This is a very thoughtful, informative and unemotional piece--which is rare in discussions on this subject.
Assuming we work through the agreement, trying to predict what will happen in 15 years, or even 5--or maybe even next year--is impossible. The point to consider now is not what the condition of the world will be in 15 years, but rather whether this agreement can put us on a path--today--for a better and more stable middle east.
Iran is too important to punish perennially, or even to ignore. It has the potential to be a significant counterweight to the outsized influence of Saudi Arabia and Israel on our foreign policy. Imagine an Iran that is no longer a pariah, whose people can participate in a growing economy freed of sanctions. I see an Iran that in 5 years has much more to lose by sanctions than now. That likelihood, in and of itself, makes this agreement a giant step forward.
Do we dare hope for a new ally--if not friend--in the middle east? How will the Imams explain to the more radical citizens of Iran that they should continue to hate the United States, who under severe pressure and criticism from both Israel and Saudi Arabia, nonetheless worked to free the country of sanctions.
I am a harsh critic of Obama's lack of a cohesive foreign policy. But even if this is just a one-off, it's a darned good legacy.
Assuming we work through the agreement, trying to predict what will happen in 15 years, or even 5--or maybe even next year--is impossible. The point to consider now is not what the condition of the world will be in 15 years, but rather whether this agreement can put us on a path--today--for a better and more stable middle east.
Iran is too important to punish perennially, or even to ignore. It has the potential to be a significant counterweight to the outsized influence of Saudi Arabia and Israel on our foreign policy. Imagine an Iran that is no longer a pariah, whose people can participate in a growing economy freed of sanctions. I see an Iran that in 5 years has much more to lose by sanctions than now. That likelihood, in and of itself, makes this agreement a giant step forward.
Do we dare hope for a new ally--if not friend--in the middle east? How will the Imams explain to the more radical citizens of Iran that they should continue to hate the United States, who under severe pressure and criticism from both Israel and Saudi Arabia, nonetheless worked to free the country of sanctions.
I am a harsh critic of Obama's lack of a cohesive foreign policy. But even if this is just a one-off, it's a darned good legacy.
5
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to accuse Iran's Islamic State of seeking Israel's destruction -- and U.S. neocons talk openly about bombing Iran -- the history of Israel's cooperative dealings with Iran, including after the ouster of the Shah and the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979, seems to have been forgotten.
Yet, this background is important when evaluating some of Iran's current political players and their attitudes regarding a possible deal with world powers to limit Iran's nuclear program to peaceful purposes only. In the United States and Israel -- for their own politically sensitive reasons -- much of this history remains "lost" or little known.
The division inside Iran between leading figures who collaborated with the U.S. and Israel behind the scenes and those who resisted those secret dealings took shape in the early 1980s but remains in place, to some degree, to this day.
For instance, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's current Supreme Leader, was more the ideological purist in 1980, apparently opposing any unorthodox strategy involving Israeli and Republican emissaries that went behind President Jimmy Carter's back to gain promises of weapons from Israel and the future Reagan administration.
The US-Israel-Iran Triangle's Tangled History | OpEdNews
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-US-Israel-Iran-Triangl-by-Robert-Pa...
Yet, this background is important when evaluating some of Iran's current political players and their attitudes regarding a possible deal with world powers to limit Iran's nuclear program to peaceful purposes only. In the United States and Israel -- for their own politically sensitive reasons -- much of this history remains "lost" or little known.
The division inside Iran between leading figures who collaborated with the U.S. and Israel behind the scenes and those who resisted those secret dealings took shape in the early 1980s but remains in place, to some degree, to this day.
For instance, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's current Supreme Leader, was more the ideological purist in 1980, apparently opposing any unorthodox strategy involving Israeli and Republican emissaries that went behind President Jimmy Carter's back to gain promises of weapons from Israel and the future Reagan administration.
The US-Israel-Iran Triangle's Tangled History | OpEdNews
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-US-Israel-Iran-Triangl-by-Robert-Pa...
2
Always worthwhile to recall that famous diplomat Talleyrand's comment to Napoleon, who when advised of a revolt in a far flung province, said, "I'll send in a corps to crush it" :" you can do everything with bayonets, except sit on them".
Remember, strategic bombing has never proven itself decisive, or even worth the resources.
Remember, strategic bombing has never proven itself decisive, or even worth the resources.
6
Diplomacy with Iran may be tricky though it is far less tricky than diplomacy with the USA!
Iran, who so ever happens to be at the top, has one guide to follow, which they do, when formulating its policies: Iran's' interests.
The USA seems to have several including some foreign/internal party with a quasi veto power and a solid determination to presume the right to question, accept or reject what USA policy maker propose .
Israel's USA assisted ascendancy in the Middle East has made of it what it presumes and hopes to be a partnership with the USA particularly in ME affairs and has no qualms brandishing it .
IRAN has no such presumptive party shadowing its policy formulation.
Iran, who so ever happens to be at the top, has one guide to follow, which they do, when formulating its policies: Iran's' interests.
The USA seems to have several including some foreign/internal party with a quasi veto power and a solid determination to presume the right to question, accept or reject what USA policy maker propose .
Israel's USA assisted ascendancy in the Middle East has made of it what it presumes and hopes to be a partnership with the USA particularly in ME affairs and has no qualms brandishing it .
IRAN has no such presumptive party shadowing its policy formulation.
2
The major re-alignment of Middle East powers happened after US invasion in Iraq. What was a Sunni-run country under Saddam, we changed into Shia-run country with Maliki as a pro-Iranian ruling regime.
Too late for crying, my conservative friend. You have embolden Iran as a Middle East power and now we have to live with it. Because of our ignorance, Iran now can easily control Iraq and Syria, which is half of the Middle East.
Are we going to ignore it or deal with it? Bombing Iran is not an option, as bombing Syria was never a good option. Realism has to finally sink it, and this deal is the step in the right direction.....
Too late for crying, my conservative friend. You have embolden Iran as a Middle East power and now we have to live with it. Because of our ignorance, Iran now can easily control Iraq and Syria, which is half of the Middle East.
Are we going to ignore it or deal with it? Bombing Iran is not an option, as bombing Syria was never a good option. Realism has to finally sink it, and this deal is the step in the right direction.....
9
"In a perfect world..." Forgive my cynicism, but would be happy with an agreement with Nazi Germany limiting their capacity to produce Zyklon B to 1/3 of their current capacity, and let them keep their current stockpile? And then say that we don't live in a perfect world, so we should welcome such an agreement?
2
Let's start with the fact that any final deal with Iran on its nuclear program is a compromise. We and our allies are in no position at this time to dictate terms as if Iran was a defeated nation, yet the international community has put Iran in an economic stranglehold that only partially succeeded. There is no guarantee that further sanctions have additional effect other than Iran digging in. It hasn't worked for North Korea, a cultural, economic and technological midget in comparison. Under a finalized program the west has rigorous inspection rights for as long as necessary, beyond the 15 year limit specified in the initial agreement. A failure to achieve a final agreement, a result more likely attributable to our congressional obstinacy, would have many serious implications for the Mideast, including national security issues. So what is the response of the naysayers besides itching to go to war against Iran? Nothing, besides getting a better deal through more sanctions. Yet there is no evidence that it would lead to a better deal; more likely a failure due to our intransigence would dissuade our partners from complying with sanctions. I like to hear what Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, et al, as well as the republican leaders in Congress would do, but carefully thought through of the consequences of their more belligerent perspective in preventing the Iranian from developing WMD's. Many experts have indicated that bombing is at best a delaying tactic. Are they willing to invade?
6
as the sun rose around the world today the specter of an undeniable increase in the instability of the region the West calls "The Middle East" has been at a minimum temporarily thwarted.
the alternative that we might have faced today may now have begun to be eliminated--the next plateau will be determined after much additional efforts on all sides.
while a South African "solution" in this region is not possible --- given that one local state already possess nuclear weapons --- perhaps the world will be able, in the end, to avoid a second North Korea.
to the instant-naysayers -- most of whom are nestled safely in their bunkers -- please consider that there are more than 400-million people living in The Middle East...
how, exactly, are we better served at this time by not continuing a conversation rather than: _____ ??
may the P5+1 continue to interact with the representatives of Iran to insure the best possible outcome and at the earliest available time.
the alternative that we might have faced today may now have begun to be eliminated--the next plateau will be determined after much additional efforts on all sides.
while a South African "solution" in this region is not possible --- given that one local state already possess nuclear weapons --- perhaps the world will be able, in the end, to avoid a second North Korea.
to the instant-naysayers -- most of whom are nestled safely in their bunkers -- please consider that there are more than 400-million people living in The Middle East...
how, exactly, are we better served at this time by not continuing a conversation rather than: _____ ??
may the P5+1 continue to interact with the representatives of Iran to insure the best possible outcome and at the earliest available time.
6
With this deal we start to pave the road toward a new ally in the Middle East. The hand shake is the easy part. It's the continued communication through decades, under different leaders, that will test this legacy.
3
a quiet "shout-out" to the Saudi's...
for maintaining their volume of daily oil production...
at substantially reduced average income per barrel...
which surely has made the "sanctions", such that they are, more onerous on the economy of Iran---perhaps influencing their choice to continue negotiating...
every small nudge, in the end, is necessary for "success"...
for maintaining their volume of daily oil production...
at substantially reduced average income per barrel...
which surely has made the "sanctions", such that they are, more onerous on the economy of Iran---perhaps influencing their choice to continue negotiating...
every small nudge, in the end, is necessary for "success"...
2
"In a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment in Iran, and its existing enrichment facilities would be dismantled."
IN a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment anywhere and all its existing enrichment facilities would be dismantled.
IN a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment anywhere and all its existing enrichment facilities would be dismantled.
19
Mr Burns makes a very good case for the current agreement and for its final form to come. While I have not the entire Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in its entirety Mr Burns does appear to make a case for the possibility of a "gray zone in the treaty between the right to use nuclear energy and the prohibition against manufacturing nuclear weapons . . . " If there is not a clear demarcation between military and peaceful activities in the treaty there should be. But, no matter how clear and specific any treaty may be it might seem equally plausible to entertain the idea that a country might cheat. That is why inspections by the IAEA are so vitally important. Many of course make the argument that the Iranians might cheat. Therefore it is important that the agreement be very good and every aspect of it be solid.
1
What shocks me is those advocating bombing, bombing, bombing.
Do they think such things have no consequences, that Iran will go "awwww, they broke my toys" and cry in a corner rather than, say, unleashing a flurry of attacks on the people of Israel either on their own or through an invigorated Hezbollah? Do they think Iran will leave centrifuges out in the middle of nowhere rather than force those bombs to rain down amongst schools, hospitals, communities? Do they think that the international community that supports this deal will rally around us, and that none who would like to see us taken down a notch will find a way to leverage attacks on Iran to try and weaken us or drag us into another prolonged, painful, expensive conflict?
When the bombs fall, it's going to be ugly. Let's be clear on that. It's not so easy as the armchair quarterbacks would have us believe.
Do they think such things have no consequences, that Iran will go "awwww, they broke my toys" and cry in a corner rather than, say, unleashing a flurry of attacks on the people of Israel either on their own or through an invigorated Hezbollah? Do they think Iran will leave centrifuges out in the middle of nowhere rather than force those bombs to rain down amongst schools, hospitals, communities? Do they think that the international community that supports this deal will rally around us, and that none who would like to see us taken down a notch will find a way to leverage attacks on Iran to try and weaken us or drag us into another prolonged, painful, expensive conflict?
When the bombs fall, it's going to be ugly. Let's be clear on that. It's not so easy as the armchair quarterbacks would have us believe.
9
Any positives coming out of Mr. Burns even with a lot of ifs and buts, I would reckon that there is a lot in this deal, this framework which is very right.
And Larry Eisenberg, you are absolutely the best. The Times should give you a column for your limericks on all the news that's fit to print.
And Larry Eisenberg, you are absolutely the best. The Times should give you a column for your limericks on all the news that's fit to print.
3
I have disagreed with Pres. Obama on several issues related to aggressive foreign policy action in the Middle East but the deal with Iran is a bold and visionary move and should be applauded by all who seek peace in the region. This is a particularly courageous initiative in the face of vocal opposition by the Neo-con Mandarins in Washington and Israel.
Well done Mr. President!
Well done Mr. President!
7
Iranians are celebrating. Because this is a great deal. For them.
3
I grew up in an Irish Catholic family that detested Lutherans and considered Martin Luther a demon and apostate. That's pretty much disappeared these days, but the same animosity held between the Muslims of Sunni and Shiite persuasions is as strong as ever. It has to change before there is peace in our time.
1
In the published "parameters", Iran will ship out its spent fuel rods. No mention of the existing stockpile of enriched uranium. If they are telling the truth about not intending to build a bomb, why do they need this material, whose only use is to build a bomb?
1
The deal is meaningless. Except to give Iran a path to a bomb. Delayed, perhaps; and that only if they do not cheat. They know that being caught cheating will lead only to more talks during which they'll deny cheating . . . Under the proposed agreement, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons and, when this bitter enemy, one that leads the world in state-sponsored terrorism, does so: It has proclaimed, and continues to proclaim, who it will use them against: Israel, and The Great Satan: Us!
We keep acting as if the mores of the Islamic theocracies are the same as ours. They aren't. Our approach to negotiations is based upon trust and honesty. Theirs is based upon fulfilling the dictates of the Qu'ran, and it advocates, among its most effective strategies, deceit.
We keep acting as if the mores of the Islamic theocracies are the same as ours. They aren't. Our approach to negotiations is based upon trust and honesty. Theirs is based upon fulfilling the dictates of the Qu'ran, and it advocates, among its most effective strategies, deceit.
3
NeverLift
Where, I wonder, in the agreement, does it state that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons?
Where, I wonder, in the agreement, does it state that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons?
6
"Our approach to negotiations is based upon trust and honesty"
That would be very very silly and irresponsible.... It should be based on intelligence.... 100%.
Use your brain, not your heart, buddy.....
That would be very very silly and irresponsible.... It should be based on intelligence.... 100%.
Use your brain, not your heart, buddy.....
Iran needs a strong centrist government that has open dialogue with the rest of the world to counteract the extremism and disarray that has gripped the Middle East for decades. I am all for supporting dialogue and diplomacy which will only give more strength to a moderate and stable government in that region. Bombing our way through the Middle East has proven to only make extremism stronger.
10
In a perfect world, no one would have the bomb and the insistence of those who have it that no one else can get it is debatable. However, you can't have one country in the area with the bomb and expect others to accept the situation with equanimity. So the deal is as good as can be got, unless one thinks that going to war is the best solution…and bombing another country is definitely an act of war.
I see from other reports that Netanyahu wants recognition of Israel, a new demand, as part of the deal. There is a huge inconsistency here. If Netanyahu is sure that Iran will not honor the nuclear deal, of what value is Iran's word that it recognizes Israel? Besides, there have been thousand of cases in which countries that recognized one another have gone to war. While the enmity toward Israel, in some quarters is definitely there, I find it hard to accept that Iran's sole purpose in life is getting rid of Israel…to the point that they would precipitate mutual destruction.
I see from other reports that Netanyahu wants recognition of Israel, a new demand, as part of the deal. There is a huge inconsistency here. If Netanyahu is sure that Iran will not honor the nuclear deal, of what value is Iran's word that it recognizes Israel? Besides, there have been thousand of cases in which countries that recognized one another have gone to war. While the enmity toward Israel, in some quarters is definitely there, I find it hard to accept that Iran's sole purpose in life is getting rid of Israel…to the point that they would precipitate mutual destruction.
13
I wonder if those angry crowds in Iran shouting "death to america" and the displays of Israel being destroyed by an Iranian nuclear bomb are anything to be concerned about.
2
No
Political rhetoric is what the Republicans has mastered and it only goes so far.
As an ally we should be concerned about all allies equally including Israel and Saudi Arabia but not at the expense of the US Geo-political Interest and actions and pronouncements of our elected representatives must reflect that.
Political rhetoric is what the Republicans has mastered and it only goes so far.
As an ally we should be concerned about all allies equally including Israel and Saudi Arabia but not at the expense of the US Geo-political Interest and actions and pronouncements of our elected representatives must reflect that.
7
We've been "friends" with Saudis last 50 years and what we got in return? A militant Islam Called Wahhabi which is responsible for all terrorist attacks on Western soil (North America and Europe). Correct me if I am wrong, but there was no single Shia attack on Western soil.
That should count for something and I think as far as cultural and scientific advancement is concerned, Iran is way ahead of any Arab country. We need to re-align our ties in the Middle East.
That should count for something and I think as far as cultural and scientific advancement is concerned, Iran is way ahead of any Arab country. We need to re-align our ties in the Middle East.
16
"In a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment in Iran, and its existing enrichment facilities would be dismantled. But we don’t live in a perfect world."
In a perfect world should the United States, let alone Israel, Pakistan, Russia, China and India have nuclear enrichment? Should they have atomic bombs? If yes, why? It seems like the perfect world is quite a slanted type of planet.
In a perfect world should the United States, let alone Israel, Pakistan, Russia, China and India have nuclear enrichment? Should they have atomic bombs? If yes, why? It seems like the perfect world is quite a slanted type of planet.
5
It's not perfect, but it's a crucial step forward. Yeah, right off the cliff.
3
While Mr. Boehner is in Israel trying to help Natanyahu kill the deal, the Ayatollahs are similarly condemning the deal. Perhaps Israel and Us can sell some weapon systems to Iran like they did under Reagan and that will make all the right wingers on both sides happy.
5
All very good points.
But you see we are Americans.
1. We are less likely patient enough to nail down all these points in negotiation. In contrast, Persians are very patient.
2. We like quick results, even if so-called results were gained by giving up substance of a solid agreement in favor of the form or an agreement, signed and sealed (Do nations still seal key documents with wax?) . We are eager, desperate for a political victory to carry into the next Presidential election. Like the thirst-crazed who chase desert mirages.
Kumbaya defeats the spirit of Kissinger.
But you see we are Americans.
1. We are less likely patient enough to nail down all these points in negotiation. In contrast, Persians are very patient.
2. We like quick results, even if so-called results were gained by giving up substance of a solid agreement in favor of the form or an agreement, signed and sealed (Do nations still seal key documents with wax?) . We are eager, desperate for a political victory to carry into the next Presidential election. Like the thirst-crazed who chase desert mirages.
Kumbaya defeats the spirit of Kissinger.
3
Americans desire for quick results is more likely to result in bombings than diplomacy. Pres. Obama has shown great patience.
9
'IN a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment in Iran,'
In a perfect world, there would be no nuclear weapons! Period.
In a perfect world, there would be no nuclear weapons! Period.
10
This is a very fine agreement except those who want war with Iran and would make the perfect the enemy of the good.
9
"...if executed rigorously and embedded in wider strategies for regional order and global nuclear order, can be a significant turning point."
The Marshall Plan was one of those initiatives embedded in wider strategies leading to improved regional and international order. An excellent point in a thoughtful op-ed. I saw Mr Burns on Charlie Rose and was greatly impressed with him. I hope we get to here more of his commentary in the future.
The Marshall Plan was one of those initiatives embedded in wider strategies leading to improved regional and international order. An excellent point in a thoughtful op-ed. I saw Mr Burns on Charlie Rose and was greatly impressed with him. I hope we get to here more of his commentary in the future.
5
"IN a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment in Iran, and its existing enrichment facilities would be dismantled"
In a perfect world there would be no nuclear weapons... Period.
In a perfect world there would be no nuclear weapons... Period.
1
What bothers me is that Obama is trying to negotiate a treaty without calling it a treaty as he is afraid to submit the final agreement to Senate approval.
Obama should not be allowed to make an end run around the constitution for the sake of his legacy. This is a treaty and should be treated like one. That means it must get the 2/3 vote of approval by the Senate. Anything less would be rank dishonesty on the part of Obama and a violation of the constitution.
Obama should not be allowed to make an end run around the constitution for the sake of his legacy. This is a treaty and should be treated like one. That means it must get the 2/3 vote of approval by the Senate. Anything less would be rank dishonesty on the part of Obama and a violation of the constitution.
5
The key is the second sentence: "But we don't live in a perfect world." Iran is a sovereign country, with its own opinions and desire to be a force in the Arab world, if not beyond. It is hubris to think that the U.S. in isolation can dictate the terms of Iran's existence. All the posts about rejecting what has been negotiated for a "better deal" represent a giant gamble that if sanctions have not prevented Iran from continuing with its nuclear weapons development until now, perhaps even more sanctions will prevent that development in the future. Is this a gamble we really want to take, since one possible outcome is the development of an Iranian bomb, and then only military action if someone wants to stop it? The "better deal" some are looking for is in reality regime change in Iran, but the negotiations in place are to prevent nuclear weapons development. Every attempt by the U.S. to achieve peaceful regime change in the region has failed. The deal under discussion is the best option we have.
6
In 2013 Mr. Obama stated that Iran's goal of peaceful nuclear development did not require hidden facilities and thousands of centrifuges. Why have those metrics now become acceptable? Saying that Iran will now be more than one year away from developing a nuclear weapon is a very thin victory.
4
It is interesting to note the premise of the Iranian enrichment negotiations. Based on false premises and unfounded fears, a protracted agreement is tentatively reached with a President casting blame prematurely on all who differ, plus determining responsibility for a conflagration believed inevitable if the accord is not signed by all parties. When ground zero is shaky so are all pontifications and accords and those with the megaphone in hand.
Currently, Pakistan has an ample supply of Nuclear weapons with the same resounding Islamic religiosity and perhaps greater instability, yet the crickets are the only pronounced sound heard. Yet Iran, much like Cuba, until recent thaws, remains as the media boogeyman, dumbing down the population while maintaining the reactionary fear-based scenario rehearsed and practiced ad infinitum for now what amounts to two plus generations. Once the mantel belonged to the Soviet Union and China until time presented a more likeable scenario much like it has, though not yet recognized, in Iran. It is past time to ratchet up the fear and be present centered. This is not about legacies for a narcissistic President, it is simple trade; the commerce of humanity that has worked for all peoples across all borders from the dawn of human civilization.
Currently, Pakistan has an ample supply of Nuclear weapons with the same resounding Islamic religiosity and perhaps greater instability, yet the crickets are the only pronounced sound heard. Yet Iran, much like Cuba, until recent thaws, remains as the media boogeyman, dumbing down the population while maintaining the reactionary fear-based scenario rehearsed and practiced ad infinitum for now what amounts to two plus generations. Once the mantel belonged to the Soviet Union and China until time presented a more likeable scenario much like it has, though not yet recognized, in Iran. It is past time to ratchet up the fear and be present centered. This is not about legacies for a narcissistic President, it is simple trade; the commerce of humanity that has worked for all peoples across all borders from the dawn of human civilization.
1
The author was Deputy Secretary of State until recently, and has still been involved in the negotiations. In other words, he is defending his own work. Not exactly an independent assessment.
4
"Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war."
Churchill.
Churchill.
7
When are we going to do extensive examination of the nuclear weapons in Israel?
9
This looks to me like an adventure of an American tourist shopping in a Middle Eastern bazaar and believing every word of a shopkeeper. In this deal a tangible (lifting sanctions) is exchanged for a promise, which is worth only if one trusts the other side. Israel has the same dilemma: exchanging real land for a promise of peace, given by an adversary known not to keep the promises.
6
I guess it's a good deal if you are ready to say goodbye to our most important ally in the region.
"Mohammad Reza Naqdi, head of the Basij militia unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, has surfaced to reassure the world that death for Israel is still very much on the table on the eve of the P 5 nuclear talks, and will never be negotiated away as part of any nuclear deal with President Obama."
http://bit.ly/IranWantsToEraseIsraelFromTheMap
"Mohammad Reza Naqdi, head of the Basij militia unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, has surfaced to reassure the world that death for Israel is still very much on the table on the eve of the P 5 nuclear talks, and will never be negotiated away as part of any nuclear deal with President Obama."
http://bit.ly/IranWantsToEraseIsraelFromTheMap
3
Thumbs up for Islamic extremism, thumbs down for an ally, Israel. This is a very sad day indeed.
7
Just a quick reminder to those who think that Iran wants to nuke Israel. Jerusalem is highly sacred real estate for Islam and any nuclear attack on Tel-Aviv will most certainly poison the countryside, including Jerusalem, Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt etc. etc. for millennia. Any attack will likely ignite a Sunni-Shia all-out war and bring 4,000 years of Persian culture to an end. Sure, there is lots of hate here, but enough to cause one's own likely destruction?
31
Byron Jones - you say "Sure, there is lots of hate here, but enough to cause one's own likely destruction?"
Ask any suicide bomber.
Ask any suicide bomber.
1
You have painted a very picturesque fantasy world and I do hope your dreams come true.
But alas, history is destined to repeat itself as extremists are well, a bit extreme in nature.
Did you miss the news last summer of the barrage of missiles shot at Jerusalem by the Islamic extremists from Hamas?
http://bit.ly/HamasAttacksOnJerusalem
Time to wake up from your dream. What part of "they don't give a you know what" don't you understand?
But alas, history is destined to repeat itself as extremists are well, a bit extreme in nature.
Did you miss the news last summer of the barrage of missiles shot at Jerusalem by the Islamic extremists from Hamas?
http://bit.ly/HamasAttacksOnJerusalem
Time to wake up from your dream. What part of "they don't give a you know what" don't you understand?
Thank you Mr. Bill Burns for all your efforts and persistence to get two peoples engaged to resolve their problems diplomatically.
9
According to Mr. Burns, Iran is presently 2-3 months away from having a nuclear device. We just gave them an extra 3 months before the next "deadline" is reached.
Feel safer?
Feel safer?
4
I would not feel any less safe if Iran did build a bomb. What would they do with it. It is people like you who make me feel less safe. You, the Cheney's, the Rumsfeld's, and all the other Bush war mongering neocons. That is who make me feel less safe.
23
Yes, I do feel safer. Persia is not going anywhere, they have a legitimate major role to play in their region, and they will always project power. Far better to agree on the things we can while working on other things than seek defeat and submission. That's not going to happen except in fools' daydreams. Teddy Roosevelt had it right.
9
No, it is presently two to three months from having weapons-grade nuclear materials for a nuclear device. There is a lot more to do to actually build a militarily-usable nuclear weapon than having the nuclear material for it.
But that's a detail. The strong inspections regime providing information for intelligence gathering which can, in turn, strengthen the inspections regime, will be a great accomplishment if it can be nailed down in a signed agreement.
But that's a detail. The strong inspections regime providing information for intelligence gathering which can, in turn, strengthen the inspections regime, will be a great accomplishment if it can be nailed down in a signed agreement.
The outline of a deal is another example of acting like an adult in the room by the international community and Iran. Hopefully, someone can articulate the long range benefits of this deal with the American people in the face of intense opposition from Israel and the Republicans who want another war.
6
"we would create an inspection regime unparalleled in intensity, going well beyond current international standards and ensuring that any breakout effort would be quickly detected."
Going beyond current international inspection standards is not a feather in anyone's cap. Those "standards" consist of rounding up a hundred or so Indian and Philippine "soldiers" to stand and watch while whichever terrorist organization they should be "inspecting" goes about their merry, bloody business. The inspection regime in this deal damn well better be stronger than our current "standards."
Going beyond current international inspection standards is not a feather in anyone's cap. Those "standards" consist of rounding up a hundred or so Indian and Philippine "soldiers" to stand and watch while whichever terrorist organization they should be "inspecting" goes about their merry, bloody business. The inspection regime in this deal damn well better be stronger than our current "standards."
As I recall, the inspectors, before we invaded Iraq, said over and over there were no WMDs there. It's hard to hold back the dogs of war when people hold the leash.
1
In the balance of power between three theocratic regimes: The Saudi-Egyptian Axis, Israel, and Iran, it is imperative that the United States seek neutrality and fairness. While Saudi money has fueled an extremist philosophy throughout the region, Egypt at least has taken decisive action against those extremists. Iranian money has sponsored groups in resistance to the Wahabbi Sunni extremists sponsored by the Saudis, who are also the basis of al Qaeda and the Islamic State, thus in an important way making itself a natural ally of the U.S., which was attacked by Saudi-citizen-sponsored al Qaeda. Israel is an important cultural and economic ally, but has drifted towards and unsustainable apartheid, so has become morally unsupportable as a government. Better relations with Persia is exactly the direction we need to balance all this out, restore humility to Israel and the Saudis, and make it clear that we've left behind the Bush Doctrine of unending war on their behalf.
8
Well good, now we can remove the missiles, from Poland and Rumania in working out some diplomacy deal with mother Russia; Iran was the 'lame' excuse
why we put missiles in eastern Europe, assuring Russia they would be pointed at Iran i.e. implementing GW's 'defense shield'. Just maybe this could be the opportunity to walk back from this pivotal blunder in stabilizing Eastern Europe.
why we put missiles in eastern Europe, assuring Russia they would be pointed at Iran i.e. implementing GW's 'defense shield'. Just maybe this could be the opportunity to walk back from this pivotal blunder in stabilizing Eastern Europe.
2
Critics of the article, like critics of the deal, fail to offer rational alternatives. They also fail, as does the article itself, to consider the pursuit of nuclear power from the Iranian view point. Iran is a major state in a nuclear power neighborhood; Israel, India, Pakistan have nuclear weapons. They are all likely adversaries. It fought a ten year war with a Sunni-led Iraq supported by the U.S. Wars that affect its safety rage in two bordering states. Saudi Arabia, an aggressive enemy, is backed by the world's leading nuclear power, the U.S. Wouldn't you be insecure? These are the real reasons it has endured sanctions for so long.
But it is now willing to forgo the nuclear safety net, at least for the time being. We can only speculate why. The sanctions have been a factor, yes. But also the widespread unrest of a few years ago resulted in a relatively more moderate government. The Supreme Leader has hushed the hardliners. Recent military cooperation between the U.S. and Iran to defeat ISIS may also be a factor The growing rift between the West, particularly the U.S., and Israeli right-wing political opinion is another. The U.S. has moderated.
The deal will not make Iran our friend. Our interests and our allies in the Middle East clash with Iranian interests. These remain existential threat to their Islamic republic. But this deal takes a major irritant away. It give hope that its alternatives can only dash.
But it is now willing to forgo the nuclear safety net, at least for the time being. We can only speculate why. The sanctions have been a factor, yes. But also the widespread unrest of a few years ago resulted in a relatively more moderate government. The Supreme Leader has hushed the hardliners. Recent military cooperation between the U.S. and Iran to defeat ISIS may also be a factor The growing rift between the West, particularly the U.S., and Israeli right-wing political opinion is another. The U.S. has moderated.
The deal will not make Iran our friend. Our interests and our allies in the Middle East clash with Iranian interests. These remain existential threat to their Islamic republic. But this deal takes a major irritant away. It give hope that its alternatives can only dash.
5
This proposed agreement will be a good thing. Absent any comprehensive understanding to control all arms in the Middle East, it is a beginning. Of course, Israel does not like the agreement, but most likely its government would not like any cooperation between the U.S. and Iran, just on general principles.
If there is ever to be a lessening of tensions in this area of the world, these kinds of agreements will need to become more commonplace.
If there is ever to be a lessening of tensions in this area of the world, these kinds of agreements will need to become more commonplace.
3
I share Bill Burns' view that this is a step forward and I hope the Congressional hardliners will not block it. I also agree there is much more that needs to be done, including a broad-based effort to restrain Iranian threats to Israel and other countries of the region. Getting to that broad-based effort will be like herding cats, which is why the P5 + 1 format should be kept alive. Many of those who criticize this and any other diplomatic effort to contain Iran seem not the realize that the US does not have the unilateral capability to impose or enforce sanctions. If the critics reject diplomacy, they better be prepared for a really long war. Whose children will be sent to that?
5
Peace is only ever a temporary and geographically limited condition, ever fragile and about 3 hot meals away from descent into anarchy. After this deal is done, why not exploit our post-citizens united system and get some legislation done that mandates that wars must be paid for by taxes on carried interests and a Tobin tax?
1
We don't hold the moral high ground on this issue.
Why should we be the ones deciding who is entitled or not to nuclear knowledge, technology, or even weapons? Are we wiser than anybody else? After all, we are the only country on the face of this earth to have ever used a nuclear bomb, not once, but twice, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
President Obama is right to say that the only long term solution to nuclear proliferation is a ban on nuclear weapons for all nations. Full stop.
Why should we be the ones deciding who is entitled or not to nuclear knowledge, technology, or even weapons? Are we wiser than anybody else? After all, we are the only country on the face of this earth to have ever used a nuclear bomb, not once, but twice, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
President Obama is right to say that the only long term solution to nuclear proliferation is a ban on nuclear weapons for all nations. Full stop.
5
Since 1968 all nations signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat have promised to work toward the elimination of ALL nuclear weapons. The "perfect world" to which William Burns refers is the one in which this is actually happening. Obama and Putin have made some reductions in the START treaties, but the hypocrisy remains. Iran can't have nukes, but is it OK with the international community of nations for Israel to have 200 or so, which they have never acknowledged and for the NPT signers to keep their thousands? Nuclear weapons kill even if they are never detonated - the mining, milling, enrichment, conversion to plutonium, manufacturing and waste disposal all have claimed their victims around the world. I applaud the hard work of the Lausanne negotiations, but we will be doing this again and again until we earn the trust of the non-nuclear weapons world by meeting the pledge we made in 1968.
3
On the surface this may seem like a good deal, but taking a step back it is the same cat ans mouse game with Iran that the U.S. has played with them and North Korea for years over nuclear weapons.
The diffiuclt part will be Iran holding to its end of the deal if it can even be completed in writing. Iran has been operating with sanctions unimpeded for almost 30 years; lifting them does not seem to be the relief they are made out to be. Even the heavy water center at Arak will stay open.
The deal is really only a good one to make both sides look good and pacify those that were desperate for a peaceful deal. There are too many "ifs" to celebrate.
The diffiuclt part will be Iran holding to its end of the deal if it can even be completed in writing. Iran has been operating with sanctions unimpeded for almost 30 years; lifting them does not seem to be the relief they are made out to be. Even the heavy water center at Arak will stay open.
The deal is really only a good one to make both sides look good and pacify those that were desperate for a peaceful deal. There are too many "ifs" to celebrate.
5
Although as John Kerry says there is still a lot of work to be done, this is the finest moment of Mr Obama's presidency, and could become (if all works out) the greatest moment for the US since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, or Medicare and Social Security.
The Republicans must learn that there is a limit to partisanship - limits that could raise both the status of their political party and the status of our nation.
The Republicans must learn that there is a limit to partisanship - limits that could raise both the status of their political party and the status of our nation.
11
"With all its inevitable imperfections, we can’t afford to miss this one." Well said and well done. Rome wasn't built in a day, but it might be obliterated in the blink of an eye.
Recent comments on the negotiations to date are littered with "appeasement" and "Chamberlain." There is no evidence that patient diplomacy constitutes appeasement, and too much evidence that those who throw Chamberlain's name around know little of the man or of what he did. Chamberlain's hope for peace didn't cause Hitler to invade Poland and to wreck Europe. In fact, it was Chamberlain who gave Hitler an ultimatum, and when Hitler ignored that, Chamberlain declared war on Germany.
Let's hope cool heads prevail and we don't declare war on Iran, either because of Iranian treachery or because we allow ourselves to be led by the noses by Bibi.
Recent comments on the negotiations to date are littered with "appeasement" and "Chamberlain." There is no evidence that patient diplomacy constitutes appeasement, and too much evidence that those who throw Chamberlain's name around know little of the man or of what he did. Chamberlain's hope for peace didn't cause Hitler to invade Poland and to wreck Europe. In fact, it was Chamberlain who gave Hitler an ultimatum, and when Hitler ignored that, Chamberlain declared war on Germany.
Let's hope cool heads prevail and we don't declare war on Iran, either because of Iranian treachery or because we allow ourselves to be led by the noses by Bibi.
8
The inevitable attacks on the general agreement with Iran has begun. Like those who rejected all negotiations with the Soviet Union during the Cold War on the basis that it couldn't be trusted to carry out its agreements, the far right has dredged up the same argument, with the despicable PM of Israel leading the way. Sunday will see an escalation of the war against the Obama Doctrine that emphasizes diplomacy first and war as a last resort. Want to bet the John McCain and Lindsey Graham will be on TV? In time the Soviet Union abided by several treaties and agreements it signed because we could verify their compliance. Same with Iran. Let's move forward with hope based on reasonable hope and the lessons of the past.
14
Those that don't like this deal have not come up with any alternatives aside from waiting around for Iran to complete their nuclear weapons development while trying, unsuccessfully, to starve them into capitulation. That isn't working. There is not much reason to believe that it is suddenly going to start to work.
Or we could bomb them, but there is real debate about how effective this could be. The one thing it will do is make the Iranian people dislike us. Right now they probably, on average, like us more than they like their own government. Why would you want to throw that away? You think that doesn't matter? You think that won't matter in the future?
Whichever way you go you're rolling the dice. I'd rather roll the ones that avoid killing people who presently like us.
Or we could bomb them, but there is real debate about how effective this could be. The one thing it will do is make the Iranian people dislike us. Right now they probably, on average, like us more than they like their own government. Why would you want to throw that away? You think that doesn't matter? You think that won't matter in the future?
Whichever way you go you're rolling the dice. I'd rather roll the ones that avoid killing people who presently like us.
13
Mr. Burns is a class diplomat whose tempered optimism over the tentative nuclear deal is grounded in his first-hand negotiations with Iran. He is absolutely correct when he states, "Completing this comprehensive nuclear accord with Iran must be one part of a cleareyed strategy for a Middle East in deep disarray." In other words, this is not just about removing the threat of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but about the larger goal of opening a dialogue with Iran that could bring peace to a very troubled region that now has two wars raging in Iraq-Syria against ISIS and in Yemen against Iranian-backed Houthi Shiites. The war-hawk opposition led by Senator Tim Cotton in the Senate and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel offer, as President Obama outlined, only a much larger war involving in the region that would dwarf Iraq in its catastrophic consequences by inevitably entangling world powers in an effort to protect the global economy from collapsing due to threat of a shutdown in Middle East oil. This is why the hard, diplomatic work of peace is so vital; and it is why the cheap talk of distrust, fear, and war is so irresponsible.
35
My own feeling is it would be wise for us to be somewhat tolerant in terms of how we judge Iran. The United States should not be the world's policeman, telling countries what forms of government they should have.etc. All countries have the right to choose whatever form of government they wish. To wait for every country on the planet to please us in every respect before we will "approve" of them is to play a power game that will inevitably alienate everyone. This country has its faults too, although the US media does little to allow the foreign criticism to be heard. In the give and take of international diplomacy, all could and should be heard and agreements hammered out, as in this case.
19
Kind of like celebrating victory over a serious disease when the Doc only knows the symptoms and hopes there's a cure.
4
In every endeavor, one has to clear the big obstacles first before doing the fine work. You have to move the furniture before painting the room; you have to move the fallen branches before cutting the grass; you have to prepare the canvas before painting the portrait. A necessary first step in any plan for the Middle East is to establish diplomacy with the major nations. We haven't done that with Iran and now we have a start. Same issue with Cuba.
10
In an ideal world, India, Pakistan, Israel and some other countries would not have nuclear bomb capability. We do not live in an ideal world. Once the genie was out of the bottle in WW II, it was only a matter of time before many other countries would have that capability.
6
I am so sick of hearing that we can somehow bomb our way to world domination, and that we are powerful enough to force everyone else to do our bidding.
In the real world, ruining the neighborhood makes enemies. I'm glad to see a lot more mention of Mossadegh recently. We put in a corrupt despot (the Shah) to support BP and other oil interests, destroying a real democracy.
And as to civilization, Iran (Persia) has a long history. By pushing hatred, we help the hard-line leaders repress a population that once was a vibrant culture, inclusive of intellectuals, art, women, and variety.
We are too fond of ruining the neighborhood; we're good at that. Then we leave a destroyed infrastructure, we should not be surprised that people don't like us. Would you like someone who made it hard to get electricity and clean water? Who bombed your homes?
Bear in mind that war is the ultimate pollution, of place and minds. It leaves a cesspool of hatred that bears bitter fruit through the ages.
As to Israel, how it thinks it can dominate its way to survival is beyond me. If Congress prefers Netanyahu to Obama, that shows they have forgotten the fundamental principles on which our great nation was founded. Bullying and domination belonged to King George, and we should know that overseas domination is bound to backfire.
In the real world, ruining the neighborhood makes enemies. I'm glad to see a lot more mention of Mossadegh recently. We put in a corrupt despot (the Shah) to support BP and other oil interests, destroying a real democracy.
And as to civilization, Iran (Persia) has a long history. By pushing hatred, we help the hard-line leaders repress a population that once was a vibrant culture, inclusive of intellectuals, art, women, and variety.
We are too fond of ruining the neighborhood; we're good at that. Then we leave a destroyed infrastructure, we should not be surprised that people don't like us. Would you like someone who made it hard to get electricity and clean water? Who bombed your homes?
Bear in mind that war is the ultimate pollution, of place and minds. It leaves a cesspool of hatred that bears bitter fruit through the ages.
As to Israel, how it thinks it can dominate its way to survival is beyond me. If Congress prefers Netanyahu to Obama, that shows they have forgotten the fundamental principles on which our great nation was founded. Bullying and domination belonged to King George, and we should know that overseas domination is bound to backfire.
42
W. J. Burns,
WHILE I applaud your efforts to initiate the Dialog on Iran's Nuclear File, you brilliantly fail falling Victim to the US Self-Righteousness by conveniently ignoring "America's Destructive Role In Iran Since 1953", initiating Iraq's invasion of Iran and orchestrating a "Pan-Arab Financing and Arming of Saddam" not to mention US's complicity in Saddam's use of Chemical Weapons against Iran.
Additionally you are blindly adhering to "Protecting Our Allies Slogan", which is not only Deplorable but also is the Root Cause of the Mayhem in the Middle East as the US in essence has been pandering to a Primitive and Repressive Regime in the Al-Saud clan.
IF the US wants to claim the "Moral High Ground" and act the way it does, that is a testament to "Ultimate Hypocrisy".
WE need to do better, indeed much better than supporting and protecting the likes of the House of Saud et al.
I Will Take Iran Over Saudi Arabia As An Ally Any Day!
WHILE I applaud your efforts to initiate the Dialog on Iran's Nuclear File, you brilliantly fail falling Victim to the US Self-Righteousness by conveniently ignoring "America's Destructive Role In Iran Since 1953", initiating Iraq's invasion of Iran and orchestrating a "Pan-Arab Financing and Arming of Saddam" not to mention US's complicity in Saddam's use of Chemical Weapons against Iran.
Additionally you are blindly adhering to "Protecting Our Allies Slogan", which is not only Deplorable but also is the Root Cause of the Mayhem in the Middle East as the US in essence has been pandering to a Primitive and Repressive Regime in the Al-Saud clan.
IF the US wants to claim the "Moral High Ground" and act the way it does, that is a testament to "Ultimate Hypocrisy".
WE need to do better, indeed much better than supporting and protecting the likes of the House of Saud et al.
I Will Take Iran Over Saudi Arabia As An Ally Any Day!
26
Congratulations for telling the real facts.....unfortunately, the war machine is still able to buy irresponsible Congress
1
Amen!
Very well said. In fact, so lucid that is likely only to confuse other inhabitants of the capital. The Philadelphia delegation casts its ballots for Ambassador Burns.
3
What so many on the right fail to see is that, without some sort of a treaty it is inevitable that Iran will possess nuclear weapons - perhaps in only a year or two. With a treaty that includes rigorous inspection, as this one does, those weapons are at least ten years away from development. Yes, it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing...unless you are stupid enough to think that bombing their facilities is the answer. And the resulting war might very well leave us and the rest of the world with exactly that - Nothing!
9
We haven't come very far since the days when our caveman ancestors fought with crude clubs, in an effort to gain the upper hand.
In many respects, the discovery of atomic power, and it's various uses, was the single worst thing for humanity, when one considers that our base instinct has not changed from the days of the caveman, when the victor beat his opponent to a bloody pulp.
The club has evolved into a streamlined device capable of mass destruction, cast towards an opponent with the same murderous desire to destroy, that existed in our caveman ancestors.
I will begin to believe we are becoming civilized, when all of our representatives come together and agree to verifiable nuclear disarmament.
Think of it, the money and resources redirected for the good of all; many, looking at this thinking, fear that such a concept might take hold, and interfere with their innate desire to remain in control of all of the people, and the wealth that belongs to each and every one of us.
In many respects, the discovery of atomic power, and it's various uses, was the single worst thing for humanity, when one considers that our base instinct has not changed from the days of the caveman, when the victor beat his opponent to a bloody pulp.
The club has evolved into a streamlined device capable of mass destruction, cast towards an opponent with the same murderous desire to destroy, that existed in our caveman ancestors.
I will begin to believe we are becoming civilized, when all of our representatives come together and agree to verifiable nuclear disarmament.
Think of it, the money and resources redirected for the good of all; many, looking at this thinking, fear that such a concept might take hold, and interfere with their innate desire to remain in control of all of the people, and the wealth that belongs to each and every one of us.
3
In many ways over the last several decades, we have embraced and prospered from advances in technology, but we have abandoned civilization. This agreement between Iran and the developed world could become a huge step towards reclaiming and advancing civilization, if it creates momentum for greater understanding over greater conflict.
Mr. Burns, in a perfect world there would be no nuclear enrichment - - - period.
Our country opened this Pandora's box. Now we have to live with it and the responsibilities it carries with it.
This issue is not over American security. Iran has no motive what-so-ever to use a nuclear weapon agains the USA. This argument is all about Israel and they way they see their security which is very unilateral and intransigent.
Our country opened this Pandora's box. Now we have to live with it and the responsibilities it carries with it.
This issue is not over American security. Iran has no motive what-so-ever to use a nuclear weapon agains the USA. This argument is all about Israel and they way they see their security which is very unilateral and intransigent.
8
We have nothing to lose by giving diplomacy a try. It's an important step in securing long term peace in the region.
6
With this breakthrough, against opposition from our corrupt Congress and a dishonest Israeli PM, Obama stands poised to join the Pantheon of truly great US Presidents. Now, he should go for the UN vote for a Palestinian State.
Let's see: Killed Bin Laden, got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, health coverage for all, nuclear deal with Iran, stock market doubled, debt cut in half , unemployment rate below 6%. All with unrelenting Republican opposition. Yeah, not a bad President after all.
Let's see: Killed Bin Laden, got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, health coverage for all, nuclear deal with Iran, stock market doubled, debt cut in half , unemployment rate below 6%. All with unrelenting Republican opposition. Yeah, not a bad President after all.
13
George W Bush certainly left a lot to clean up, but some of your claims are overblown. This agreement is Obama's crowning achievement, along with increasing health care access (though not yet universal). Please let me know when we have truly left Iraq and Afghanistan.
PS: To round out your enthusiasm, let's give the Federal Reserve a great big round of applause for growth-oriented monetary policies, while the political system failed in its fiscal policy.
PS: To round out your enthusiasm, let's give the Federal Reserve a great big round of applause for growth-oriented monetary policies, while the political system failed in its fiscal policy.
If it holds, Obama has Bibi Netanyahu to thank; He could not have done it alone.
1
Next up----eliminate the Israeli nuclear arsenal!
10
this is the real problem.....Saudi and Bibi....not Iran
Still waiting for an explanation why after George W. labeled North Korea as part of the "Axis of Evil" , the GOP and George W did nothing when North Korea anounced in 2002 it was abrogating prior agreements and building nuclear weapons. Nothing I have heard from the GOP talking heads prevents Iran, ISIL or any other rogue entity from acquiring nuclear weapons from Noth Korea. Yet when all the major world powers obtain a commitment from Iran to stop its nuclear enerichment program the Republicans become hysterical.
Would they prefer US just sell them armaments like the Reagan folks did?
Would they prefer US just sell them armaments like the Reagan folks did?
3
For anyone with a brain, the opening paragraph gives away everythiing (just as President Obama seems willing to do in this deal).
"We don't live in a perfect world" (translation: what can we do?)
"What we can do is sharply constrain it over a long duration, monitor it with unprecedented intrusiveness" Translation: No matter how this disaster turns out, that promise cannot be broken because it is no promise at all.
Were an advertiser to make claims like this they would be taken to task by the FTC. But since it is merely President Obama, it just means kick the can to my Republican successor, who will deal with all of the problems I've exacerbated.
"We don't live in a perfect world" (translation: what can we do?)
"What we can do is sharply constrain it over a long duration, monitor it with unprecedented intrusiveness" Translation: No matter how this disaster turns out, that promise cannot be broken because it is no promise at all.
Were an advertiser to make claims like this they would be taken to task by the FTC. But since it is merely President Obama, it just means kick the can to my Republican successor, who will deal with all of the problems I've exacerbated.
3
@MFW
Apparently your cranial capacity is such that you think we live in a perfect world free of regional and great power rivalries. And it seems to have escaped your notice that his Republican predecessor who had 8 years to solve the problem (when Iranian nuclear development was less advanced) kicked the can down the road to his successor along with all the other cans he kicked like the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the worst economic crash since the 30's
Apparently your cranial capacity is such that you think we live in a perfect world free of regional and great power rivalries. And it seems to have escaped your notice that his Republican predecessor who had 8 years to solve the problem (when Iranian nuclear development was less advanced) kicked the can down the road to his successor along with all the other cans he kicked like the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the worst economic crash since the 30's
21
Just reading the first two comments, isn't it amazing how much more courage it takes to make peace than to make war!? What if -- what if this actually works? What if Iran is not the monster we think it is, and their people are very much like us? Wanting a good life, tired of constant war, misunderstood by nations around the world. Can you comprehend the choice here, between a chance for a workable peace with Iran, and more bloodshed, horror, killing? Before you condemn this agreement, ask yourself, do you actually want peace? Or are you just looking for an excuse to continue the violence? And if it's the latter, then look deep within yourself and ask yourself why.
11
"We can’t wish or bomb away the basic know-how and enrichment capability that Iran has developed."
Of course, you can bomb it away. Over and over again, if necessary.
Of course, you can bomb it away. Over and over again, if necessary.
5
Well, not so simple, given that a lot of it is underground. And what will be the result of all this bombing? A greater effort to produce a bomb (further underground if necessary), more terrorism, and yet more chaos in the Middle East. Whatever Bibi and the Republicans in Congress say, bombing is a formula for disaster.
3
Yeah,
Bombing was so effective, for example, in Viet Nam.
More tonnage dropped on Viet Nam that all theaters of WW II COMBINED.
Showed them!
Bombing was so effective, for example, in Viet Nam.
More tonnage dropped on Viet Nam that all theaters of WW II COMBINED.
Showed them!
4
This is the kind of thinking that has made the Middle East such an intransigent and dangerous threat to international peace. You cannot always bomb your way to peace. Bombing the people of another nation "over and over again" only inculcates hatred, a desire for vengeance, and an appropriate weapon with which to exact vengeance, or at least a weapon which will forestall the bomber. That desire will be directed at obtaining strategic military capacity: the development of nuclear weaponry.
Iran already has the knowledge, expertise and material to create a nuclear weapon, and trying to bomb those facts away can only reinforce Iranian determination to arm itself for protection from a power whose official position is to bomb it into submission "over and over."
Negotiation is hard and difficult work, and it is not always successful... but it is much more likely to arrest Iranian development of nuclear weaponry than throwing bombs at the issue.
Iran already has the knowledge, expertise and material to create a nuclear weapon, and trying to bomb those facts away can only reinforce Iranian determination to arm itself for protection from a power whose official position is to bomb it into submission "over and over."
Negotiation is hard and difficult work, and it is not always successful... but it is much more likely to arrest Iranian development of nuclear weaponry than throwing bombs at the issue.
25
"The second and third challenges are more long-term, but equally important. Completing this comprehensive nuclear accord with Iran must be one part of a clear-eyed strategy for a Middle East in deep disarray."
This is an important point to keep in mind as we elect our next President. Will s/he be leading the chorus to renege on this fledgling deal or will s/he move it forward. All of us have a stake in getting this right.
This is an important point to keep in mind as we elect our next President. Will s/he be leading the chorus to renege on this fledgling deal or will s/he move it forward. All of us have a stake in getting this right.
4
"Trust but verify" ... R. Reagan
If this framework produces in a comprehensive agreement, verifiable through inspection, that restricts Iran's ability to enrich uranium to weapon's grade material we should give it a chance. It is much better to jaw-jaw rather than war-war.
And if the final agreement is strong and lasting, this President and his team of diplomats, should be publically applauded for their historic achievement. My hat is off to Mr. Burns, the President, and Mr. Kerry for their bold, historic effort to bring peace to the world !
If this framework produces in a comprehensive agreement, verifiable through inspection, that restricts Iran's ability to enrich uranium to weapon's grade material we should give it a chance. It is much better to jaw-jaw rather than war-war.
And if the final agreement is strong and lasting, this President and his team of diplomats, should be publically applauded for their historic achievement. My hat is off to Mr. Burns, the President, and Mr. Kerry for their bold, historic effort to bring peace to the world !
6
What deal? The Iranians dispute Obama's description of key parts of the agreements, stating that there is "no agreement " and calling Obama's statement a "spin". How is this different from Pelosi's "We have to pass the bill to know what is in it"
If The two parties to an agreement dispute its terms the day after agreement, how can any of us say anything meaningful?
If The two parties to an agreement dispute its terms the day after agreement, how can any of us say anything meaningful?
2
Sunstroke?
In the last 62 years the US has:
Deposed a democratic government in Iran.
Installed, armed and backed a dictator in Iran.
Armed and funded Saddam Hussein to fight Iran.
Gave Saddam Hussein satellite imagery to improve his use of chemical WMD's on Iran.
Shot down Iran Air 655, killing 290 civilians, 66 of them children.
Cyber nuked Iran.
Tried to starve Iran with sanctions.
Diplomacy can only be the first step in the right direction.
After all it was US actions that radicalized Iran, paving the way for the 36 year rule of the ayatollahs.
Deposed a democratic government in Iran.
Installed, armed and backed a dictator in Iran.
Armed and funded Saddam Hussein to fight Iran.
Gave Saddam Hussein satellite imagery to improve his use of chemical WMD's on Iran.
Shot down Iran Air 655, killing 290 civilians, 66 of them children.
Cyber nuked Iran.
Tried to starve Iran with sanctions.
Diplomacy can only be the first step in the right direction.
After all it was US actions that radicalized Iran, paving the way for the 36 year rule of the ayatollahs.
11
Thanks for the real history......ignored by the war machine and their irresponsible protectors.....the Congress
1
It is becoming evident to anyone thinking with their heads instead of their hearts that there are some folks that no matter what the deal was it would be a bad deal. Maybe the leader of Iran rants about wiping one country off the face of the earth is a rallying cry for war.But,yes here comes the but, the only difference is he tells the world and Bibi shows the world they are on the same page. To try to kill a deal before there is deal is ludicrous. To think the six strongest countries in the world would be such rubes they would buy a bridge from the much despised leader of Iran is bordering on lunacy. Nixon made a deal with China at the same time China was supplying weapons that where killing GI's in Nam. To see the leaders of the House and Senate standing with Bibi in Israel against a deal they have not even seen is disturbing. Their hatred of Obama is truly only overshadowed by their hatred of the troops they are so willing to send to war. John Bolton said we should start bombing now. My question for Bolton is will he be on the first bomber over Iran and will Dick Cheney be his copilot and Bill Kristol his weapons officer. Seems like the fight against Obamacare being played out again. They have no plan B. Before you send our children to war again you better exhaust everything possible not to have a war. Oh I forgot when the caskets come back to Dover AFB these guys will want to ban cameras.
22
Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif,
a far better actor than Omar Sharif,
has taken to Twitter to voice his belief,
there isn’t a phased plan for sanctions relief.
He tweeted that none of the plants will shut down,
Fordow will stay open and remain underground,
enrichment proceeds unrestrained and unbound,
and whatever's enriched can be sold out of town.
This fact-sheet the P5 + 1 has presented,
is nothing but spin, Zarif then lamented.
None of the bargains, it seems are cemented,
yet all those involved are being commended.
But Iran has made only one promise to date,
that their hatred toward Israel will never abate,
and given the chance, they will seek to create,
a weapon to wipe out the Jews and their state.
a far better actor than Omar Sharif,
has taken to Twitter to voice his belief,
there isn’t a phased plan for sanctions relief.
He tweeted that none of the plants will shut down,
Fordow will stay open and remain underground,
enrichment proceeds unrestrained and unbound,
and whatever's enriched can be sold out of town.
This fact-sheet the P5 + 1 has presented,
is nothing but spin, Zarif then lamented.
None of the bargains, it seems are cemented,
yet all those involved are being commended.
But Iran has made only one promise to date,
that their hatred toward Israel will never abate,
and given the chance, they will seek to create,
a weapon to wipe out the Jews and their state.
2
Is this a good deal like the one Merker and Hollande reached with Putin on Ukraine? Does it matter the degree to which America's (former) allies Israel and Saudi Arabia are on board? How good are inspection regimes of emasculated countries and organizations at getting in and doing there work where they aren't wanted?
This smacks more of a response to America's guilty conscience for the Shah's regime and Europe's pathetic pacifism than of the best way forward. It will lead to a lot more violence, though, hopefully, not nuclear violence.
This smacks more of a response to America's guilty conscience for the Shah's regime and Europe's pathetic pacifism than of the best way forward. It will lead to a lot more violence, though, hopefully, not nuclear violence.
1
The Iranians gave the American Democratic party a victory here to bolster the chances that the next President will be a Democrat. The Republicans have proven themselves to be hostile, intransigent and vehement on continuing belligerent posturing.Iran must know that they have to make a deal now before a Republican possibly takes office. The letter sent to Iran by the Republicans only proved to them that they better broker a deal now before they face a Party that wants to keep hostilities and sanctions going forever. Ironically, the letter will keep Democrats in power for the next eighty or eighty years.
5
The point is in the translation..... When the news of the deal was published in the Iranian press yesterday it was read differently than in the rest of the world. To no ones great surprise the advantages all seem to point to Iran with no mention of controls and inspections. We would also like to have seen a declaration that forbids Iran exporting terror .
Obviously, Iranian leaders care about their people and don't want them to starve. If only North Korea's rulers were as caring.
Excellent, and with the lead editorial today surrounds the negative "analysis" of the White House Correspondent which focuses not on the agreement but on the Republican politics surrounding it. A wise editorial decision.
1
Most comment is written as if the monster in the corner of the room was not a specific lobby in the US, but it is critical to examine the political usefulness and moral imperatives behind our motivations: the US alliance with Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf States, our friendship with the Egyptian military dictatorship, support for ex-Russian and other oligarchs, our encouragement of and support for Iraq to attack Iran, our invasion of Iraq on two occasions..., our inability to analyze the interplay between our politico-economic and moral interests that have a direct impact on who we choose as friends and allies in the medium term; the various “lines of force” in State are frozen in some sort of chauvinistic cold war…)
The economic and political role we play in the world is one of commercial self-interest, and a will to political domination for its own sake – the time is long past when we were regarded as protector and a positive moral influence in the world. Our allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, various ex-Russian states, our role in the UN, our protection of predatory economic and financial interests, world-wide, our support of offshore money laundering, for wide-spread abuse of power and predation in South America and Africa…, our attempts to impose arbitrary sanctions on others and support for those who have a longstanding record of abusing power (Israel for example…) discredits us and calls into question our moral right to intervene…
The economic and political role we play in the world is one of commercial self-interest, and a will to political domination for its own sake – the time is long past when we were regarded as protector and a positive moral influence in the world. Our allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, various ex-Russian states, our role in the UN, our protection of predatory economic and financial interests, world-wide, our support of offshore money laundering, for wide-spread abuse of power and predation in South America and Africa…, our attempts to impose arbitrary sanctions on others and support for those who have a longstanding record of abusing power (Israel for example…) discredits us and calls into question our moral right to intervene…
1
The Obama administration is lucky to have a highly skilled diplomat like William J. Burns on board! It's rare nowadays to find an adviser with so much acumen and adeptness.
Obama took the world by surprise with his back-channel diplomacy in dealing with Iran and William Burns did a marvellous job in pulling the strings.
Obama took the world by surprise with his back-channel diplomacy in dealing with Iran and William Burns did a marvellous job in pulling the strings.
60
The Iranians have not stopped weapon development and the world just became a much more dangerous place. Weakness always encourages bullies and this is exactly what happened. Israel is not going to be anhialated without a fight.
Agreed. But what about the other P-5 +1 nations?
Why were Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov absent from the final appearance and introduction of this nuclear agreement with Iran by the P5 +1?
Why did the E.U. and Iranian Foreign Ministers speak at this event?
Neither China nor Russia are members of the E.U.. Did the E.U. minister speak for Russia and China? Did the E.U. minister speak for the U.N.?
Why were Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov absent from the final appearance and introduction of this nuclear agreement with Iran by the P5 +1?
Why did the E.U. and Iranian Foreign Ministers speak at this event?
Neither China nor Russia are members of the E.U.. Did the E.U. minister speak for Russia and China? Did the E.U. minister speak for the U.N.?
Why do all the editorialists think that simply delaying Iran's ability to make a nuclear bomb is a good thing?
Who takes solace in the fact that it only took North Korea 20 years to build nuclear bombs?
Harsh sanctions got us to the negotiating table in the first place.
A better deal could have been struck had we not sabotaged the process by easing the sanctions before beginning the negotiation. Now, everyone at the table acknowledges that the deal will not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon only delay it.
Want your kids to move to Israel or Iraq?
Who takes solace in the fact that it only took North Korea 20 years to build nuclear bombs?
Harsh sanctions got us to the negotiating table in the first place.
A better deal could have been struck had we not sabotaged the process by easing the sanctions before beginning the negotiation. Now, everyone at the table acknowledges that the deal will not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon only delay it.
Want your kids to move to Israel or Iraq?
7
Pray tell, oh great historian, when were sanction 'eased' before beginning the negotiations, negotiations that went on for over 18 months?
Before commenting just for comments' sake, one should at least check facts.
Before commenting just for comments' sake, one should at least check facts.
2
Since you apparently missed the good news reported yesterday in the NYTimes:, "Iran agreed to cut the number of operating centrifuges it has by two-thirds, to 5,060, all of them first-generation, and to cut its current stockpile of low-enriched uranium from around 10,000 kilograms to 300 for 15 years." Without an agreement and with continued sanctions, the number of operating centrifuges would and enriched uranium would have continued to grow. Moreover, production of Pu at their research facility would also continue. That means, Iran would be ready to build a nuclear bomb before the end of 2015. Finally, the rest of the world had made it clear that they would not continue sanctions if the US refused to seriously negotiate with Iran. Your argument lacks any understanding of the facts and consequences of not pursuing an agreement
3
Sanctions are still in place. It's up to the Iranian regime to remove them by honoring the agreement. The world is safer with this agreement than without it.
3
America plays the patsy again, in negotiating with Iran. I suspect my granddaughter will see a nuclear attack on Israel in her lifetime. Just don't think the 1500 yrs of hatred over there can be overcome. Sad
3
Gee, I was concerned about America first not Israel. Israel has been leading our diplomacy efforts for too long. It's time we took control of our interest first.
And Iran subsequently levelled by Israel's 80 to 120 existing nukes?
I believe and hope the ayatollahs are smarter than some of the commenters here.
I believe and hope the ayatollahs are smarter than some of the commenters here.
Pessimism is easy. Managing peace is hard. War may yet come but it won't be because sensible people didn't try to prevent it.
The US broke 500 treaties with the Indians but I think this treaty will come back to bite like a venomous snake.
1
Australians would know.
The US must stand firm and not let the extremely harsh criticism by Israel kill the deal. We have nothing to lose if the inspections are kept on track. We will prevent a nuclear war with Iran and many,many folks from being killed!! Let those who in effect want war expose themselves in the light of day and spell out an alternate solution and highlight their fear rhetoric for what it is.
37
In a perfect world, there would be trust between USA and Iran. Iran would be having a Nuclear Industry like Brazil or Japan.
This merely a mechanism to build trust. Maybe after 10 years we can see how it goes.
This merely a mechanism to build trust. Maybe after 10 years we can see how it goes.
10
"In a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment in Iran, and its existing enrichment facilities would be dismantled. But we don’t live in a perfect world. " What a completely idiotic statement. Of course we don't live in a perfect world. In a perfect Middle East Israel wouldn't run amok on a regular basis in Arab Towns, and make the confiscation of land a national pass time. Has Israel ever bothered to apologize for upsetting the balance of terror in the region by building nuclear war heads? Not even a chance! Yet Iran, which quit building a bomb years ago, has been punished for doing what it had a legal right to do in the field of peaceful nuclear energy based upon Israel's original sin.
In a perfect world there would be no cancers or deformity of bones which requires nuclear medicine for a cure, and the nuclear verification which the Obama administration will now crow about has been mostly in place anyway. The simple fact is that Iran is not in violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty, and that has been the elephant in the room along with Israel's nuclear weapons throughout this absurd process of scapegoating Iran to provide cover for Israel. The US has made a perfect mess of this admittedly imperfect Middle East, and now as a result we are backing Saudi Arabia, which is in turn supporting ISIS, in order to turn the tables on Assad who is the enemy of ISIS, while Turkey provides logistical support for ISIS against Iran and Syria. Truly it is all a perfect mess!
In a perfect world there would be no cancers or deformity of bones which requires nuclear medicine for a cure, and the nuclear verification which the Obama administration will now crow about has been mostly in place anyway. The simple fact is that Iran is not in violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty, and that has been the elephant in the room along with Israel's nuclear weapons throughout this absurd process of scapegoating Iran to provide cover for Israel. The US has made a perfect mess of this admittedly imperfect Middle East, and now as a result we are backing Saudi Arabia, which is in turn supporting ISIS, in order to turn the tables on Assad who is the enemy of ISIS, while Turkey provides logistical support for ISIS against Iran and Syria. Truly it is all a perfect mess!
15
Interesting that Mr. Burns tiptoed around the elephant in the room -- Israel (and Netanyahu's meddling with Congress) as a major stumbling block.
23
Conservative hard-liners ignore the reality that if the previous administration, at the time of its greatest leverage, had put forth half the effort that this one did in the last few years we would have secured a better deal than today's framework agreement. That time was 2003, but the Bush administration had other plans, and firmly rejected Iranian overtures. It took us a long time to get to yesterday, but Mr. Burns and his team's work on the JPOA really did give us a plausible way forward. And Iran, by all accounts, kept its commitments in that agreement.
There is a long way to go, but perhaps yesterday might be seen, as Churchill put it in another context and time, as the end of the beginning. Iran's leaders may have gained some appreciable prestige yesterday, but it's not hard to see how, in time, the Iranian people will emerge as the big winners.
There is a long way to go, but perhaps yesterday might be seen, as Churchill put it in another context and time, as the end of the beginning. Iran's leaders may have gained some appreciable prestige yesterday, but it's not hard to see how, in time, the Iranian people will emerge as the big winners.
45
"It took us a long time time to get to yesterday."
What a perfectly succinct description of American foreign policy. Does NO ONE remember or read about our century of intolerable meddling in the region?
What a perfectly succinct description of American foreign policy. Does NO ONE remember or read about our century of intolerable meddling in the region?
Dismantling Iran's nuclear program would not be an example of a perfect world. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is still in force with virtually every nation on earth as a signatory (except Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea). It grants all non-nuclear-weapons countries the "inalienable right" to peaceful nuclear development. Nineteen of those NPT signatories enrich uranium, just like Iran. At least three of them, Japan, Argentina and Brazil, have flirted with making nuclear weapons, and no one calls for the dismantlement of their nuclear programs.
If Iran could somehow have been forced to give up its nuclear development, it would destroy the NPT. This would have been a disaster for world arms control.
Americans seem to think that there are no limits to American demands, and that we can force our will on anyone with enough money or firepower. But it is not true. The United States is also bound by treaty obligations and international law.
Oh, and the NPT requires the United States to protect the peaceful nuclear programs in all the signatory countries--including Iran.
If Iran could somehow have been forced to give up its nuclear development, it would destroy the NPT. This would have been a disaster for world arms control.
Americans seem to think that there are no limits to American demands, and that we can force our will on anyone with enough money or firepower. But it is not true. The United States is also bound by treaty obligations and international law.
Oh, and the NPT requires the United States to protect the peaceful nuclear programs in all the signatory countries--including Iran.
51
How ironic that the same people who told us that sanction does not work and naively called President Obama weak for sorting to engage Iran but first brought the world powers together to sanction Iran to oblivion and crippled their economy is now saying lets enact more sanctions. Remember that? Hopefully they will see the light and start singing diplomacy works, if the eventually deal saves us from war and prevents Iran from obtaining atomic bomb, and averts nuclear arms race in the most volatile region the world we all love.
14
You've got a deal! If all goes according to plan, I will literally sing "diplomacy works." But if Iran ends up like another (more dangerous) North Korea, would you be willing to sing MY song? It goes like this: "Obama is a spineless, unprincipled foreign policy amateur who gets schooled by rogue states and terrorists."
The Iranians have always said that they had no interest in building an atomic, nuclear or plutonic weapon. It's the rest of the world that is of the opinion that the Iranians are being deceitful. With low confidence in the Iranians and the Iranians in the rest of the world, the P5+1 and Iran have come to an understanding on which to base an agreement.
If there is an agreement and that agreement includes research and development activities as the understanding indicates, the Iranians will gain more knowledge in the atomic energy field. While most of you reading this comment may not be aware of the Atoms for Peace program instituted during the Eisenhower administration -- the US shared its atomic energy knowledge with its European friends -- the Iranians will gain knowledge from the R&D permitted by the forthcoming agreement. Concern about the Iranians "cheating" on the agreement may pale in contrast to what they may learn through the R&D in which they are permitted to participate.
If there is an agreement and that agreement includes research and development activities as the understanding indicates, the Iranians will gain more knowledge in the atomic energy field. While most of you reading this comment may not be aware of the Atoms for Peace program instituted during the Eisenhower administration -- the US shared its atomic energy knowledge with its European friends -- the Iranians will gain knowledge from the R&D permitted by the forthcoming agreement. Concern about the Iranians "cheating" on the agreement may pale in contrast to what they may learn through the R&D in which they are permitted to participate.
1
The subject of the negotiations with Iran should focus upon how soon Iran's illegitimate, unelected despotic rulers can leave and go into exile, possibly with their wealth intact if we feel like allowing that. The fact that the current crop of despots replaced another bunch of unelected despots does not confer one iota of legitimacy upon the current bunch of dictators.
Tell the Iranian people that not only will we not lift any sanctions we will ramp up sanctions until these dictatorial religious-fanatics are gone, thrown out by the Iranians or otherwise. If the Mafia by force took over Italy would anyone consider the Mafia Italy's legitimate rulers? I think not. Same thing here.
The only acceptable deal is that Iran gets no nukes whatsoever; that inspectors can inspect at any time and any place in the inspectors' sole discretion; and that Iran's dictatorial rulers, like the ayatola and his moolas, who are all "Twelvers" who believe that there is some mythical 12th imam named "Al Mahdi" among us and that Al will show up with Jesus to redeem humanity, leave post haste.
"Dumbness", to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces, like, in this case, wanting to cut a deal at any cost. That anyone would even consider allowing these fanatics in oil-rich Iran to possess anything nuclear is just plain dumb.
Tell the Iranian people that not only will we not lift any sanctions we will ramp up sanctions until these dictatorial religious-fanatics are gone, thrown out by the Iranians or otherwise. If the Mafia by force took over Italy would anyone consider the Mafia Italy's legitimate rulers? I think not. Same thing here.
The only acceptable deal is that Iran gets no nukes whatsoever; that inspectors can inspect at any time and any place in the inspectors' sole discretion; and that Iran's dictatorial rulers, like the ayatola and his moolas, who are all "Twelvers" who believe that there is some mythical 12th imam named "Al Mahdi" among us and that Al will show up with Jesus to redeem humanity, leave post haste.
"Dumbness", to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces, like, in this case, wanting to cut a deal at any cost. That anyone would even consider allowing these fanatics in oil-rich Iran to possess anything nuclear is just plain dumb.
2
And your views about the growing arsenal of nuclear weapons in North Korea? Bet you have good ideas about what could be done there, as well.
"But the prospect of a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran in the next few months, if executed rigorously and embedded in wider strategies for regional order and global nuclear order, can be a significant turning point. It can also be a much-needed demonstration of the enduring value of diplomacy."
I'm afraid your reasoning is not based on the prevailing ground situation in the Middle East. The fight between Shiites and Sunnis has intensified in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. While Iran is openly arming the Iraqi army and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, to fight against the Isis, which comprises mainly of Sunnis, Saudi Arabia is openly funding Al Qaeda groups based in Syria and Iraq, to fight against the Shiite army in Iraq and Houthi rebels in Yemen. This conflict may escalate into a major war between Iran, on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and other countries with predominantly Sunni population on the other.
The biggest threat with any nuclear deal with Iran is that it will force Saudi Arabia to go for the nuclear option with the help of Pakistan. I feel that in the days ahead, we are going to see intensified conflicts in the region.
I'm afraid your reasoning is not based on the prevailing ground situation in the Middle East. The fight between Shiites and Sunnis has intensified in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. While Iran is openly arming the Iraqi army and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, to fight against the Isis, which comprises mainly of Sunnis, Saudi Arabia is openly funding Al Qaeda groups based in Syria and Iraq, to fight against the Shiite army in Iraq and Houthi rebels in Yemen. This conflict may escalate into a major war between Iran, on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and other countries with predominantly Sunni population on the other.
The biggest threat with any nuclear deal with Iran is that it will force Saudi Arabia to go for the nuclear option with the help of Pakistan. I feel that in the days ahead, we are going to see intensified conflicts in the region.
2
I'm expecting a well-orchestrated campaign to sabotage the agreement from the Republican side starting on Sunday morning.
Even if the agreement is good. Even if it helps improve relations with Iran. Even if it effectively prevents Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons I expect the Republicans to sabotage this agreement and to do everything in their power to take us back to where we were before the negotiations started.
Tension with Iran helps a lot of people make a lot of money in Israel, Iraq and the US. Those people won't let their cash cow die and their employees on Capitol Hill will not let that happen. After all, they get paid to make sure their masters never lose money.
Even if the agreement is good. Even if it helps improve relations with Iran. Even if it effectively prevents Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons I expect the Republicans to sabotage this agreement and to do everything in their power to take us back to where we were before the negotiations started.
Tension with Iran helps a lot of people make a lot of money in Israel, Iraq and the US. Those people won't let their cash cow die and their employees on Capitol Hill will not let that happen. After all, they get paid to make sure their masters never lose money.
14
Their masters who never lose money are Dylan's Masters of War, they that build all the guns and the big bombs " and hide behind walls."
What I don't understand is why Graham and McCain are so proud to stand among them. House and Senate GOP behavior on this issue will separate the forever warmongers from those willing to give a reasoned supervised plan for peace a chance. I hope Democratic members of Congress full throatedly back the president on this and not pander to outside interests. KA
What I don't understand is why Graham and McCain are so proud to stand among them. House and Senate GOP behavior on this issue will separate the forever warmongers from those willing to give a reasoned supervised plan for peace a chance. I hope Democratic members of Congress full throatedly back the president on this and not pander to outside interests. KA
The key to this editorial is the conditional phrase about the deal: "if executed rigorously and embedded in wider strategies for regional order". As far as "rigorous execution" is concerned past experience demonstrates that Iran will cheat. iIran has violated the UN Security Council resolution demanding disarmament of south Lebanon by shipping advanced rockets to Hezbollah.
Regarding "regional order" an Iranian General of the National Guard stated that the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable. Does that sound like regional order? This agreement is doomed to failure.
Regarding "regional order" an Iranian General of the National Guard stated that the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable. Does that sound like regional order? This agreement is doomed to failure.
1
We, as a country, will see a day soon when we truly regret this deal; just as our country has always regretted appeasement deals made with totalitarian governments. It is stunning how people can simply ignore hundreds of years of our country's history and continue to think, "this time will be different". It shows an intellectual cognitive dissonance amongst the left that will someday, quite literally, blow up in our faces.
6
Guess you think Reagan was part of that appeasing left when he negotiated arms reduction treaties with the USSR--not to mention Nixon's opening to Communist China. All durable international deals involve compromises that give each side some of what they want, otherwise there is no reason to agree. In the absence of diplomacy, military force is the remaining option. Is that your recommended approach? Better be prepared for a really long and bloody war.
We are the fools. There are no guarantees, merely empty words from the Iranians. However, a nuclear attack from Iran will continues to support middle eastern wars, which is the end game for many.
5
Just a shout out to Obama.
If it was up to any one of the republican candidates we'd have troops in 5 countries now and an economy in ruins. Absolutely no social programs and public education stripped of any support.
I applaud Obama for Cuba, Getting out of Iraq, Staying out of Iraq, Staying out of Syria, Backing the Iranians fight against ISIS, Emigration, and China's Climate deal. These are all remarkable tests that he has navigated skillfully. I look forward to his next moves.
If this Iranian Nuke deal is signed he will be the best president since FDR
No offense to Israel, but please, you voted in a monster. Shut up and stay out of our government.
If it was up to any one of the republican candidates we'd have troops in 5 countries now and an economy in ruins. Absolutely no social programs and public education stripped of any support.
I applaud Obama for Cuba, Getting out of Iraq, Staying out of Iraq, Staying out of Syria, Backing the Iranians fight against ISIS, Emigration, and China's Climate deal. These are all remarkable tests that he has navigated skillfully. I look forward to his next moves.
If this Iranian Nuke deal is signed he will be the best president since FDR
No offense to Israel, but please, you voted in a monster. Shut up and stay out of our government.
159
You're right, and I'd add health insurance for 16 million more Americans. None of these accomplishments is "perfect," but they are nonetheless great accomplishments. Hopefully we'll build on them. The Republicans have accomplished... what?
It's easy to criticize those who accomplish something of value, while doing nothing of value yourself, and accepting zero responsibility for the process or the outcome. No bomb for 10 years? It should have been 20! A thousand! No, 10,000!
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." When will all difficulties end and all possible progress in everything be achieved? Well, never. The realistic goal is forward movement, not the end of all challenges.
It's easy to criticize those who accomplish something of value, while doing nothing of value yourself, and accepting zero responsibility for the process or the outcome. No bomb for 10 years? It should have been 20! A thousand! No, 10,000!
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." When will all difficulties end and all possible progress in everything be achieved? Well, never. The realistic goal is forward movement, not the end of all challenges.
1
The last sentence is unfortunate. Not that you wrote it, but that indeed, Israel is run by a warmonger, and many Israeli's dislike him far more than we ever could.
As William J. Burns says, "In a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment in Iran,...". True enough, but he failed to add that in a perfect world the Middle East would be free of nuclear weapons. Manifestly it is not, and surely that is a worthy goal for American policy to pursue.
5
And in a perfect world the USA, China, Russia, France, UK, and Israel would not have nuclear weapons either. Why do we think we can have the means to end the world but everyone else should cower without any comparable protection for their national interests? Nuclear weapons are so terrible they forced the West and the Soviets (and so far the Chinese) into detente. Treaties are better than bombs, for bombs simply lead to more bombs.
Good luck getting Israel to give up theirs
Luck has nothing to do with it.
So they get to keep centrifuges in a bomb proof bunker and some think this is a good deal. No way. The Saudis will soon announce plans to start their own nuclear program.
4
Well, Israel didn't bother to announce theirs.
"Three challenges loom largest.
The first is the most obvious and immediate: the difficult, painstaking work of negotiating the details of a comprehensive agreement."
So, is Mr. Burns telling us that nothing has really been agreed to?
The first is the most obvious and immediate: the difficult, painstaking work of negotiating the details of a comprehensive agreement."
So, is Mr. Burns telling us that nothing has really been agreed to?
3
"In a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment" .... for a few seconds I thought the sentence would end there. Why should the US decide who should have nuclear enrichment or not. Is the US telling the world that there are no secret Labs/tests being conducted apart from the huge stock pile of arms which has been amassed. Find it amazingly funny with the I decide all attitude.
I should admit, though that it is good from a peace process that the US and Iran have made progress in their discussions.
I should admit, though that it is good from a peace process that the US and Iran have made progress in their discussions.
6
I agree with the main thrust of this article. But am I alone in seeing the irony and hubris in declaring a non-nuclear Iran as a condition for a perfect world while we ourselves (not to mention a dozen or so allies and non-allies) hold on to thousands of nuclear warheads?
23
We will be more "safe" if we can persuade Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons. Based on what's going on in that area, a "nuclear free" middle east will be much better.
1
Bombs are easy . Shock and awe . Just look at at how well it works out Just blow it up, but duck when those bombs come back to haunt you.
But living with frustration as you try to work things out is tough for it takes time and patience. And putting up with all those who just want to bomb. And after long term talks it just will not work out and some force may be needed.
But when you respond with listening and talking sometimes those on the other side of the table will do the same. I pray for our Congress.
But living with frustration as you try to work things out is tough for it takes time and patience. And putting up with all those who just want to bomb. And after long term talks it just will not work out and some force may be needed.
But when you respond with listening and talking sometimes those on the other side of the table will do the same. I pray for our Congress.
32
I agree. This deal should be allowed to go through.
As then senator Obama said in 2007, the idea of not talking to a nation is somehow punishment to them is an absurdity.
Also absurd and antiquated in this increasingly interconnected world are the thoughtless and frankly unworthy statements by such senators as McCain, Cruz, Cotton, Graham, and the like, that eschew talking in favor of bombing. Given the military problems endemic in such a plan, for these supposedly august members of Congress to say such things is worse than foolish - all it speaks is that for all the military briefings they get, they know nothing at all.
I have said it here before: such men are dangerous. They are of the ilk of the usurper Bush, and his gang, who literally blew up the relative stability of the Middle East, and who bear the responsibility for all the attendant fear, misery, uncertainty and horrid violence that has sprung from it.
As then senator Obama said in 2007, the idea of not talking to a nation is somehow punishment to them is an absurdity.
Also absurd and antiquated in this increasingly interconnected world are the thoughtless and frankly unworthy statements by such senators as McCain, Cruz, Cotton, Graham, and the like, that eschew talking in favor of bombing. Given the military problems endemic in such a plan, for these supposedly august members of Congress to say such things is worse than foolish - all it speaks is that for all the military briefings they get, they know nothing at all.
I have said it here before: such men are dangerous. They are of the ilk of the usurper Bush, and his gang, who literally blew up the relative stability of the Middle East, and who bear the responsibility for all the attendant fear, misery, uncertainty and horrid violence that has sprung from it.
74
Good piece.
I think George W would support this deal...I wish he publicly stated as much.
Republicans should not only be represented by the AIPAC loving warmongers in Congress,
I think George W would support this deal...I wish he publicly stated as much.
Republicans should not only be represented by the AIPAC loving warmongers in Congress,
6
Now let's reach a similar framework with Israel. To the extent countries in the Middle East believe Israel has nuclear capability, that drives a potential nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Let's impose sanctions on Israel -- similar to those imposed on Iran -- until Israel agrees to similar limitations on routes to nuclear weapons capability, until Israel opens up all its facilities to inspection, until Israel makes all of its scientists subject to IAEA interrogation, and until Israel destroys any currently-existing nuclear weapons capability (if such capability exists).
Time for a nuclear free Middle East. This would provide the incentive for other Middle Eastern countries to agree to the same kind of framework Iran did.
This framework provides a model for how to nudge all non-recognized nuclear powers to begin the process of ensuring the world community that they are nuclear weapons free.
Time for a nuclear free Middle East. This would provide the incentive for other Middle Eastern countries to agree to the same kind of framework Iran did.
This framework provides a model for how to nudge all non-recognized nuclear powers to begin the process of ensuring the world community that they are nuclear weapons free.
29
if there is a rogue nation in the region, it is Israel
1
This is a biased and crazy idea!
Israel is tiny and has been threatened with extinction by many of its surrounding neighbors. Iran is fomenting unrest and instability all over the Mideast.
Israel has not threatened any of its hostile neighbors with annihilation. Its nuclear capabilities have been and are defensive and deterrent.
No thank you. Israel will not agree to self-destruction----nor should they!
Israel is tiny and has been threatened with extinction by many of its surrounding neighbors. Iran is fomenting unrest and instability all over the Mideast.
Israel has not threatened any of its hostile neighbors with annihilation. Its nuclear capabilities have been and are defensive and deterrent.
No thank you. Israel will not agree to self-destruction----nor should they!
When has Obama NOT laughed last?
5
"... we would create an inspection regime unparalleled in intensity, going well beyond current international standards and ensuring that any breakout effort would be quickly detected. "
What is that "inspection regime"?
Because the reports are that the "framework" describes an "inspection regime" far less onerous than the one in place since 2003, which permitted IAEA inspectors "anywhere, anytime," to a reduced regimen of "inspection appointments."
Nowhere in Mr. Burns piece, which contains the usual precursor "this is an imperfect deal for an imperfect world," are the critics concerns regarding the framework contrasted with what went wrong with the last Western attempt to retrain nuclear development with a rogue nation: i.e. North Korea.
There is a good dose of defeatism inherent in Mr. Burns's position. Much worry about "diffuse" nuclear know-how, and the "inevitable imperfections" of a deal.
But it is because these deals are always "imperfect," produced by "fallible" diplomats, that we must double up on safeguards such as inspections and the re-imposition of sanctions when necessary.
This "deal" is still a long way away from preventing Iran's nuclear-shadowed hegemony in a roiling region in which non-state actors will be further emboldened by the numerous capitulations to the the true Islamic State, Iran.
What is that "inspection regime"?
Because the reports are that the "framework" describes an "inspection regime" far less onerous than the one in place since 2003, which permitted IAEA inspectors "anywhere, anytime," to a reduced regimen of "inspection appointments."
Nowhere in Mr. Burns piece, which contains the usual precursor "this is an imperfect deal for an imperfect world," are the critics concerns regarding the framework contrasted with what went wrong with the last Western attempt to retrain nuclear development with a rogue nation: i.e. North Korea.
There is a good dose of defeatism inherent in Mr. Burns's position. Much worry about "diffuse" nuclear know-how, and the "inevitable imperfections" of a deal.
But it is because these deals are always "imperfect," produced by "fallible" diplomats, that we must double up on safeguards such as inspections and the re-imposition of sanctions when necessary.
This "deal" is still a long way away from preventing Iran's nuclear-shadowed hegemony in a roiling region in which non-state actors will be further emboldened by the numerous capitulations to the the true Islamic State, Iran.
4
Israel is the only country in the world that needs nuclear weapons to survive. With only a glance on the map, anybody can see a small country surrounded by hostiles nations who has attacked him many times
1
This agreement should hold because the Iranians want the sanctions lifted. I do not think all sanctions will be lifted immediately. One dark cloud on the horizon is the US Congress. Some members want to have a voice in "ratifying" the deal. This would be very bad because it is clear from the letter signed by 47 GOP senators that they do not want a deal. And they have no alternative. When the time comes for Congress to lift congressional sanctions, then congress members will have their say. Now is the time for the American people to call their congress members and tell them to back off, otherwise they face defeat in their next election.
It is time, way past time, for people who are sick to blessed death of war to put people in office who will keep the US out of wars and marginalize foreign policy straw weights such as Tom Cotton.
It is time, way past time, for people who are sick to blessed death of war to put people in office who will keep the US out of wars and marginalize foreign policy straw weights such as Tom Cotton.
17
Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. The US, however, does have thousands of hydrogen bombs & continues to modernize its arsenal in violation of the NPT. It's the US that vocally threatens Iran, not the reverse. Sober up, America.
5
Never directly mentions Israel, the country most impacted by the deal. Well, Mr. Netanyahu will make up for this omission.
2
Good as it is, the ultimate goal is to remove nuclear weapons from the Earth. They have no place in our lives and are like a dentist using hand grenades for tooth care.
But first we stop the trend in Iran. Then we negotiate away the weapons in Pakistan and other Middle Eastern countries. Then the old weapons stocks go away (Russia, USA, France and Britain).
Long row to hoe.
But first we stop the trend in Iran. Then we negotiate away the weapons in Pakistan and other Middle Eastern countries. Then the old weapons stocks go away (Russia, USA, France and Britain).
Long row to hoe.
26
Why isn't the secret weapons of Israel mentioned here?
1
So China and Israel will be the only two countries to have nuclear weapons?
1
Diplomacy is hard work. One must talk / converse / negotiate with adversaries and even enemies. Talking to friends is easy. Iran is indeed a complex country and a negotiated agreement like this is no small feat, the reflexive criticism to follow notwithstanding. It's a step in the right direction, it's verifiable. If much of this same effort worked with the Soviet Union, why not with Iran ?
While I've heard much about how "Obama is 'letting' Iran 'have' the bomb" I've yet to hear those who repeat that over and over explain to me why Iran might seek out a nuclear weapon - a scenario that intelligence agencies say isn't in the cards at this point.
The US, in response to 9.11, invaded and subsequently occupied, much of Afghanistan. Two years later, the Congress was (easily) duped into supporting "military action" against a largely secular, stable, sanctioned and neutered Iraq under the thinnest of pretexts, not to mention the abhorrent costs in human capital, lives and treasure. Likely the worst foreign "policy" blunder this country has made.
Iran sits between them both.
Why Iran may want a nuclear weapon is obvious. Neither Iraq nor the failed state or territory of Afghanistan had any. When one looks at North Korea, however, they are - and will likely remain - untouched and un-invaded.
While I've heard much about how "Obama is 'letting' Iran 'have' the bomb" I've yet to hear those who repeat that over and over explain to me why Iran might seek out a nuclear weapon - a scenario that intelligence agencies say isn't in the cards at this point.
The US, in response to 9.11, invaded and subsequently occupied, much of Afghanistan. Two years later, the Congress was (easily) duped into supporting "military action" against a largely secular, stable, sanctioned and neutered Iraq under the thinnest of pretexts, not to mention the abhorrent costs in human capital, lives and treasure. Likely the worst foreign "policy" blunder this country has made.
Iran sits between them both.
Why Iran may want a nuclear weapon is obvious. Neither Iraq nor the failed state or territory of Afghanistan had any. When one looks at North Korea, however, they are - and will likely remain - untouched and un-invaded.
33
"Iran sits between them both." - Afghanistan and Iraq.
But I doubt very much that the vast majority of the Republican base, including some of their 'representatives' would find those countries on a world map without their names printed inside the lines of their borders.
But I doubt very much that the vast majority of the Republican base, including some of their 'representatives' would find those countries on a world map without their names printed inside the lines of their borders.
I have a used car I would like to sell to Mr. Burns. I am sure the Iranians will suffer terribly under the lash of "unprecedented intrusiveness". He speaks of "reassuring" people in the region about a nuclear Iran. What assurances will he give the citizens of Boston or Seattle about the negotiating team having given a country which sponsors terrorism the opportunity to create a device which could just as easily brought by unconventional means to this country as launched on a missile at Tel Aviv? And who believes this administration will take any firm action against threatening Iranian actions in the region? I'm certain nobody in Egypt, Israel, or Saudi Arabia believes that will happen. Instead we have created the preconditions for those nations and others to form new and dangerous alliances, pursue nuclear weapons programs, and take bold risks to contain Iran. The one thing Burns gets right here is that we can't afford to be wrong. Within that context this agreement is, and these negotiators were, irresponsible.
9
Lets not be forget that the US are the most violent people on earth. We have the highest murder rate, largest prison population, highest capital punishment and have been in war ever since the end of WW11. We are number one in supplying death and destruction of cultures and nature.
The vast majority of the Iranian people are intelligent and cultural. They back the PLO, Hamas, and Syria. Who cares. These are peanut organization. If I was Iranian I'd be terrified of America. I would want a Nuke if I was them. America is Nuts.
The vast majority of the Iranian people are intelligent and cultural. They back the PLO, Hamas, and Syria. Who cares. These are peanut organization. If I was Iranian I'd be terrified of America. I would want a Nuke if I was them. America is Nuts.
1
Sanctions with unwavering support from our EU allies and tough negotiations are actions. I assume you believe that without negotiations / agreement Iran would sit back and not develop a nuclear weapon? Or perhaps that a George W style war similar to the one that bankrupted us and created the current chaos is a better answer?
3
Only bitter fruit from this charade.
3
Only sour grapes from Obama-haters.
The final agreement needs to provide a mechanism for ensuring that Iran does not transfer its nuclear capabilities to one of its surrogates, like Hezbollah or Syria's Assad. It will be no good if inspectors never find anything within the confines of Iran only to learn that everything bad is in the possession of an Iranian ally.
5
As we queue up the barrage of invective from the right with images of Munich, embassy takeovers, mushroom clouds and gays murdered rather than excluded (Indiana redirection...), remember these talking heads are are the same guys that sold us a war in Iraq based on false connections to 9/11, aluminum tubes, yellow cake, mushroom clouds, weapons of mass destruction and the certainty that international verification in the form of Hans Blix and the United Nations was a lefty delusion. Who was really delusional? And who actually remembers history?
10
This deal is a fraud brought about by collusion between Obama and his Iranian born tub buddy Valerie Jarrett who made secret deals with the religious leaders of Iran. Notice there will be NO snap inspections allowed by Iran. Notice that Iran continues to build ICBMs which have only one purpose and that is to deliver nuclear weapons. Notice that the underground facility will stay intact. Notice that the number of centrifuges is still far above the number needed for research or nuclear power generation. The whole deal is a scam to feed Obama;s ego and his so called legacy. His real legacy is the near destruction of a once great nation and the total mess in the Middle East. He has turned his back on all our allies. He has befriended most of our enemies. He has went around the representatives of the American people as an almost total dictator and our House and Senate have been to cowardly to call him on it with real power. I expected the liberal Obama and Kerry loving NY Times to approve this deal. Maybe when an Iranian nuclear tipped missile hits Times Square they will acknowledge what dweeb Obama is.
3
It must be terrible to live in a world you live in. Thank god I live in US.
In a perfect world, Israel would not have enrichment facilities, or the bomb for that matter....
7
Since there is no such thing as a perfect deal for either side, I'm glad to see America can make progress on this. If only Congress was open to these crazy things called negotiation and compromise, we might make progress domestically as well.
7
While the GOP "went small" on Obama, he went big. Good for him. Let's hope the GOP can find a sane voice and join in the project to make America and the Middle East safer. Maybe the Military-Industrial complex can find ways to retool and profit from solving major world problems like draught and hunger.
6
Iran made only one concrete promise in the past 24 hours - to destroy Israel. And they seemed very sincere.
3
“If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
“It is a good deal,” Obama declared Thursday (today, April 2) calling it “a historic understanding with Iran which, if implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
“It is a good deal,” Obama declared Thursday (today, April 2) calling it “a historic understanding with Iran which, if implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
2
A beautiful argument for taking the peaceful route. Why it is an argument to begin with, continues to baffle me. We will never be able to take over all the land and resources needed to police a peaceful middle east on our own. This is just one more piece to the puzzle. Time will tell if it's the missing piece, but it's an important piece to be sure.
73
It may be a critical piece to find a solution. I think Obama has realized that Saudis who have been exporting militant Wahhabism throughout the world are in reality be fake friends. Correct me if wrong, but there was not a single terrorist attack on Western soil committed by Shia. They may "officially" scream "death to America", but it was Sunni, not Shia, militants who actually followed with terrorism outside the Middle East.
I don't think Iran is set firmly on making a bomb. What they has been trying to project is that without Iran there will be no peaceful solution to the Middle East ethnic and religious misery.
I would rather talk to Iran than to Saudis....
I don't think Iran is set firmly on making a bomb. What they has been trying to project is that without Iran there will be no peaceful solution to the Middle East ethnic and religious misery.
I would rather talk to Iran than to Saudis....
4
Agreed. And why are we always sticking our noses (and armaments) into other countries business? This is an ongoing Holy War that we never had any business in. Religions seem to be the biggest maker of anger, distrust, and war. Read the Bible. It tells the whole story. And get Boehner back in the U.S. where he belongs, instead of stirring up more trouble in Holy Land which I presume he knows little of. There's plenty to be done in the U.S., the most important of which is to get Congress, Senate, and the president to work on together. Instead all they do is draw their swords. :Little kids, accusing the other of having started it. Rather, no one seems to remember the president spent his first four years trying to work with the other legislators, and all the latter would do is snub their noses at him. Now that he understands, he is trying to do as much as he can for the good of his country, and in part for the world. Now they accuse him of saying no to everything. I am disgusted.
1
"But the understanding outlines a solid comprehensive agreement that would increase, for at least a decade, the time it would take Iran to enrich enough weapons-grade material for a single bomb from the current two-to-three-month timeline to at least one year." Is there not anyone else who remembers the Administration claiming just a couple of years ago that Iran was 2 years from developing a nuclear bomb and that the start of the negotiations had frozen the time clock?
2
Who doubts that this agreement would never have happened if Saddam Hussein were still in power. While we thank the diplomats, we must also thank to soliders who freed Iraq.
1
Diplomacy is a good thing. We live in a world with far too much war.
6
Your optimism is very premature. It isn't even a deal. It's just a "framework." And the participating governments don't even agree in their public pronouncements precisely what the framework actually means.
2
It's heartening to see a path forward out of this perpetual conflict, one that our past actions are as much or more to blame than Iran. Kudos to Obama and Kerry for their leadership and foresight in trying to dissolve the mistrust and set a peaceful course for the decade to come.
5
Iran is a more advanced state than most of the Islamic ones in the region. It has well trained engineers, scientists, and military technicians. It has a history of western influence, which also led to the revolution that sent the western oil companies packing.
thanks to the greed and avarice of British Petroleum, along with other western oil companies, Iran became an enemy. They were our friend until they decided they were fed up with oil company domination of their country.
It has taken all these years to get past the western insult to its right to rule its own country. We still have a collection of war mongers who would rather bomb someone than negotiate peace with them. These negotiations are being compare to those with N. Korea, which remains a backward dictatorial violent regime.
As we watch, there will be several members of our congress who will do everything they can to derail this mission. Just listening to their rhetoric leads me to believe, it has nothing to do with keeping the peace, and more to do with preventing Mr. Obama from accomplishing this historic agreement.
He has already made some peace with Cuba, and now Iran. It shows the public just how weak and unproductive the GOPs foreign policies have been, and still are. It is to Iran's advantage to keep the agreements, it is a country that has prospered before, and will again once it can rejoin the western world.
thanks to the greed and avarice of British Petroleum, along with other western oil companies, Iran became an enemy. They were our friend until they decided they were fed up with oil company domination of their country.
It has taken all these years to get past the western insult to its right to rule its own country. We still have a collection of war mongers who would rather bomb someone than negotiate peace with them. These negotiations are being compare to those with N. Korea, which remains a backward dictatorial violent regime.
As we watch, there will be several members of our congress who will do everything they can to derail this mission. Just listening to their rhetoric leads me to believe, it has nothing to do with keeping the peace, and more to do with preventing Mr. Obama from accomplishing this historic agreement.
He has already made some peace with Cuba, and now Iran. It shows the public just how weak and unproductive the GOPs foreign policies have been, and still are. It is to Iran's advantage to keep the agreements, it is a country that has prospered before, and will again once it can rejoin the western world.
148
Iran has kept the agreements assigned by the NON Proliferation Treaty, and she has been surveilled by the IAEA for years without any violation of the protocols having been discovered. In a way I suppose that should be kind of funny, in a strange way, after all of the misery that has been inflicted upon Persia, and the divisions which have been aggravated by this issue among the American People by Israeli perfidy. In the final analysis what has been gained by this post colonial temper tantrum, which has been directed at an Iran for wanting to chart its own course on relations with the rest of the world, without seeking the approval of Washington or Tel Aviv? I think that we have all been snookered on this dog and pony show, and the foolishness, if the Republicans and Israel have anything to say about it, has only just begun.
5
If president Obama can get peace with Cuba and Iran done. Plus get Israel - Palestine seriously about a peace treaty, then he deserves a second Nobel Peace Price.
1
A feather in Obama's cap
Enraging the Repubs mayhap,
If it's all finalized
They'll be livid, outsized,
In War-starting, there'll be a gap!
To some it's confusing as well,
It seems quite a few cannot spell,
In particular,
T'ain't "nucular",
Urge to write nuclear they quell.
Enraging the Repubs mayhap,
If it's all finalized
They'll be livid, outsized,
In War-starting, there'll be a gap!
To some it's confusing as well,
It seems quite a few cannot spell,
In particular,
T'ain't "nucular",
Urge to write nuclear they quell.
60
Jimmy Carter was a Democrat...
2
The deal looks great. The only opportunity we are missing is the chance to use sanctions to ensure that Iran complies. The sanctions get lifted the minute the deal gets signed.
3
Wrong: it hasn't yet been determined how swiftly or how completely the sanctions will be brought to an end. And if our Congress decides to throw a wrench in the works the sanctions imposed by our partners in Europe (let alone Russia and China) will almost certainly be lifted immediately.
78
From the Dept. of State:
"U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place."
Taking steps to comply versus ongoing compliance. The former leads to a suspension of ALL sanctions. Noncompliance leads to a reinstatement of them. Good luck with that as there is really no such thing as "snapping" back on sanctions once businesses are back in there.
"U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place."
Taking steps to comply versus ongoing compliance. The former leads to a suspension of ALL sanctions. Noncompliance leads to a reinstatement of them. Good luck with that as there is really no such thing as "snapping" back on sanctions once businesses are back in there.
1
Where in the info that you've cited is the word "immediately" used? For that matter where does it say that "ALL sanctions" will be suspended (capitalization yours)? In any case, once ANY of the sanctions (capitalization mine) are lifted the citizens of Iran will be in no mood to have them reimposed. They're suffering severe privations now. Who do you think they'll be blaming if their government doesn't follow through on its obligations and their nation returns to pariah status at their expense?
40
I am glad cooler heads prevailed and we kept the Senior frat boys of the Republicans at a safe distance that they were not able to torpedo the deal and prospects pf peace.
We can chalk one for Peace and Diplomacy.