrations have helped to nurture. Too many countries in the Middle East are intent on bathing in each other's blood.
22
How exactly does the United States TRY?
4
And we helped fill the bathtub, didn't we?
5
"Too many countries in the Middle East are intent on bathing in each other's blood."
You can thank the Bush Admin's invasion of Iraq in 2003 and subsequent removal of the center of power there (Saddam Hussein and the Baath party). Yeah, Saddam was a bad man, and he tried to have the senior Bush killed on a trip to Kuwait in 1993 (the REAL reason for the invasion in 2003 and removal/killing of Saddam), but he also kept the country stable. The region was never entirely stable, with the war between Iran and Iraq, and artificial divisions implemented by non-muslims after WWI, but it was never total chaos as it is now. What boggles the mind still is the fact that the Bush Admin - and even war hawks in the U.S. govt. and punditry today - are ignoring the age-old rivalry between Sunni and Shia, to the peril of this country. People like John McCain and Lindsey Graham; John Bolton; Bibi Netanyahu; etc. should not only be shunned, but they should be scorned for such reckless and ignorant foreign policy.
You can thank the Bush Admin's invasion of Iraq in 2003 and subsequent removal of the center of power there (Saddam Hussein and the Baath party). Yeah, Saddam was a bad man, and he tried to have the senior Bush killed on a trip to Kuwait in 1993 (the REAL reason for the invasion in 2003 and removal/killing of Saddam), but he also kept the country stable. The region was never entirely stable, with the war between Iran and Iraq, and artificial divisions implemented by non-muslims after WWI, but it was never total chaos as it is now. What boggles the mind still is the fact that the Bush Admin - and even war hawks in the U.S. govt. and punditry today - are ignoring the age-old rivalry between Sunni and Shia, to the peril of this country. People like John McCain and Lindsey Graham; John Bolton; Bibi Netanyahu; etc. should not only be shunned, but they should be scorned for such reckless and ignorant foreign policy.
5
If the shoe were on the other foot, one could only imagine the same conditions Iran is asking for would be expected of us by our leaders to make.
There's never any recognition or appearance of parity between any of the parties trying to cut a deal, it it's always assumed that one has the other down and pinned on the mat and therefore in no position to even presume capable of making any counter-demands.
With negotiations beginning in such a posture, is it any wonder they're doomed to fail simply because they were never set up in the first place to succeed?
There's never any recognition or appearance of parity between any of the parties trying to cut a deal, it it's always assumed that one has the other down and pinned on the mat and therefore in no position to even presume capable of making any counter-demands.
With negotiations beginning in such a posture, is it any wonder they're doomed to fail simply because they were never set up in the first place to succeed?
1
There is no agreement, was no agreement and we should never have been talking to the Iranians. This affair has highlighted that Obama is not fit, neither, trustworthy to be president of the United States
39
We talked to the Soviets. That was sometimes fruitful, sometime not. Not talking to a country just because they are an enemy makes no sense. How has that worked out with North Korea?
4
It is in the interest in the region, our nation and the world to get an agreement that makes us safer. If it does not work out, so be it.
6
By not working out, you mean substantially escalating a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? The rush to get an agreement regardless of the actual terms is not just folly, it is highly dangerous not only to the people of that region of the world, but the entire world. Since people are bring up ancient history, how about Neville Chamberlain's securing peace for our time in 1938? There is a difference between wishing and getting an agreement that would make us safer.
3
Khamanei: " I have never been optimistic about negotiations with Americans, not because of delusion but because of experience. we have experienced that". This is exactly where most Americans cease to understand. They see politics through biased and short-sighted lens of "news" not in the deep and honest context of "history". One can go on a rant about all the "back-stabbing" they have got from the U.S side: from logistic support of Saddam in Iran-Iraq war, the "nothing" they got in return for the release of American hostages in Lebonan during George H.W. Bush to being named as an axis of evil right after helping out Bush administration against Taliban. true leaders always learn their lesson from history.
27
Not to mention our overthrowing their democratically elected Prime Minister in 1963 so that British Petroleum could keep control of Iran's oil. We brought back the repressive monarchy under the Shah.
2
I still blame the entire Bush family for the problems in Iran and Iraq and actually for all the terrorist groups that have spun out of control since bush invaded Iraq. Our relationships with them are the crux of the horror that pervades today all over the middle east.
2
Actually, the overthrow happened in 1953 but hey, why let facts ruin the narrative, eh?
3
It is disappointing but not unexpected. While it seemed odd that the announcement last week was not jointly issued by both countries, one already began to suspect that mischief was afoot.
Now they basically want to have all their economy restored, with sizable piece of their country off limits to inspectors.
Now just why would that be? I hope they realize the average American is smarter than that, say nothing of our Congress and leaders who knew all along this might be a ploy.
I'm wondering if they are closer to having a weapon than we know and that any time they buy at all will get them even closer
Now they basically want to have all their economy restored, with sizable piece of their country off limits to inspectors.
Now just why would that be? I hope they realize the average American is smarter than that, say nothing of our Congress and leaders who knew all along this might be a ploy.
I'm wondering if they are closer to having a weapon than we know and that any time they buy at all will get them even closer
71
Gee, at least someone commenting herein has figured it out.
3
Can I remind you that this is not about the 'average american'? Other countries ie Europe , Russia, China can come out of sanctions imposed on Iran and left US alone moaning.
Khamenei expects the West to trust that Iran isn't using their military sites for nuclear activities? That's ridiculous! If Iran won't permit inspections of ALL its sites regardless if they are military or not then we should walk away from the deal. If we can't verify everything then no deal.
116
Negotiations are over. We lost. Get used to Obama.
3
We should walk away from this deal, but don't forget, Obama wants a deal at all costs. Best course is to walk away and leave the sanctions in place until the Iranians force their leaders to come crawling back to the negotiating table to get relief from the sanctions.
Do you permit Iran to inspect your military sites?
You have already used atomic bombs in Japan, haven't you? you have killed millions of people with your weapons? how about you?
You even can not distinguish between right and wrong. your countries and their media have made fool of you.
So sorry for you
You have already used atomic bombs in Japan, haven't you? you have killed millions of people with your weapons? how about you?
You even can not distinguish between right and wrong. your countries and their media have made fool of you.
So sorry for you
1
Anyone who's followed closely this issue knows that just a few years ago, when Iran had only a few centrifuges spinning, the U.S. "bottom line" was an end to Iran's nuclear program, an end to uranium enrichment, and unfettered inspection of all nuclear-related sites so as to minimize the possibility of secret nuclear activity.
Now, while this may be politicking by the "Supreme Leader," it is clear that Iran continues to move the dotted line beyond where the U.S. was saying "no" just days, weeks, or months ago.
Anyone who does not yet understand why the negotiated "framework" [sic] is a very dangerous deal to the U.S. and the world -- not to mention Israel -- is either possessed of pathological ahistoricity or willful intellectual dishonesty or some combination of the two.
Radically Islamist Iran, far more dangerous than ISIS will ever be because of its sovereignty, stability, and relative legitimacy, will only stand to gain more relative legitimacy - and hence become even more dangerous --as a result of the kind of deal the Obama Administration is pursuing.
Oh, and there is the matter of this deal pretty much conceding that Iran will become a nuclear weapons possessor, the only remaining question being, when?
It is now time, as it never was before, for all clear-thinking people, political ideology and party affiliation notwithstanding, to acknowledge that there are issues on which the GOP happens to be right. This is one of them, and arguably the mother of all of them.
Now, while this may be politicking by the "Supreme Leader," it is clear that Iran continues to move the dotted line beyond where the U.S. was saying "no" just days, weeks, or months ago.
Anyone who does not yet understand why the negotiated "framework" [sic] is a very dangerous deal to the U.S. and the world -- not to mention Israel -- is either possessed of pathological ahistoricity or willful intellectual dishonesty or some combination of the two.
Radically Islamist Iran, far more dangerous than ISIS will ever be because of its sovereignty, stability, and relative legitimacy, will only stand to gain more relative legitimacy - and hence become even more dangerous --as a result of the kind of deal the Obama Administration is pursuing.
Oh, and there is the matter of this deal pretty much conceding that Iran will become a nuclear weapons possessor, the only remaining question being, when?
It is now time, as it never was before, for all clear-thinking people, political ideology and party affiliation notwithstanding, to acknowledge that there are issues on which the GOP happens to be right. This is one of them, and arguably the mother of all of them.
61
Agree political ideology MUST be put aside, but it's not just the GOP being "right." To their credit, many Congressional Democrats are also deeply skeptical.
2
No one has said that we would agree to not having access to military bases. It's not certain that is something we have to agree with. In negotiations people ask for and sometimes don't agree to various terms.
Oh wait, I read your comment further. Here, let me say this. There certainly are things that the GOP is correct about. For instance, government is too big (except that they grew it every time they were in). However, what is it that they were right about here? That Iran is evil. Well, that is stating the obvious, but that doesn't disagree with democrats. This pretense that somehow the GOP because they act more like a cowboy movie actor is somehow more enlightened is fallacy. Try to be really fiscally responsible next time and try to really support liberty and the constitution next time, and we might once again begin to believe you really mean what you say.
Oh wait, I read your comment further. Here, let me say this. There certainly are things that the GOP is correct about. For instance, government is too big (except that they grew it every time they were in). However, what is it that they were right about here? That Iran is evil. Well, that is stating the obvious, but that doesn't disagree with democrats. This pretense that somehow the GOP because they act more like a cowboy movie actor is somehow more enlightened is fallacy. Try to be really fiscally responsible next time and try to really support liberty and the constitution next time, and we might once again begin to believe you really mean what you say.
2
Our Senator Schumer is right on this one!
It seems Iran is just playing by it's book, everything is gray and subject to change arbitrarily whenever they want.
29
Congress has not approved the agreement either so in fact we are in the same state of not really agreeing yet too.
Brotherkenny, It is not required that Congress approve any agreement.
3
Immediate lifting of sanctions, that can be reinstated, seems reasonable. Absolutely no inspection of military sites, seems like an unreasonably hard-line to take. May reason win the day.
3
Sanctions will never be able to reinstated because Russia and China will veto them.
50
That's UN sanctions. They can't halt the American sanctions regime. Only Congress can.
2
Therein lies the rub.
Very important point, thanks.
Very important point, thanks.
3
Khamenei's statements about sanctions schedule don't seem merely tactical. It seems unlikely Iran's negotiation team would go against the supreme religious authority, and it seems unlikely a figure like Khamenei will change such a strongly stated position. A supreme religious leader will not look like much of one if he publicaly flip-flops on such a statement.
5
Let's not pay too much attention to the Iranian's posturing, which is mostly for domestic consumption. Stay the course, Mr. Kerry. Yield nothing more, but give the ayatollahs some room to let off steam.
138
The course you argue that Mr. Kerry should stay is one that confers upon Iran substantially greater regional and world legitimacy, elevating the terroristic theocracy to "player" status; bolsters disproportionately economically the Iranian forces that project the extreme Shiite version of Islamism throughout the region and the world (i.e., the ayatollahs and the Quds Force and other military and paramilitary forces that do their bidding); and concedes that Iran will possess nuclear weaponry, the only remaining question being, "When?".
7
So, this is ok, but yield "nothing more?"
Good grief.
Good grief.
1
It appears that at the moment their posturing is somewhat belligerent.
A flotilla in the gulf of Aden, Revolutionary guards and Hezbollah in Syria. Testing ballistink missiles in the Persian gulf, chanting death the America and Israel.
How should we posture to make it easier for them?
A flotilla in the gulf of Aden, Revolutionary guards and Hezbollah in Syria. Testing ballistink missiles in the Persian gulf, chanting death the America and Israel.
How should we posture to make it easier for them?
5
Khamanei's best strategy is to position himself as a hardliner no matter what happens.
If the deal goes well for Iran, he can easily pull back the rhetoric and take credit for it. If the deal goes poorly for Iran, he can say "I told you so."
The reverse would not be true if Khamanei pushed this agreement hard.
That's why Rouhani's presence is so important. It creates a buffer between politics and policy.
This response is to be expected.
If the deal goes well for Iran, he can easily pull back the rhetoric and take credit for it. If the deal goes poorly for Iran, he can say "I told you so."
The reverse would not be true if Khamanei pushed this agreement hard.
That's why Rouhani's presence is so important. It creates a buffer between politics and policy.
This response is to be expected.
154
In any negotiation, one side never gets all the marbles. If we want Iran to sign a deal on June 30 to stop all nuclear arms development for at least 10 years; Iran will certainly want all sanctions to be removed on June 30.
So you are right. Why are we surprised? Iran is not stupid, just like we are not stupid. We (5+1) want Iran to not to become a nuclear arms nation (even though we 5 arrogantly believe we ourselves have a right to own nuclear arms), then we have to keep our end of the deal.
And regarding Iran's defense sites, will any of the us five nations will ever allow any foreign inspectors to inspect any of our own nuclear arms sites? We are not dealing with an illiterate, uncivilized country like Saudi Arabia or Somalia. Iran is the most educated country in the middle east, with a rich ancient civilization. So lets be real and use our minds. Let's not talk like Netanyahu.
So you are right. Why are we surprised? Iran is not stupid, just like we are not stupid. We (5+1) want Iran to not to become a nuclear arms nation (even though we 5 arrogantly believe we ourselves have a right to own nuclear arms), then we have to keep our end of the deal.
And regarding Iran's defense sites, will any of the us five nations will ever allow any foreign inspectors to inspect any of our own nuclear arms sites? We are not dealing with an illiterate, uncivilized country like Saudi Arabia or Somalia. Iran is the most educated country in the middle east, with a rich ancient civilization. So lets be real and use our minds. Let's not talk like Netanyahu.
3
Khamanei doesn't have to position himself as a hardliner. He is a hardliner. He has a deep hatred of the US.
4
We're dealing with a culture whose talent as bargaining merchants goes back to the beginnings of time. It looks like we have a good cop/bad cops deal with Rouhani and Khamanei. Obama and Kerry deserve enormous credit for enabling us to see this far into the Iranian government's functioning. Israel, with its 80 undeclared nuclear weapons and refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, should quit its self-righteous stance.
None of us win if our partner in this agreement is humiliated. Lifting the sanctions at the time of the signing is the right thing to do.
11
I agree that the goal must not be to humiliate Iran and it's better to give them a way to "save face",but they ahve a history of dishonesty so I wouldn't call them a partner, I would call them a counterparty in this deal.
4