At the end of the day, an apocalyptic regime such as this must not be trusted. Ratchet up the sanctions and support the Iranian people in getting rid of the Mullahs.
1
The Supreme Leader is correct! Why should Iran trust the US?
Is it because the US government did not overthrow the elected prime Minister of Iran in 1953?
Is it because the US did not shut down a passenger airline killing all Iranians without paying compensation?
Is it because the US government did not instigate the war between Iran – Iraq killing 600,000 Iranians?
Was it not Cheney and Rumsfeld, under the darling of Republican Party, President Reagan, who were sent to Iraq, offering the Iraqi leader chemical weapons to assault Iran killing over 100,000?
Is it not all hooplas for the sake of Israel that controls the foreign policy of our country to do everything to demolish Iran because Iranians support homeless Palestinians?
Is it because the US government did not overthrow the elected prime Minister of Iran in 1953?
Is it because the US did not shut down a passenger airline killing all Iranians without paying compensation?
Is it because the US government did not instigate the war between Iran – Iraq killing 600,000 Iranians?
Was it not Cheney and Rumsfeld, under the darling of Republican Party, President Reagan, who were sent to Iraq, offering the Iraqi leader chemical weapons to assault Iran killing over 100,000?
Is it not all hooplas for the sake of Israel that controls the foreign policy of our country to do everything to demolish Iran because Iranians support homeless Palestinians?
3
Let's look at the options. War with Iran? No, not likely. More sanctions? Not possible since everything that can be squeezed has been squeezed. Negotiate... well, that seems good since if it fails, nothing really changes. Well, not really... there are a number of countries that are waiting for negotiations to conclude successfully so they can resume trade with Iran - Russia, China, and India, for example. In fact, there is a lot of trade already going on, in currencies other than the dollar. If negotiations fail, I expect a lot of countries will just ignore the US and start trading with Iran more openly, weakening the US and the dollar even more. Iran is actually getting around the sanctions and getting stronger as a result, in my view.
I really don't understand what all the people screaming at Obama and Kerry want them to do. The best we can hope to achieve is to delay Iran's eventual acquisition of a nuclear weapon by a decade or so. With a population of 80 million people, good universities, and a strong will, they are on track to becoming the leading nation in the ME, sanctions or no sanctions. The US should, for once, recognize the inevitable, and start acting now to normalize relations for the long term instead of being hung up on some ideology that is passé. I believe (and hope) Obama and Kerry realize this.
I really don't understand what all the people screaming at Obama and Kerry want them to do. The best we can hope to achieve is to delay Iran's eventual acquisition of a nuclear weapon by a decade or so. With a population of 80 million people, good universities, and a strong will, they are on track to becoming the leading nation in the ME, sanctions or no sanctions. The US should, for once, recognize the inevitable, and start acting now to normalize relations for the long term instead of being hung up on some ideology that is passé. I believe (and hope) Obama and Kerry realize this.
4
The US will find out that no agreement with Iran will be honored by them. These negotiations are a total waste of time. Meanwhile, Iran is moving ahead with their enrichment policy and will most likely have nuclear capability within a year or so, if they don't already have it. The US is frequently the last to know. Was everyone asleep when North Korea emerged as a nuclear power? The sanctions and conditions need to be ratcheted up, soon and significantly. We should have leveled the place when Carter stood by, flatfooted, while our embassy personnel were held captive.
So call me silly but how does lifting the sanctions prior to him signing on the dotted line really hurt us?
We'll put them and more back in place so fast it's not an issue; and they know it!
We'll put them and more back in place so fast it's not an issue; and they know it!
1
They will never go back on. There is no such thing as "snap back."
2
Kerry and Obama must be working on a sales job to explain waiving monitoring and relinquishing military base inspections to the Ayatollah. Maybe Gruber can help with their story.
1
The interesting question to me is what the response of the U.S. will be when Tehran carries its first nuclear bomb test. I have a pretty good idea what the reactions of Israel and Saudi Arabia will be.
2
i just do not understand how we could even hope to strike a deal with these thugs. Obama is so desperate for a deal that he will agree to practically anything. I truly believe that Iran entered into these talks, because they knew how desperate Obama is, and also that the US has become a 'paper tiger'. And he is taking the same path in Cuba, i.e. give everything to them they want, and get nothing in return.
It is a very sad, but predictable situation when you put in an amateur into the office as we did with Obama, We can only hope that the next president acts like a president, and recognizes thug when he sees one. I favor keeping the sanctions in place and make them stronger, until they beg us for a deal, and not the other way around as it is now.
If I were the president, I would walk away from the talks, and tell them, "call me when you want to make a real deal on nukes and on eliminating your terrorist activities. Of course, Obama won't and we will be winding up with basically nothing for a great gift to them, easing sanctiions.
It is a very sad, but predictable situation when you put in an amateur into the office as we did with Obama, We can only hope that the next president acts like a president, and recognizes thug when he sees one. I favor keeping the sanctions in place and make them stronger, until they beg us for a deal, and not the other way around as it is now.
If I were the president, I would walk away from the talks, and tell them, "call me when you want to make a real deal on nukes and on eliminating your terrorist activities. Of course, Obama won't and we will be winding up with basically nothing for a great gift to them, easing sanctiions.
2
Not Iran or the Six Nations including the US but Israel has VETO power to torpid the DEAL. And, Israel will use this golden opportunity to grab more billions from the US, more freebees (military hardware); political advantage and above all come out as the only savior to the Arab oil kings.
2
This is poker. Wait to see the final agreement and perhaps then some. Iran needs the money and seemingly wants legitimacy on the full world stage. We want to avoid yet another senseless war. While there is no need for the West to take a bad deal, it would be foolish to waste an opportunity of this significance.
4
There is no deal with Iran about Iran's nuclear program. The negotiations for a deal continue and there has been an 'agreement' as to the framework to the deal. The time line for a deal is supposed to be the end of June; it may be extended.
There are five other countries that are part of the negotiation with Iran; two of them have no vested interest in a good deal. The inability to reach a deal, even with an extension past 30 June, means reinforcing and increasing sanctions will be difficult.
The United States Congress will review the deal before the agreement becomes official. If it is a bad deal, it will be rejected. If there is no deal, nothing ventured nothing gained and we solve the issue using other means. Some of those means include increased sanctions and some of those means include military force.
Iran is in the driver seat to determine the fate of Iran, nothing more.
There are five other countries that are part of the negotiation with Iran; two of them have no vested interest in a good deal. The inability to reach a deal, even with an extension past 30 June, means reinforcing and increasing sanctions will be difficult.
The United States Congress will review the deal before the agreement becomes official. If it is a bad deal, it will be rejected. If there is no deal, nothing ventured nothing gained and we solve the issue using other means. Some of those means include increased sanctions and some of those means include military force.
Iran is in the driver seat to determine the fate of Iran, nothing more.
5
More sanctions is not an option. We don't have anything to sanction, and those who do are already backsliding. Sanctions are dissipating, and that trend will continue deal or no deal.
Military force is not a real option. Whatever level of force we choose would only make our own situation worse. We'd hurt ourselves with vast costs and impacts. We'd hurt the economy of the whole world and inspire enmity among friends and neutrals. The region would blow up even more completely, and terrorism would spread wildly. For all that, we'd only inspire a rush to the bomb by Iran.
We are in the driver's seat, to decide our own fate.
Military force is not a real option. Whatever level of force we choose would only make our own situation worse. We'd hurt ourselves with vast costs and impacts. We'd hurt the economy of the whole world and inspire enmity among friends and neutrals. The region would blow up even more completely, and terrorism would spread wildly. For all that, we'd only inspire a rush to the bomb by Iran.
We are in the driver's seat, to decide our own fate.
5
I see a lot of references to an arms race, which Iran has ostensibly started. Israel has had nuclear weapons since at least 1967, yet there was no race by the Shia or the Sunni States to acquire nuclear weapons. So is this new arms race just another neocon fantasy, concocted by the usual suspects in order to deceive the terminally gullible?
The real arms race is the race by ISIS forces to acquire American Arms discarded by our Iraqi Shia Allies as they race back to Baghdad. Every State in the Middle East is currently being armed by the United States, either directly by our allies the Sunni Royals, who are the source of anti American Terror or indirectly as abandoned American issue. Yet a host of you apparently choose to go to war with Iran rather than to negotiate in good faith with Iran.
Face it! We are dictating the outcome, and the negotiation by an embargo, which is preventive war by other means in relation to a red herring nuclear issue, because the West can't legally engage in a preventive war with Iran in order to impede her ability to capitalize upon the gift of resources and geography on her way to becoming the preeminent fossil fuel distribution hub to Asia and possibly Europe.
The alternative to Iran is the face of al Qaeda or ISIS to whom Iran is mortally opposed. We should Embargo Saudi Arabia, not Iran. The trillions that we have poured into fighting ISLAMIC TERROR is on them and not Iran.
The real arms race is the race by ISIS forces to acquire American Arms discarded by our Iraqi Shia Allies as they race back to Baghdad. Every State in the Middle East is currently being armed by the United States, either directly by our allies the Sunni Royals, who are the source of anti American Terror or indirectly as abandoned American issue. Yet a host of you apparently choose to go to war with Iran rather than to negotiate in good faith with Iran.
Face it! We are dictating the outcome, and the negotiation by an embargo, which is preventive war by other means in relation to a red herring nuclear issue, because the West can't legally engage in a preventive war with Iran in order to impede her ability to capitalize upon the gift of resources and geography on her way to becoming the preeminent fossil fuel distribution hub to Asia and possibly Europe.
The alternative to Iran is the face of al Qaeda or ISIS to whom Iran is mortally opposed. We should Embargo Saudi Arabia, not Iran. The trillions that we have poured into fighting ISLAMIC TERROR is on them and not Iran.
4
No one with any sense believes that Iran's negotiators and the Supreme Leader are not on the same page. Only Obama and the Times are that naive. Plainly, Iran has Obama's number and knows his deperation to get a deal -- any deal -- is such that they can keep making demands up to the last minute and Obama will agree as long as they leave him a few fig leaves that can be spun by the Times and others to persuade the gullible. Already, every important point that Obama and Kerry crowed about winning in the April "framework" has been snatched away by Iran.
4
Iranian exiles and visitors to the US claim that the mullahs do not represent most Iranians. So they say.
How great is opposition to Iran's retrograde clerics, who such exiles and visitors say grabbed power and will not let go? Is that opposition real?
Iran has many conservatively-minded poor, who suffered from Savak, gained nothing under the Shah, and gladly saw him replaced. The late William R Simon and other westerners who had to deal with the Shah, characterized him as a nut-case despot. Apparently those poor's problems with the Shah were bigger than his nuttiness. How much would a regime-change supported by Iran's educated modernists lift Iran's many poor--apparently the clerics' current power base?
If modernists are truly a majority, only standing in their way is lack of organization. Why don't they organize?
Similar doubts apply equally to Afghanistan's and Iraq's much vaunted moderates. Middle Eastern modernist majorities seem just mirages.
How great is opposition to Iran's retrograde clerics, who such exiles and visitors say grabbed power and will not let go? Is that opposition real?
Iran has many conservatively-minded poor, who suffered from Savak, gained nothing under the Shah, and gladly saw him replaced. The late William R Simon and other westerners who had to deal with the Shah, characterized him as a nut-case despot. Apparently those poor's problems with the Shah were bigger than his nuttiness. How much would a regime-change supported by Iran's educated modernists lift Iran's many poor--apparently the clerics' current power base?
If modernists are truly a majority, only standing in their way is lack of organization. Why don't they organize?
Similar doubts apply equally to Afghanistan's and Iraq's much vaunted moderates. Middle Eastern modernist majorities seem just mirages.
5
All those who cavil about the weakness of the Obama administration in the Iranian nuclear negotiations - what's your evidence, except a fantasy scenario where the US gets total and unconditional surrender from the Iranians? The interim agreement from 2014 has been carried out to the letter by the Iranians and has resulted in the near elimination of Iran's current stockpile of highly enriched uranium. And, bluster aside, Iran has not walked away from the negotiations and the US has not conceded any issues beyond what was already announced in the April framework agreement. It would be a bad deal if the P5+1 agreed to Khamanei's demands, but they have not and there is no indication that they would.
Besides, we know the alternative to negotiations because we saw it in action between 2003 and 2009. It was isolation of Iran by the US and a lot of bluster from the Administration about Iran's perfidy. And Iran took quantum technological leaps in uranium enrichment and missile technology during that period, undisturbed by a US that was too busy dealing with other crises to actually do anything about Iran. That is apparently what the Iran hawks desire - a lot of blather from America while Iran acquires a bomb.
Besides, we know the alternative to negotiations because we saw it in action between 2003 and 2009. It was isolation of Iran by the US and a lot of bluster from the Administration about Iran's perfidy. And Iran took quantum technological leaps in uranium enrichment and missile technology during that period, undisturbed by a US that was too busy dealing with other crises to actually do anything about Iran. That is apparently what the Iran hawks desire - a lot of blather from America while Iran acquires a bomb.
4
Khamenei wants the sanctions lifted, the arms embargo lifted, and the IAEA to keep out of Iran, allowing the country to pursue whatever nuclear programs it likes unabated. He also likely believes the United States will not do anything militarily when the nuclear agreement talks collapse. America's neocons must be having a field day, and if they have any say in the matter, Khamenei may soon be seeing B2s when he looks up.
2
The Iranian leadership can actually smell the weakness on us. Because of our unending way to coddle everyone imaginable and our strong desire to make the world a rainbow made of candy, the global foes of the United States knows of our need to achieve our glittery goals no matter the actual cost of doing business.
Imagine one of those Pawn shows on reality TV ... those pawn brokers know exactly what buttons to push and can sense immediately the desperation of the customer. If you have ever watched one of them, I am sure that you have openly wished for the customer to take his item and walk out of the door, just to see the broker back pedal and actually offer a fair price.
Same thing here. If the Iran Supreme folk see they were definitely approaching a brick wall and that an actual window for a 'best possible deal' was REALLY closing, or even better - we just get up walk out the door with our offer and reimpose any sanctions that have already been lifted in good faith, Iran can go back to their old follies and saber rattling, we could have actual pride of offering to make concessions to an unwilling participant and for not giving up the farm.
Put the ball back in their court and tell them this is *THE BOTTOM LINE*, take it or WE'RE leaving it. Enough of this diplomatic pussyfooting while we still have the ability to achieve what is fair and globally acceptable.
Imagine one of those Pawn shows on reality TV ... those pawn brokers know exactly what buttons to push and can sense immediately the desperation of the customer. If you have ever watched one of them, I am sure that you have openly wished for the customer to take his item and walk out of the door, just to see the broker back pedal and actually offer a fair price.
Same thing here. If the Iran Supreme folk see they were definitely approaching a brick wall and that an actual window for a 'best possible deal' was REALLY closing, or even better - we just get up walk out the door with our offer and reimpose any sanctions that have already been lifted in good faith, Iran can go back to their old follies and saber rattling, we could have actual pride of offering to make concessions to an unwilling participant and for not giving up the farm.
Put the ball back in their court and tell them this is *THE BOTTOM LINE*, take it or WE'RE leaving it. Enough of this diplomatic pussyfooting while we still have the ability to achieve what is fair and globally acceptable.
3
Sounds like the Ayatollah has pulled a stunt similar to what the GOP senators did in their letter to Iran saying they would never approve this treaty and the next GOP president would not abide by it. Maybe this is just a reminder that he (the Ayatollah) has the final say so, just like the GOP was trying to tell Iran.
3
The US should simply walk away. The Iranian regime needs a deal more than the US does.
5
“My best judgment is that this is about leverage,”
The real leverage the Ayatollah has comes about because the sun is setting on the Obama Presidency. The last big chance to burnish the legacy. A nuclear agreement with Iran followed by an Israeli-Palestinians peace agreement forced on Israel against their national interest and the Obama legacy is set.
If "peace at any price" is the answer then what is the question?
The real leverage the Ayatollah has comes about because the sun is setting on the Obama Presidency. The last big chance to burnish the legacy. A nuclear agreement with Iran followed by an Israeli-Palestinians peace agreement forced on Israel against their national interest and the Obama legacy is set.
If "peace at any price" is the answer then what is the question?
3
Obama couldn't negotiate a deal on a used car.
5
This isn't very complex. If this religious dictator won't accept reasonable safeguards in a nuclear deal, President Obama should NOT make the deal. He should stand up like a man championing the interests of the free world and tell the Supreme Ayatollah to take a long hike off a short pier. He should make it clear that all sanctions REMAIN in place, that the US will RESUME support of Israel, and that ALL military options are immediately on the table to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
This is the kind of position that a competent, tough negotiator would take. It's doubtful Obama has ever been a competent tough negotiator about anything, but it's not hard. You just put your tongue against the roof of your mouth and say, "NO!"
Then you get up and leave, call the generals, and implement the policy you just described to the religious extremists at the other side of the table. Often as President Reagan proved with Gorbachev, it is more effective toward getting a final agreement to leave, rather than to grovel like Neville Chamberlain.
This is the kind of position that a competent, tough negotiator would take. It's doubtful Obama has ever been a competent tough negotiator about anything, but it's not hard. You just put your tongue against the roof of your mouth and say, "NO!"
Then you get up and leave, call the generals, and implement the policy you just described to the religious extremists at the other side of the table. Often as President Reagan proved with Gorbachev, it is more effective toward getting a final agreement to leave, rather than to grovel like Neville Chamberlain.
16
Good analysis. Those who think any deal beats no deal are delusional or green.
And American negotiators who add billion-dollar aid-deals to get the other party to sign a mainly symbolic agreement are doubly delusional.
And American negotiators who add billion-dollar aid-deals to get the other party to sign a mainly symbolic agreement are doubly delusional.
5
Come on. We couldn't have predicted this?
And Iran doesn't trust America?
And Iran doesn't trust America?
6
The agreement with Iran over its nuclear program is dead. It died as a result of Saudi Arabia threatening to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan. Iran cannot leave itself vulnerable to the nuclear weapons of Israel and the Saudis, who threaten it openly.
1
The lesson we learn from Hitler is that when fanatics speak of destruction, we have to take them at their word. Khamenei has talked about destroying Israel. And "death to America" is not an empty slogan, either. The Iranians have sacrificed so much to attain their nuclear weapons, we have to believe they mean it. Look for bombs carried by Hizbullah and company to Tel Aviv -- and New York. Our best hope now is to continue the sanctions regime. We can hope the Russian and Chinese interests on this continue to be aligned with ours; they also have much to fear from a nuclear-armed Iran. We keep our defenses strong. And we hope that the Iranian people rise up and overthrow these dictatorial fanatics in time to prevent the mass murder that the ayatollahs are aiming for.
4
Is it not getting close to the time that the President stated the US will have to take action to prevent Iran from establishing the ability to create a nuclear bomb? More negotiations are a delay tactic and dangerous.
2
A supreme leader only in his mind. Only fools like Obama and Kerry would believe someone like him.
4
No deal is better than a bad deal. Let the chips fall where they may. And if Israel sees Iran as a mortal threat and does something about it, so be it. Iran is really not America's problem. But if some other nation(s) destroy it, so be that, too.
7
LOL
Whatever ideal does, the US will have to pay for it and pick up the pieces!
Whatever ideal does, the US will have to pay for it and pick up the pieces!
1
The impression is President Obama and John Kerry wants to conclude the nuclear deal more than Iran, despite the fact that it is Iran who need sanctions would be lifted from it. pretty strange situation.
11
Big surprise. The ruling mullahs in Iran have no intention or desire to refrain from producing a nuclear bomb. Why should they? They have set their sights on creating a weapon that will strike fear into the hearts of their enemies and which will give them great honor and power and give glory to Allah if they should use it against Saudi Arabia or Israel or the hated "Great Satan". Khamenei is in the shadow of Khomeini, and will be there forever so long as he does nothing to attack the Great Satan. Creating a nuclear bomb will propel his childish tyranny up closer to that of Khomeini's. Using it will drive him further upward in the pantheon of "great caliphs". Which is all his childish emotional mind can contemplate.
Iran is a Persian beetle that should have been squashed when it first tried to bite us. Because it's clear that so long as their rulers are men who are devoted to the infantile deranged spewings of a 7th century tribal witch-doctor, they will never learn how to live as rational adults.
Iran is a Persian beetle that should have been squashed when it first tried to bite us. Because it's clear that so long as their rulers are men who are devoted to the infantile deranged spewings of a 7th century tribal witch-doctor, they will never learn how to live as rational adults.
4
"Iran is a Persian beetle that should have been squashed when it first tried to bite us" - very similar to Gold Meir of Israel famously calling Palestinians "cockroaches that should be crushed." The racism around Arabs and Persians never ceases it seems.
We tried that when we replaced a democratically elected government with a dictator Shah after World War II. See how well that worked for us?
We tried that when we replaced a democratically elected government with a dictator Shah after World War II. See how well that worked for us?
1
The Obama legacy is naivete and incompetence in foreign affairs.
The entire World has known that Iran is playing with Obama.
The entire World has known that Iran is playing with Obama.
7
I think that we should cut our negotiators some slack. In no way have they accepted the Ayatollah,s terms. We should push on with the talks but insist on full inspections and compliance concomitant with any relief from sanctions. If That cannot be achieved the screws should be tightened.
2
Why are we bothering with Iran negotiations. We know from history than Iran will never allow inspections and verification of compliance with any part of an agreement they choose to violate. Only a fool would negotiate with such a party.
5
Continue to block the economic systems within Iran for at least one more generation and the public in that nation will learn that their ayatollahs are not gods and they must be removed just like all of their predecessors were removed in the past except this time they may be replaced but individuals who are not taught to believe that they are also gods.
3
Iran is in po position to dictate terms. The Supreme Ayatollah needs to understand this. His negotiators never had a strong hand in this game. Let's leave him to his own devices (and Bubi's tender mercies) while his country endures inflation, unemployment and poverty with no international aid in sight. It's his call; a handcuffed enemy cannot force his captor to loosen his bonds. Sorry.
3
Obama sure seems to be having a problem with many countries. Wonder why that is? He may be one of our weakest presidents ever. They no longer have respect for us. While he is weak with them he insults our allies. Wonder where he thinks we will turn when something happens. Can only hope and pray he's out of office soon.
5
A cardinal rule of negotiation is that the one who is most eager to resolve an impasse normally loses the point. The US has been entirely too conciliatory, and the ayatollah is clearly resorting to this cardinal rule.
We should call the ayatollah's bluff and walk away, ratchet up the sanctions, and not return until Iran shows a more conciliatory attitude.
Behind all this is a very important set of considerations: Can these people really be trusted to do what they say? Does an agreement mean the same thing to them as it means to us, or is it merely a set of guidelines for negotiating future disputes? Do they really intend to live by any agreement they say they will perform?
We should call the ayatollah's bluff and walk away, ratchet up the sanctions, and not return until Iran shows a more conciliatory attitude.
Behind all this is a very important set of considerations: Can these people really be trusted to do what they say? Does an agreement mean the same thing to them as it means to us, or is it merely a set of guidelines for negotiating future disputes? Do they really intend to live by any agreement they say they will perform?
6
The current path of Kerry and Obama is that we are going to lift the sanctions and get nothing in return. Iran will not abandon their nuclear weapons program or allow inspections so in effect the region and the world will not be safe. I guess that's what Obama considers a victory. How many more months left until the next president takes office?
5
Lot of comments here stipulate that Iran will behave rationally. Theocracies like Iran do not behave based on western standards of rationality. To assume otherwise is irrational.
So pose the questions this way:
(1) Is Iran merely developing the means to produce electricty via nuclear reactors? Iran has built a nuclear production infrastructure geared towards producing highly enriched uranium - far more enriched than is needed for producing electricity. Iran now hsa enough enriched fuel to enable it to build an
a bomb within 3 months.
(2) Iran is building long range ICBMs - is that to deliver electricty?
(3) In the face of Iran developing a bombs and ICBMs is it rational to assume that Iran's neighboring states would not move ahead to do likewise?
(4) Is it rational to hope that Japan and South Korea would continue to trust in the US's nuclear umbrella for their protection if the USA should capitulate to Iran?
(5) If Japan and South Korea build a bombs is it rational to believe that China would sit back and relax that two age old enemies had joined the nuclear club?
Wake up rationalists you are dreaming!
So pose the questions this way:
(1) Is Iran merely developing the means to produce electricty via nuclear reactors? Iran has built a nuclear production infrastructure geared towards producing highly enriched uranium - far more enriched than is needed for producing electricity. Iran now hsa enough enriched fuel to enable it to build an
a bomb within 3 months.
(2) Iran is building long range ICBMs - is that to deliver electricty?
(3) In the face of Iran developing a bombs and ICBMs is it rational to assume that Iran's neighboring states would not move ahead to do likewise?
(4) Is it rational to hope that Japan and South Korea would continue to trust in the US's nuclear umbrella for their protection if the USA should capitulate to Iran?
(5) If Japan and South Korea build a bombs is it rational to believe that China would sit back and relax that two age old enemies had joined the nuclear club?
Wake up rationalists you are dreaming!
7
As the end of the self-imposed deadline approaches both sides are trying to get the best deal they can. This is what is called negotiations, not surrender. Each side states its maximum demands and then gives some in order to take some.
There is nothing new in what Khamenei said. These are the points that he has repeatedly made in the past to reassure the hardliners in Iran who are as opposed to a nuclear deal as the hardliners in the United States are. We should not be sidetracked by the demands of the extremists and should push for a groundbreaking deal. As Secretary Kerry said, the negotiators, not only the US but also all the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany, are not fools and their technical experts are much more knowledgeable about nuclear issues than media pundits.
There is a Framework Agreement that has been agreed by both sides and the negotiators are trying to finalize the details of that agreement. Instead of sensationalizing what Khamenei has said we should listen to the experts from both sides and expect attempts to sabotage a final deal. All indications point to a successful end to an unnecessary, fabricated crisis that should have been resolved long ago. Let us not be panicked or sidetracked by naysayers, and push forward for an agreement that can change the face of the Middle East.
There is nothing new in what Khamenei said. These are the points that he has repeatedly made in the past to reassure the hardliners in Iran who are as opposed to a nuclear deal as the hardliners in the United States are. We should not be sidetracked by the demands of the extremists and should push for a groundbreaking deal. As Secretary Kerry said, the negotiators, not only the US but also all the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany, are not fools and their technical experts are much more knowledgeable about nuclear issues than media pundits.
There is a Framework Agreement that has been agreed by both sides and the negotiators are trying to finalize the details of that agreement. Instead of sensationalizing what Khamenei has said we should listen to the experts from both sides and expect attempts to sabotage a final deal. All indications point to a successful end to an unnecessary, fabricated crisis that should have been resolved long ago. Let us not be panicked or sidetracked by naysayers, and push forward for an agreement that can change the face of the Middle East.
1
The world has a future it´s time to learn from past mistakes and take this agreement with Iran the world´s nations claim the right to peace and sustainable development Happy Sustainability 2015
Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei seems more eager "to mollify hard-liners and military leaders" than to alleviate the grievances of ordinary Iranians. They are grappling with rising inflation and unemployment amid falling oil prices. There was much optimism among them, when the framework agreement was announced in April.
Now the Supreme Leader's demands will jeopardise President Hassan Rouhani's success, if the deal falls through, plunging the country back into deep recession. Rouhani would end up like Mohammad Khatami, another liberal and reformer, who was at the mercy of the hardliners.
We are willing to end the nuclear dispute with Iran, but we stick to our terms. Iran has to earn our trust and will have to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure first, if economic sanctions are to be lifted.
Now the Supreme Leader's demands will jeopardise President Hassan Rouhani's success, if the deal falls through, plunging the country back into deep recession. Rouhani would end up like Mohammad Khatami, another liberal and reformer, who was at the mercy of the hardliners.
We are willing to end the nuclear dispute with Iran, but we stick to our terms. Iran has to earn our trust and will have to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure first, if economic sanctions are to be lifted.
15
J. von hettlingen writes:"We are willing to end the nuclear dispute with Iran, but we stick to our terms. Iran has to earn our trust and will have to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure first, if economic sanctions are to be lifted." And then suppose the sanctions are lifted and the US demands still more concessions? The US made 3000 or so agreements with its native peoples and broke them all. The Iranians know how far to trust the US--sign an agreement, lift the sanctions, if Iran reneges, the sanctions return. If the US makes a deal impossible on its own, the sanctions will fail as various countries ignore or evade or denounce the sanctions.
Flag
Flag
Yet another illustration of the folly of the Obama administration in imagining any sane agreement with Iran is possible. Rather than searching for the best deal, Khamenei is measuring just how desperate Obama is now that he is in a face off with Putin and another with Xi Ping. And all of this is a consequence of the realization by every bad guy on the block of the weakness and indecisiveness of the Obama administration. Pray that January 2016 comes fast.
12
It is so tiring to hear these uninformed complaints about President Obama. The constant and public undermining of the president isn't helping the process at all. Do you really want President Bush's policies back? Another $3 trillion or so for another "victory" in the middle east? Let him do his job. Maybe there won't be an agreement, but that's the same reality we have now. It's worth the effort to try.
1
Perhaps I should inform you that using W as a boogyman may have worked in 2008 but it's irrelevant in 2015. Obama owns this mess and the vapid tolerance of his ineffectiveness by putative supporters only compounds the problem.
Since Iran has gotten about 85 percent of what they have asked for Khamenei is asking for the improbable knowing that the P5+1 will fold at the last minute and give him what he wants. However, at this point, knowing that a nuclear armed Iran is a foregone conclusion be nice if we would walk away from this deal and have a nuclear Iran with sanctions in place and without the 100-150 billion dollar "bonus" in seized assets. Without those funds they can do far less damage to the Middle East.
9
Obviously there is a lot of diplomatic posturing, nuancing and weasel-wording involved here, but it should be kept clear that for Khameini to say "You cannot ask us to fulfill our commitments and wait for the I.A.E.A.’s confirmation for removing the sanctions" amounts to empty bluster. The track record of lies, evasions and cheating by his regime is legion. No negotiators worth their salt would take such statements at face value. Which is not to say that Netanyahu should dictate US policy towards Iran either.
4
Iran has made headway in Nuclear deal . The rest of the countries that are open to aggression by USA are way behind. Pakistan took a reasonable start with 9/11 2001 attacks and the attacks with the chemical weapons in Mumbai . My only prayer is that Iran returns back to normalcy and do not tarnish the name of Islam. India will ultimately benefit from Iran's experience . Shia faith has been most popular in the past. It is a good sign .
1
Shia faith must have some similarity with the other traditional Muslim thought. Iranians have been in a hurry . Most undermine the clergy men. However there is unanimous consent available on modernization by all. In the same breath, the Nuclear deal has been signed up with the US. May be the Shia faith as practiced in Pakistan and Afghanistan rattled the Shias of Iran. Middle Easterns tend to assume that they have a lot in common with the West i.e USA. Either people wish to return to Quran or they are shedding unwanted element. Like Indians , Middle Easterns are also away from reality - they seem to be following the myth that includes Jews, terrorists and modernization.
1
Having just read his speech, it is perfectly clear that there is no contradiction nor any back-tracking on anything!
Looks like much of the so called new is actually "self authored stories" that are being peddled as "breaking news"!
Looks like much of the so called new is actually "self authored stories" that are being peddled as "breaking news"!
1
Pat Buchanan says that various credible sources indicate that Iran is not pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon. I don't really know about that but I do support maintaining the sanctions as long as Iran is a exporter of global terror.
The Ayatollah's comments are not out of character. Someone I know who worked for Bell Helicopter in Iran said it was very hard to make an agreement with them. One day you made an agreement and the next day, they totally ignored it as if it had never happened.
The Ayatollah's comments are not out of character. Someone I know who worked for Bell Helicopter in Iran said it was very hard to make an agreement with them. One day you made an agreement and the next day, they totally ignored it as if it had never happened.
5
In this deal is there any consideration for the fact that by the U.S. getting rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Iran simultaneously got rid of their main enemy and will also stand to inherit a large chunk of what once was called "Iraq"? This must be worth something.
4
Mminimally competent coverage of Fukushima by the US press would have significantly undermined the Iranian case.
2
For those who don't know, or have forgotten, Iran's attitude is more than a little "been there, done that." More than a decade ago, Iran voluntarily -- temporarily, but for a few years -- agreed to the "Additional Protocol" and the new version of so-called Code 3.1 (which calls for earlier disclosure of nuclear facilities -- with the expectation that these good will gestures would be reciprocated by certain Western responses then being discussed. Nothing happened, and so Iran announced it would no longer abide by those voluntary undertakings. This time around, it's "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." This time, Iran is saying "Do what you say you're going to do, and do it up front. We're tired of vague promises that don't get kept."
Can't say I blame Iran.
Despite saying that, I've long said that Iran should just volunteer -- again -- to observe the Additional Protocol and new Code 3.1. Most Iran supporters believe that would be foolish and that I'm naive to think otherwise, given the West's response (or lack thereof) to Iran's good will gestures in the past. I'm beginning to see they're right: Iran has been burned too many times by broken promises. Time for the US to actually do what it says it's going to do, and for Iran to respond rather than initiate.
Can't say I blame Iran.
Despite saying that, I've long said that Iran should just volunteer -- again -- to observe the Additional Protocol and new Code 3.1. Most Iran supporters believe that would be foolish and that I'm naive to think otherwise, given the West's response (or lack thereof) to Iran's good will gestures in the past. I'm beginning to see they're right: Iran has been burned too many times by broken promises. Time for the US to actually do what it says it's going to do, and for Iran to respond rather than initiate.
1
The mainstream media and most of the negotiating team after all these years still do not understand Iran. This is not as black and white as they like to make it and it is not as a simple as being a cowboy and saying take it or leave it. First, you have to understand Iran, even if the Khamenei wanted to agree to everything the P5+1 asked for he wouldn't acknowledge it. He's has to appeal to his hardliner base, he needs to still be the tough guy standing up to the rest of the world. Without this stance, he's rein would be over in days. Next, Iran from day one has just been looking to "recognized" and part of the modern world and gain some respect. You give this to them, you can achieve a lot. A true diplomat would know how to achieve this. Israel and those talking a cowboy approach to these negotiations need to get their head out of the sand, they don't respond this type of talk we see on Fox news. Iran wants this deal, but they don't want to come across as weak or as if they gave in. Iran can be a great friend to the US and EU, 40 years of kissing up to the Saudi's has only made things worse, I'm all for bringing Iran into the international community and not being so one sided with certain nations in the region - let the balance of power balance out a little in the region. Bottom line Iran is nation of over 70M where the vast majority are in favor of joining the international community and by establishing the bridge and the leaders in Iran will need to follow.
4
They played our President. He refused to negotiate from strength, and quietly eased sanctions, believing that it would help him get an agrement. The Iranians told him what he wanted to hear, offering enough resistance as well as openness to weekend and last minute overtures to keep him believing. Obama ignored our ally and trusted our enemy in the vain pursuit of a foreign policy achievement akin to Nixon's trip to China, and Reagan's glasnost and perestroika with the Russians. He called it a "once in a lifetime deal" - but he meant "once in my Presidential term." He pulled out all the stops so he could be remembered as a great President. He forgot that you had to do great things, and now, all the stops are out, and no deal is on the table, and it doesn't look promising. Will the Supreme Leader cave at the last minute? Or will the President? The Ayatollah doesn't strike me as a capitulator.
I wonder who Obama will blame this failure upon. Bush maybe?
Charlie Brown, meet Lucy. She's holding the football for you.
I wonder who Obama will blame this failure upon. Bush maybe?
Charlie Brown, meet Lucy. She's holding the football for you.
15
This is news?
3
Americans should keep a sharp eye on those sanctions. Kerry and Obama are entirely too eager to ease them in the interest of getting a deal. What have they done to soften them already?
How quickly will they lift them? The definition of "signing" should be very carefully and publicly examined.
How quickly will they lift them? The definition of "signing" should be very carefully and publicly examined.
6
Ayatollah's tough stance on the nuclear talks appears to be a tactical one to warn the Western powers not to further squeeze Iran for the concessions that it finds difficult to offer or sell to domestic constituency, specially the ultra nationalists and the military. It makes no sense then to overblow the significance of the Ayatollah's tough remarks on the nuclear deal.
9
Ignore evil at your peril!
"“My best judgment is that this is about leverage.”
My best judgment is that this is about Russia. Well played, America.
My best judgment is that this is about Russia. Well played, America.
Do you get the feeling that the Ayatollah is secretly conspiring with the government of Israel to make sure that this deal doesn't happen? Regardless, I still say let them have the nukes. A handful of nuclear weapons comprises no real threat to a nation with a full-scale nuclear arsenal. The U.S. is one of those nations and Israel is another.
15
Two nukes, six nukes, ten nukes - 100 - the use of even ONE nuke would be catastrophic.
I do not understand why people are so sanguine about this.
A whole arsenal of nukes is useless unless you're prepared to use them, and one - just one - would be too many.
Nukes should be banned, period.
I do not understand why people are so sanguine about this.
A whole arsenal of nukes is useless unless you're prepared to use them, and one - just one - would be too many.
Nukes should be banned, period.
3
To answer your question- NO
4
No, I don't. Any other questions?
4
President Obama's strategy sounds eminently logical when examined by rational people in calm, sober circumstances. Without an agreement we don't know how long it would take Iran to develop nuclear warheads, but worst case scenario would be three months. With a infinitely belabored agreement that worst case would be twelve months. There is no greater reason to trust the Iranians now than at any time before. For nine months of putative security the United States is trading the majesty of its world stature and the wisdom of its political leadership dealing with bazaar merchants. Could we accept seven months of added security? Six months? One week? How about a quick three card Monte?
9
I wasn't aware that Mr. Obama had a strategy .... if he does have one, it is not readily apparent.
3
There are only two motivations for a nation to develop a nuclear energy program. One is to produce electrical power and the other is to produce nuclear weapons. So which of the two is Iran's motivation? Or is it both? When I break it down what seems logical to me is that producing electrical power makes no sense. Because they have huge oil resources and don't seem interested in climate change why would Iran spend more money producing electricity with nuclear power rather than oil fired plants? That defies logic.
To many in the western world Iran wanting nuclear weapons also doesn't make sense. It does to me however. Iran having nuclear weapons that they could put on a short to medium range missile would dramatically change the power balance in the middle east. They could, (Like Russia did in the Crimea) invent a reason to force another nation to give in to ridiculous demands. (Yes I realize that Russia did that with the threat of conventional power. But that conventional power was overwhelming.) Many in the west believe Iran wouldn't use nuclear weapons unless attacked. That may be our doctrine but can we really be sure it is theirs? Suicide bombers actually believe Allah will be happy with them for killing people. What if someone in Iran with the power to push the nuclear button feels the same way? Iran already has short and medium range missiles. They are close to having a viable ICBM which will threaten us directly. We simply can't let that happen.
To many in the western world Iran wanting nuclear weapons also doesn't make sense. It does to me however. Iran having nuclear weapons that they could put on a short to medium range missile would dramatically change the power balance in the middle east. They could, (Like Russia did in the Crimea) invent a reason to force another nation to give in to ridiculous demands. (Yes I realize that Russia did that with the threat of conventional power. But that conventional power was overwhelming.) Many in the west believe Iran wouldn't use nuclear weapons unless attacked. That may be our doctrine but can we really be sure it is theirs? Suicide bombers actually believe Allah will be happy with them for killing people. What if someone in Iran with the power to push the nuclear button feels the same way? Iran already has short and medium range missiles. They are close to having a viable ICBM which will threaten us directly. We simply can't let that happen.
36
"what seems logical to me is that producing electrical power makes no sense. Because they have huge oil resources"
All of the same reasons apply which were suggested by the US when it set up Iran's nuclear program under the Shah. They apply more so now, as oil has become more scarce.
Iran sells the oil for foreign exchange. Even with all the oil it has, it is short. It uses vast amounts, and needs to sell vast amounts. It does not want to burn up its foreign exchange to make electricity.
Also, uranium is another marketable resource, as is the processing of it for fuel. Iran has both to offer.
Is that why they are running this high profile confrontation? No. That is more complex. Defiance has its uses. Confrontation with Sunnis has its uses. Confrontation with the US has its uses to cement the regime which replaced the US friend. As in the US, while the nation suffers, the rich have gotten richer and more solidly in power, which is reason enough there as it is here.
There is no reason at all to look at that "evidence" and conclude Iran wants to commit nuclear suicide by provoking a massive nuclear strike in return for a bomb or two of its own. That is irrational.
All of the same reasons apply which were suggested by the US when it set up Iran's nuclear program under the Shah. They apply more so now, as oil has become more scarce.
Iran sells the oil for foreign exchange. Even with all the oil it has, it is short. It uses vast amounts, and needs to sell vast amounts. It does not want to burn up its foreign exchange to make electricity.
Also, uranium is another marketable resource, as is the processing of it for fuel. Iran has both to offer.
Is that why they are running this high profile confrontation? No. That is more complex. Defiance has its uses. Confrontation with Sunnis has its uses. Confrontation with the US has its uses to cement the regime which replaced the US friend. As in the US, while the nation suffers, the rich have gotten richer and more solidly in power, which is reason enough there as it is here.
There is no reason at all to look at that "evidence" and conclude Iran wants to commit nuclear suicide by provoking a massive nuclear strike in return for a bomb or two of its own. That is irrational.
23
"There is no reason at all to look at that "evidence" and conclude Iran wants to commit nuclear suicide by provoking a massive nuclear strike in return for a bomb or two of its own. That is irrational."
I find it very interesting you utilized the word irrational here considering we are technically negotiating with somebody who possesses the real power in Iran under he title of "Supreme Leader"..... This is a dogmatic, anti-semitic, homophobic, racist regime(not the people!) that should be viewed as such when dealing with nuclear arms.
I find it very interesting you utilized the word irrational here considering we are technically negotiating with somebody who possesses the real power in Iran under he title of "Supreme Leader"..... This is a dogmatic, anti-semitic, homophobic, racist regime(not the people!) that should be viewed as such when dealing with nuclear arms.
3
wrong first its about technology! second electricity! Third being able to produce nukes if necessary!
it's better to keep the oil for later and sell it more expensive!
it's better to keep the oil for later and sell it more expensive!
1
Here are several "Talking" points ( aka..."Spin" ) that Obama & Co. can put out re : the Ayatollah's latest positions:
~,The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei[4], demanded that most sanctions be lifted before Tehran has dismantled part of its nuclear infrastructure and before international inspectors verify that the country is beginning to meet its commitments.
TP: He did not say "All" Sanctions be lifted ;
~ He also ruled out any freeze on Iran’s sensitive nuclear enrichment for as long as a decade.
TP: 9 Years would also be good;
~ He repeated his refusal to allow inspections of Iranian military sites.
TP : That's understandable... We would also not wish our Military sites to be inspected;
~“All economic, financial and banking sanctions, implemented either by the UN Security Council, the US Congress or administration, must be lifted immediately when the deal is signed,” -Only after that has happened will Iran start abiding by its commitments, he said. “The rest of the sanctions must be lifted in rational intervals,” he said
TP : He did say that the "rest of the sanctions be lifted in "rational intervals" - That shows good will ...
~Tehran, he said, does not accept the “strange formula” for removing the sanctions, adding that “removing the sanctions must not be dependent on implementing Iran’s commitments.”
TP: He did not say that Iran would not abide by its commitments;
~ Verification of Iran’s actions by the IAEA was out of the question.
TP : That seems reasonable...!!
~,The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei[4], demanded that most sanctions be lifted before Tehran has dismantled part of its nuclear infrastructure and before international inspectors verify that the country is beginning to meet its commitments.
TP: He did not say "All" Sanctions be lifted ;
~ He also ruled out any freeze on Iran’s sensitive nuclear enrichment for as long as a decade.
TP: 9 Years would also be good;
~ He repeated his refusal to allow inspections of Iranian military sites.
TP : That's understandable... We would also not wish our Military sites to be inspected;
~“All economic, financial and banking sanctions, implemented either by the UN Security Council, the US Congress or administration, must be lifted immediately when the deal is signed,” -Only after that has happened will Iran start abiding by its commitments, he said. “The rest of the sanctions must be lifted in rational intervals,” he said
TP : He did say that the "rest of the sanctions be lifted in "rational intervals" - That shows good will ...
~Tehran, he said, does not accept the “strange formula” for removing the sanctions, adding that “removing the sanctions must not be dependent on implementing Iran’s commitments.”
TP: He did not say that Iran would not abide by its commitments;
~ Verification of Iran’s actions by the IAEA was out of the question.
TP : That seems reasonable...!!
5
Wishful amd naive thinking, I am afraid.
1
On your last point: trust but verify, no?
Henry you just wrote tomorrow's NY Times editorial.
1
We have the luxury of invading any country in the world in less than 24 hours. Even shorter notice if we deploy our submarine based missile system. The point is we have as much time as we need to get the deal we want. President Obama has stated over and over-to the point of redundancy he’s not going to allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. So what’s the problem?
Keep in mind that the sanctions in Iran [and in Russia for that matter] are making a few families enormously wealthy- on both sides of the Middle Eastern fence. They are not going relinquish the mother of all meal tickets that easily as a brokered deal would put an immediate stop to the multi-billion dollar, black market commerce that is being run in Iran and Israel [yes Israel] and the tons of cash being sifted through Chinese banks.
This is a lengthy, complicated process and the U.S. holds all the cards, so stop listening to Fox News and quit worrying!
Keep in mind that the sanctions in Iran [and in Russia for that matter] are making a few families enormously wealthy- on both sides of the Middle Eastern fence. They are not going relinquish the mother of all meal tickets that easily as a brokered deal would put an immediate stop to the multi-billion dollar, black market commerce that is being run in Iran and Israel [yes Israel] and the tons of cash being sifted through Chinese banks.
This is a lengthy, complicated process and the U.S. holds all the cards, so stop listening to Fox News and quit worrying!
6
"We have the luxury of invading any country in the world in in less then 24 hours".
Well, it didn't work out very well the last times the USA invaded countries (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq), did it? Invading is ons thing, holding it and getting out a nice way are completely unrelated things.
It is always strange to see this line of thinking; not learning lessons from the past ...
Well, it didn't work out very well the last times the USA invaded countries (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq), did it? Invading is ons thing, holding it and getting out a nice way are completely unrelated things.
It is always strange to see this line of thinking; not learning lessons from the past ...
One commenter suggests we hang tough:
"Fine then let us just continue sanctions. No reason to do a bad deal."
If I were Iran, I'd be just about indifferent as to whether I sign this deal, at least if it's anything like what's been publicly disclosed. If I were the US, I'd sign it in a heartbeat. But if popular US sentiment is reflected in this commenter's remark, and I were Iran, I'd be inclined to just walk away. The US can walk away, but so can Iran. I have a feeling that those in the know -- the negotiators and their bosses -- know that the US has no desire to walk away, not because Obama and his people are stupid but because they know they've negotiated a heck of a deal here. If I'd been negotiating for Iran, I'd probably have taken a harder line.
"Fine then let us just continue sanctions. No reason to do a bad deal."
If I were Iran, I'd be just about indifferent as to whether I sign this deal, at least if it's anything like what's been publicly disclosed. If I were the US, I'd sign it in a heartbeat. But if popular US sentiment is reflected in this commenter's remark, and I were Iran, I'd be inclined to just walk away. The US can walk away, but so can Iran. I have a feeling that those in the know -- the negotiators and their bosses -- know that the US has no desire to walk away, not because Obama and his people are stupid but because they know they've negotiated a heck of a deal here. If I'd been negotiating for Iran, I'd probably have taken a harder line.
3
Also, Iran knows that the US does not have the option of continuing the sanctions.
No matter what happens in these negotiations, Iran will find sanctions falling apart with every nation except those they don't trade with anyway (including the US).
If the US won't end sanctions, no deal and sanctions end anyway. That is a reasonable Iran view.
No matter what happens in these negotiations, Iran will find sanctions falling apart with every nation except those they don't trade with anyway (including the US).
If the US won't end sanctions, no deal and sanctions end anyway. That is a reasonable Iran view.
2
Please explain ehy you think this is a heck of a deal?
2
In a generally pro-Iran comment, Jerry Hough reveals a common assumption for which there is no evidence:
"If we do not treat Pakistan weapons as a threat, why is Iran any different? ... Iran is interested in counterbalancing the Pakistan bomb as the two countries struggle for Afghanistan as the US pulls out."
Like many commenters, Mr. Hough assumes Iran is working on a bomb but suggests it might be justified in doing so and that its objectives may be limited and non-threatening to the US. But we have no basis for assuming Iran is working on a bomb at all, or ever has. I'm amazed how few readers understand this. The IAEA has never -- not once -- suggested that Iran has ever -- ever -- used any nuclear material for any non-peaceful purpose, for any purpose whatsoever other than what Iran, like any other country that's signed the NPT, is allowed to do.
Certainly Israel and the US would like to let IAEA inspectors nose around Iranian military sites. But why would Iran allow this? Why would ANY country allow this? Would Israel or the US allow it if someone asked them to let IAEA inspectors -- or any other outsiders -- nose around their military sites?
Many commenters seem to believe Iran has refused to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities. Au contraire -- Iran is, hand's down, the most inspected country in the world by the IAEA, and has been for quite some time. If this deal goes through, inspections will increase, but they're very extensive already.
"If we do not treat Pakistan weapons as a threat, why is Iran any different? ... Iran is interested in counterbalancing the Pakistan bomb as the two countries struggle for Afghanistan as the US pulls out."
Like many commenters, Mr. Hough assumes Iran is working on a bomb but suggests it might be justified in doing so and that its objectives may be limited and non-threatening to the US. But we have no basis for assuming Iran is working on a bomb at all, or ever has. I'm amazed how few readers understand this. The IAEA has never -- not once -- suggested that Iran has ever -- ever -- used any nuclear material for any non-peaceful purpose, for any purpose whatsoever other than what Iran, like any other country that's signed the NPT, is allowed to do.
Certainly Israel and the US would like to let IAEA inspectors nose around Iranian military sites. But why would Iran allow this? Why would ANY country allow this? Would Israel or the US allow it if someone asked them to let IAEA inspectors -- or any other outsiders -- nose around their military sites?
Many commenters seem to believe Iran has refused to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities. Au contraire -- Iran is, hand's down, the most inspected country in the world by the IAEA, and has been for quite some time. If this deal goes through, inspections will increase, but they're very extensive already.
7
Well, well, well..! All the opponents of the "deal" are out in force! I don't mean the Ayatollah who favors a deal within the framework of NPT and accepts the "additional protocol." I mean those who think Iran should submit to all sorts of inspections that no other self-respecting country would accept and short of its capitulation no deal is a good deal.
Interestingly enough, the U.S. national volleyball team which was in Tehran a few days ago did not even allow reporters to observe its practice sessions for the two games that it played against Iran. Go figure!
Interestingly enough, the U.S. national volleyball team which was in Tehran a few days ago did not even allow reporters to observe its practice sessions for the two games that it played against Iran. Go figure!
6
The negotiating deadline will keep getting extended until Iran has crossed the nuclear threshold.
6
Just get over it. Israel will not get what it wants.
4
Sanctions already are being dropped already Russia and China will flock into Iran basically making American sanctions useless. Wake up America you got played like a cheap violin.
2
Exactly what Bibi said would happen, has happened. Obama and Kerry, terribly wrong with all of their pomposity. Yet they continue to push for an Iran nuke deal at any price. Why? A legacy? What legacy? Stop worrying about a prenuptial, this marriage is headed straight for divorce court.
After all of the concessions that the US has offered Iran, there is no basis for trust here. No open door for inspections / verifications, no deal.
After all of the concessions that the US has offered Iran, there is no basis for trust here. No open door for inspections / verifications, no deal.
43
There is only one country in the Middle east who has a stockpile of nuclear weapons and locks up for life any citizen with knowledge of those weapons who speaks out about it- that country is Israel. Why are they allowed to keep their weapons (estimated by the CIA to be around 70-90 nuclear missiles while Iran is constantly harassed? It might be different if Israel played by the recognized International laws and Geneva Conventions, but they illegally occupy, steal lands with impunity, and implement an apartheid society for both Israeli Arabs and occupied peoples knowing they have these bombs for security. so tell me- how is Iran an existential threat to Israel when the Isrealis have the capability to annihilate Iran?
Jews are already a scarce commodity in Europe, and if matters continue to move in the direction they are moving now, it will be only a few years until schoolchildren are visiting the few remaining ones living in nursing homes to get an idea of what they looked and sounded like.
Now comes President Obama's deal with Iran which will vastly increase Iran's already substantial dominion and hegemony over Middle East affairs; turning even Israel into a dangerous place for Jews fleeing from other lands to turn to; and leaving them just the United States, Canada, Australia and a few other scattered countries around the world to consider as possible places to seek refuge.
This odious deal is not just an unmitigated disaster from the the point of view of putting nuclear weapons in the hands of
irresponsible religious zealots. It is Hitler's dream come true of scattering the small number of Jews still surviving in the world to the far corners of the earth and rendering them impotent in human affairs for the remainder of time.
The sanctions are working. Iran's economy is collapsing. Let's wait two years for a U.S. President not obsessed with securing his or her legacy.
Now comes President Obama's deal with Iran which will vastly increase Iran's already substantial dominion and hegemony over Middle East affairs; turning even Israel into a dangerous place for Jews fleeing from other lands to turn to; and leaving them just the United States, Canada, Australia and a few other scattered countries around the world to consider as possible places to seek refuge.
This odious deal is not just an unmitigated disaster from the the point of view of putting nuclear weapons in the hands of
irresponsible religious zealots. It is Hitler's dream come true of scattering the small number of Jews still surviving in the world to the far corners of the earth and rendering them impotent in human affairs for the remainder of time.
The sanctions are working. Iran's economy is collapsing. Let's wait two years for a U.S. President not obsessed with securing his or her legacy.
22
To A. Stanton: The only country in the Middle East with a sizable Jewish population outside of Israel is Iran. Between 25,000 to 30,000 Jews still live in Iran. Iran is not bent on making its country judenrein. And I'd hate to see what another Republican president would do regarding Iran: war? Obama, at least, is trying a peaceful way to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. I, for one, hope he succeeds, even with the recalcitrant Khamenei. In any case, the more dangerous country in the region, one that harbors the Taliban and al-Qaida (both enemies of Iran), has a non-functioning government, and already has the bomb, is Pakistan. Why do we fear Iran and not Pakistan?
1
The recalcitrant Khamenei? Are you referring to the "Death to America"
Khamenei?
Khamenei?
1
This is just stupid. Sanctions are working only because Iran's main trading partners (China, Russia, Turkey, other Asian countries) are on board. They will find an excuse to drop sanctions with our without a deal that the United States and Israel like. Then sanctions won't be working.
At that point, the United States will face a choice between bombing Iran or coming to Israel's support after Israel bombs Iran. Bombing Iran would set the nuclear program back by a few years, at the expense of igniting a Middle Eastern war that would involve the deaths of tens of thousands of US and Israeli troops, hundreds of thousands or millions of Middle Eastern civilians, include effective conventional attacks on Israel, and that would shut down the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, thereby wrecking the global economy.
All with the net result of strengthening Iran's government (with a flood of patriotic loyalty), postponing the nuclear threat by a few years, and leaving Israel in a much more dangerous neighborhood. Another likely result would be revulsion by a majority of Americans toward any further involvement in the Middle East, leaving Israel militarily and diplomatically isolated. So, which would you prefer: an imperfect deal that wards off war and Israel's isolation, or no deal leading to short-term carnage and long-term isolation and a risk of total destruction for Israel?
At that point, the United States will face a choice between bombing Iran or coming to Israel's support after Israel bombs Iran. Bombing Iran would set the nuclear program back by a few years, at the expense of igniting a Middle Eastern war that would involve the deaths of tens of thousands of US and Israeli troops, hundreds of thousands or millions of Middle Eastern civilians, include effective conventional attacks on Israel, and that would shut down the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, thereby wrecking the global economy.
All with the net result of strengthening Iran's government (with a flood of patriotic loyalty), postponing the nuclear threat by a few years, and leaving Israel in a much more dangerous neighborhood. Another likely result would be revulsion by a majority of Americans toward any further involvement in the Middle East, leaving Israel militarily and diplomatically isolated. So, which would you prefer: an imperfect deal that wards off war and Israel's isolation, or no deal leading to short-term carnage and long-term isolation and a risk of total destruction for Israel?
To Mr. Kerry: Tell him the deal's off, and let's walk away. No relief on sanctions. You want to play hardball? Bring it on.
11
Our press would like us to believe sanctions are "crippling" -- that's the adjective most often used. I'm sure Iran would rather not have them -- who wouldn't want that? But are they really "crippling?" Please. If this deal falls through, Iran will just keep doing what it's been doing for a long time: strengthen its ties with China, Russia, India and other non-Western countries and wait for the US and Western Europe to become less and less powerful.
Each time our sword-rattling fails to scare our enemies, we seem to think that all we need to do is rattle our swords a bit more loudly. Most of the world already takes us a lot less seriously than we imagine, and a lot less seriously than many commenters seem to take us. We might be wise to cut our losses, start behaving like grownups, before everyone just starts laughing in our face.
Each time our sword-rattling fails to scare our enemies, we seem to think that all we need to do is rattle our swords a bit more loudly. Most of the world already takes us a lot less seriously than we imagine, and a lot less seriously than many commenters seem to take us. We might be wise to cut our losses, start behaving like grownups, before everyone just starts laughing in our face.
2
Can we call these negotiations over finally and get on with the business of stopping Iran's proxy wars in Syria, Yemen and Iraq and the massive bloodshed being caused by Revolutionary Guards forces and Quds Force operatives? Can we finally stop coddling the mullahs and get on with the business of getting our American hostages released? Can we stop praising moderate forces in Iran and admit there are no moderates and only a regime that has publicly executed 1,500 people in only 18 months according to Amnesty International? Can we finally stop waiting and get on with working with Iranian dissident groups to help empower Iranian citizens to finally push for changes inside Iran and bring media attention to the mass protests occurring there? Can we finally admit it was a dumb idea to think power-hungry mullahs would ever seriously contemplate giving up their power and get on with the real business of working with our real regional allies to contain the spread of Islamic extremism?
16
Most Americans now understand that Obama and Kerry will fail to get an agreement that ensures that Iran will not produce a nuclear weapon. Obama can still impress America and her allies with his wisdom and fortitude by walking away from the bargaining table on June 30 without an agreement, pledging that further sanctions will be imposed on Iran.
8
A commenter says war is inevitable:
“It looks to be inevitable that war with Iran is coming. … Either Iran capitulates or we increase sanction to the point we force a war.”
I hate to spoil your fun, but a little bird just swooped through my kitchen and chirped this to me:
“There will be no war between the US and Iran. Nor between Israel and Iran. Israel will complain and threaten to take action on its own, but it won’t. Unless Iran changes its mind and asks for a lot more than it apparently asked for in the tentative deal announced several months ago, the US will be somewhere between eager and desperate to sign, and it will. There will be some horse-trading on when various sanctions get lifted, but most of that horse-trading will go Iran’s way. If it doesn’t, Iran will walk. Frankly, I’m surprised – nearly amazed – at many of the concessions Iran has agreed to make, concessions the US has no right whatsoever to demand but has demanded anyway. If I were John Kerry, I’d pin a medal on the chest of my negotiators, sign the deal, declare victory, and call it a day. If I were Iran, I’d be at about the end of my patience, certainly not well-disposed to making any more substantial concessions.
“It looks to be inevitable that war with Iran is coming. … Either Iran capitulates or we increase sanction to the point we force a war.”
I hate to spoil your fun, but a little bird just swooped through my kitchen and chirped this to me:
“There will be no war between the US and Iran. Nor between Israel and Iran. Israel will complain and threaten to take action on its own, but it won’t. Unless Iran changes its mind and asks for a lot more than it apparently asked for in the tentative deal announced several months ago, the US will be somewhere between eager and desperate to sign, and it will. There will be some horse-trading on when various sanctions get lifted, but most of that horse-trading will go Iran’s way. If it doesn’t, Iran will walk. Frankly, I’m surprised – nearly amazed – at many of the concessions Iran has agreed to make, concessions the US has no right whatsoever to demand but has demanded anyway. If I were John Kerry, I’d pin a medal on the chest of my negotiators, sign the deal, declare victory, and call it a day. If I were Iran, I’d be at about the end of my patience, certainly not well-disposed to making any more substantial concessions.
5
For those who haven't been paying close attention -- for example, those who didn't read the article in which John Kerry acknowledged that many of the sanctions are likely to be lifted when (if) the deal is signed -- many of the sanctions are likely to be lifted when (if) the deal is signed, just as Khamenei thinks should be done. To allow the US to save face, some sanctions-lifting will be phased in, but they'll pretty much be lifted when the deal is signed.
For those who do pay close attention to these things: It's somewhere between surprising and amazing what Iran is agreeing to give up here. If I were the US negotiators, I'd be proud of what I've extracted. If I were the Iranians, I wouldn't budge at all. The US would be very foolish not to take this deal while it can. Iran won't -- or at least shouldn't -- leave it on the table very long.
For those who do pay close attention to these things: It's somewhere between surprising and amazing what Iran is agreeing to give up here. If I were the US negotiators, I'd be proud of what I've extracted. If I were the Iranians, I wouldn't budge at all. The US would be very foolish not to take this deal while it can. Iran won't -- or at least shouldn't -- leave it on the table very long.
11
Looks like little has really been extracted from Iran, or do you see matters differently?
if that's what you consider to be a good deal, i hope i never need you to negotiate on my behalf.
1
Whatever the virtues and faults of this agreement, the Ayatollah has been utterly consistent. Maybe he is bluffling, maybe not, but he is not stepping back. I remember many negotiations with the Soviet Union where the American diplomats claimed unwritten agreements that did not exist.
That being said, the argument for the agreement has always been that it would slow the progress and that there was no alternative. The Israeli used to say they would bomb the Iranians, but that has disappeared. Once again the United States is supposed to go to war to defend Israeli interests, as Netanyahu perceives them.
If we do not treat Pakistan weapons as a threat, why is Iran any different? In fact, Iran is not a threat to Israel. Why should it care about it? Iran is interested in counterbalancing the Pakistan bomb as the two countries struggle for Afghanistan as the US pulls out.
If Netanyahu really thought Iran was an existential threat, he would not have been such a big supporter of the destruction of the Saddam bulkwalk against it and the giving to it of half of Iraq. The Netanyahu lobby in the US, led by Tom Friedman, was the most vocal group in pushing Bush to war in 2003.
That being said, the argument for the agreement has always been that it would slow the progress and that there was no alternative. The Israeli used to say they would bomb the Iranians, but that has disappeared. Once again the United States is supposed to go to war to defend Israeli interests, as Netanyahu perceives them.
If we do not treat Pakistan weapons as a threat, why is Iran any different? In fact, Iran is not a threat to Israel. Why should it care about it? Iran is interested in counterbalancing the Pakistan bomb as the two countries struggle for Afghanistan as the US pulls out.
If Netanyahu really thought Iran was an existential threat, he would not have been such a big supporter of the destruction of the Saddam bulkwalk against it and the giving to it of half of Iraq. The Netanyahu lobby in the US, led by Tom Friedman, was the most vocal group in pushing Bush to war in 2003.
24
Your analysis is sophomoric and ignores Iran's true ambitions vis a vis Israel. Iran is not a threat to Israel? Why should it care about it? You're clueless. Once they get the bomb, they will slip one overland to Hezbollah and let them smuggle it into Israel in a cargo container and then destroy Tel Aviv. And since they didn't launch a missile, they can claim it wasn't them. Your anti-Israel bias is clear.
10
??? So I guess when Iranian mobs chant "Death to America," no matter how much Obama tries his reset with that regime, that must have nothing to do with American interests -- only Israel's. What a sad commentary on the Arab world that it turns out the best thing for it would have been to keep a genocidal dictator in power who started two wars costing a million casualties overall, and like Bashir Assad, didn't hesitate to drop poison gas on anyone (in this case the Kurds) who tried to rid themselves of him. And when this vile regime does call for the death of America, who does a chronic Israel-hater like you blame? Not Khameini, not the Revolutionary Guard, not their fanatical religious beliefs. Why the real culprit is (drum roll here) ... Netanyahu. How typical.
9
Because Iran's legislators were chanting "Death to America" when they discussed the negotiations recently. Sounds like a threat.
5
"The ayatollah also said that verification of Iran’s actions by the International Atomic Energy Agency was out of the question."
I'm all for freedom of the press, but isn't this a bit over the top?
For many years, Iran has been the most-inspected country in the history of the world. An uninformed reader might conclude from this sentence that that is not the case.
I'm all for freedom of the press, but isn't this a bit over the top?
For many years, Iran has been the most-inspected country in the history of the world. An uninformed reader might conclude from this sentence that that is not the case.
4
The Iranian people will be irate with their Supreme Leader if he causes this deal to fail. Sadly the Iranian revolution has resulted in a military dictatorship along the lines of a North Korea. The people are the ones who will suffer most if this deal doesn't go through, while the Revolutionary Guard and their plutocrats will benefit by controlling the black market economy.
9
"Iran military" is an oxymoron.
"... the US and EU, by sheer incompetence can foolishly lose a negotiation against an unscrupulous opponent, Iran. The ... sanctions will be lifted without Iran changing its conduct or the World being any safer."
Iran has been telling us all along: "We aren't doing anything wrong. You accuse us all the time, but the IAEA inspectors have never (not once) said we've ever used nuclear material for a non-peaceful purpose. (Iran opponents: shocked to read that? It's an indisputable fact, but look it up for yourself.)
This agreement --- if one is reached -- may cause Iran to change its behavior. But I doubt that. More likely, it will just keep doing what it's always been doing, but fair-minded skeptics will start believing it's not trying to develop a bomb. Unfair-minded skeptics won't change their beliefs no matter what the inspectors find (more accurately: don't find), but I gave up on those people long ago.
Iran has been telling us all along: "We aren't doing anything wrong. You accuse us all the time, but the IAEA inspectors have never (not once) said we've ever used nuclear material for a non-peaceful purpose. (Iran opponents: shocked to read that? It's an indisputable fact, but look it up for yourself.)
This agreement --- if one is reached -- may cause Iran to change its behavior. But I doubt that. More likely, it will just keep doing what it's always been doing, but fair-minded skeptics will start believing it's not trying to develop a bomb. Unfair-minded skeptics won't change their beliefs no matter what the inspectors find (more accurately: don't find), but I gave up on those people long ago.
3
Huh? What world are you living in? The IAEA has repeatedly stated that Iran has not been forthcoming regarding its past nuclear activities, that the suspicion remains that they were (and still may be) developing a nuclear weapons capability, and that Iran is still not allowing them to freely check out the installations for themselves. And since you are so nonchalant about what Iran is supposedly not doing, please explain to us oh great nuclear expert why Iran -- if it only wants peaceful nuclear energy -- needs thousands of centrifuges to enrich uranium? Canada has peaceful nuclear power. So does Japan. So does South Africa. So does Germany. Not one of these countries has ever found the need for a single uranium-enriching centrifuge. So again, please as a great nuclear expert, explain to us why that is if Iran has nothing to hide.
7
It looks to be inevitable that war with Iran is coming. I was hoping to forestall this conflict and possible end this conflict. That was, I am sad to say, was a dream I once had. Either Iran capitulates or we increase sanction to the point we force a war. Better to do it now,than to wait for them to have nuclear capabilities. The consequences for the world will be devastating for many people but far less than if we wait.
13
Many of us share your disappointment, but that doesn't mean we start a war. You are over-reacting. Sanctions appear to be causing pain, otherwise why would Khamenei make them a central point of his speech?
2
I just have one question, why does America have 100's of Nukes, and goes preaching to others about not acquiring one. They are the only ones to have ever used an atomic bomb on another nation, What makes America holier than thou and gives them this right to interfere with affairs of other countries and if they have legitimate concerns that Iran is a threat to the world and America is the savior , then you should probably turn to Pakistan and ask them to dismantle their setup, instead of giving them $billions in AID.
6
Can you name one country the US threatens with annihilation on a weekly basis? And since the US according to you has no right to preach, does that mean it needs to remain silent if ISIS tries to acquire one as well?
5
Do you have conclusive evidence that ISIS is trying to procure these from Iran just like Bush had evidence of WMD with Saddam. What do you mean by "US according to you has no right to preach", don't you agree with this? Practice what you preach, you dismantle your nukes first and then go about telling the world. By the way, US does not threaten to annihilate any country, it just does it, US entered Vietnam for the fear of a Dominion effect, Iraq for the Fear of WMD, Trying to enter Iran for the fear of Nukes, Entered Libya to rescue the US dollar and the list goes on.. I think the economy is in tatters, and we should concentrate on rebuilding that, rather than being a warmonger.
Many, many nutty comments today. Most grounded in fear of a nuclear Iran. Let me get this straight. Would Iran be a parking lot if it ever exercised its use of a nuclear war head? Would Israel not use its nuclear war heads to deter Iranian nuclear aggression. I lived through the age of mutually assured destruction. Let the children of the middle east do the same.
6
Your argument is full of holes. First, it would only take one Iranian nuclear weapon to devastate Israel completely, so one is too many to allow. Second, you are not dealing with rational leaders here. In the cold war, both the US and the USSR, at the end of the day, wanted to live. That is why WWIII never happened. You cannot say the same about fundamentalist Muslims who embrace death culturally. Iran's supreme leader may well decide that a loss of half of it's population may be worth it to rid the world of Israel.
7
Not if this regime believes an Iranian version of a great Gotterdamerung will usher in the return of the 7th Imam. Or is the 12th? Whatever.
4
This ignores one significant difference between cold war and ME mentality. Neither the USSR nor the USA were politically motivated by an ideology of martyrdom. When your opponent will gladly sacrifice queen for queen, winning no longer shares a common definition. And mutual assured destruction becomes a consequence without dread or meaning.
2
The single most powerful fact about nuclear weapons is this- It is 1940s technology. If a desperately poor and isolated county like North Korea can make them how can ANY determined nation be stopped? The answer, of course is to make the economic and diplomatic costs so great that it simply isn't worth it.The main reason Iran doesn't have the bomb already is this- Unlike North Korea, Iran can be deprived of substantial wealth. The good faith that the Untied States and other parties must show is that it will not lift sanctions simply because the Ayatollah says so. It remains to be seen if the US has the diplomatic cohesiveness to stay the course. I for one hope they do.
32
Is the supreme leader's comments a surprise to anyone with common sense?
He is not "positioning" he is telling negotiators to bring a lot of change of clothes on their trip - a trip of fools.
This is the man with the last word and he comes from a short line of Iranian leaders (one) who only know how to think like they are in the 8th century.....his way or no way!
The clock ticks while Israeli/Gulf Arab states attack plans on Iranian facilities are honed and Iranian scientist inch closer to to their destiny of making the region a hot bed of nuclear weapons
He is not "positioning" he is telling negotiators to bring a lot of change of clothes on their trip - a trip of fools.
This is the man with the last word and he comes from a short line of Iranian leaders (one) who only know how to think like they are in the 8th century.....his way or no way!
The clock ticks while Israeli/Gulf Arab states attack plans on Iranian facilities are honed and Iranian scientist inch closer to to their destiny of making the region a hot bed of nuclear weapons
13
The European are also concerned about nuclear attack from Iran, especially Mediterranean ones.
THIS seems to be another poorly/hastily written article which does not make much sense.
THE facts suggest that Iran does not have a WMD Program, has fulfilled its obligations under the Interim Agreement and as several independent sources have suggested most if not all of what IAEA wants to investigate is fabricated by the Usual Suspects.
SO we are now down to what who should do first which is rather disappointing considering what is at stake.
THERE is no reason to believe that if the Sanctions are removed at the Signing as a Goodwill Gesture towards 80 Million Iranians, Iran will not meet its end of the bargain under such "Severe International Scrutiny".
IT Is Time To Make A Rational/Practical Deal, Stop Playing Childish Games And Bring Iran Back Into The Fold Of International Commerce And Global Peace & Security.
I would also hope that the UN will investigate how Mr. Amano's team ended up disclosing the identities of Iran's Scientists so to be Murdered as that is the least the International Community can do to bring Justice to their Widows and Orphans.
THE facts suggest that Iran does not have a WMD Program, has fulfilled its obligations under the Interim Agreement and as several independent sources have suggested most if not all of what IAEA wants to investigate is fabricated by the Usual Suspects.
SO we are now down to what who should do first which is rather disappointing considering what is at stake.
THERE is no reason to believe that if the Sanctions are removed at the Signing as a Goodwill Gesture towards 80 Million Iranians, Iran will not meet its end of the bargain under such "Severe International Scrutiny".
IT Is Time To Make A Rational/Practical Deal, Stop Playing Childish Games And Bring Iran Back Into The Fold Of International Commerce And Global Peace & Security.
I would also hope that the UN will investigate how Mr. Amano's team ended up disclosing the identities of Iran's Scientists so to be Murdered as that is the least the International Community can do to bring Justice to their Widows and Orphans.
6
What facts say that there isn't a WMD program? That Iran says there isn't so there isn't?
1
'Tongue-in cheek'; so much is being talked, something may come out of it.
1
Obama and Kerry are morons. They were never talking to the real government of Iran. Anyone with a brain would have listened to Israel. Anyone who has ever dealt with the Iranians will tell you they don't believe they have to deal honestly with non Muslims. What are you going to do now Obama, pray.
40
This Iran deal is perhaps the greatest fiasco in the history of diplomacy. It is s case study in how the stronger party, the US and EU, by sheer incompetence can foolishly lose a negotiation against an unscrupulous opponent, Iran. The result will be that the sanctions will be lifted without Iran changing its conduct or the World being any safer. In fact, the arms race in the Persian Gulf has already started. It's hard to imagine that our negotiators and leaders could be so inept.
59
How on god's green earth John Kerry was ever placed in higher office, or in a cabinet position no less, is simply astounding. That this country has such a short pool of intelligent, capable individuals that anyone felt kerry would be qualified is simply tragic. Washington and Lincoln must be rolling in their graves knowing that such incompetent crud as kerry and obama have picked up the leadership baton of this once great nation.
8
What "deal"?? It's not done yet. Can you wait for the details before giving us your uninformed opinion??
The greatest irony is that the president came into office proclaiming that he wished to rid the world of nuclear weapons. The Nobel Committee gave him credit for this in the first paragraph of their rationale for awarding him their Peace Prize in 2009. He now, of course, is in the process of promoting the opposite. One knows not whether to laugh or to cry.
Obama and Kerry are political opportunists and lightweights who under no circumstances should ever have been allowed to engage with an Iranian negotiator. whether across a table or from afar. This issue is much too serious for such men.
Obama and Kerry are political opportunists and lightweights who under no circumstances should ever have been allowed to engage with an Iranian negotiator. whether across a table or from afar. This issue is much too serious for such men.
7
In this absurd cat and mouse game, there can be little doubt who is playing the part of the cat. The President, with less than 2 years in his term, may actually leave the Middle East in more chaos than when he took office -- and given the condition in which he found it, tat very real possibility boggles the mind.
38
I see a lot of references to an arms race, which Iran has ostensibly started. Israel has had nuclear weapons since at least 1967, yet there was no race by the Shia or the Sunni States to acquire nuclear weapons. So is this new arms race just another neocon fantasy, concocted by the usual suspects in order to deceive the terminally gullible?
The real arms race is the race by ISIS forces to acquire American Arms discarded by our Iraqi Shia Allies as they race back to Baghdad. Every State in the Middle East is currently being armed by the United States, either directly by our allies the Sunni Royals, who are the source of anti American Terror or indirectly as abandoned American issue. Yet a host of you apparently choose to go to war with Iran rather than to negotiate in good faith with Iran.
Face it! We are dictating the outcome, and the negotiation by an embargo, which is preventive war by other means in relation to a red herring nuclear issue, because the West can't legally engage in a preventive war with Iran in order to impede her ability to capitalize upon the gift of resources and geography on her way to becoming the preeminent fossil fuel distribution hub to Asia and possibly Europe.
The alternative to Iran is the face of al Qaeda or ISIS to whom Iran is mortally opposed. We should Embargo Saudi Arabia, not Iran. The trillions that we have poured into fighting ISLAMIC TERROR is on them and not Iran.
The real arms race is the race by ISIS forces to acquire American Arms discarded by our Iraqi Shia Allies as they race back to Baghdad. Every State in the Middle East is currently being armed by the United States, either directly by our allies the Sunni Royals, who are the source of anti American Terror or indirectly as abandoned American issue. Yet a host of you apparently choose to go to war with Iran rather than to negotiate in good faith with Iran.
Face it! We are dictating the outcome, and the negotiation by an embargo, which is preventive war by other means in relation to a red herring nuclear issue, because the West can't legally engage in a preventive war with Iran in order to impede her ability to capitalize upon the gift of resources and geography on her way to becoming the preeminent fossil fuel distribution hub to Asia and possibly Europe.
The alternative to Iran is the face of al Qaeda or ISIS to whom Iran is mortally opposed. We should Embargo Saudi Arabia, not Iran. The trillions that we have poured into fighting ISLAMIC TERROR is on them and not Iran.
Iran has rather little choice if it wants to build its war machine it needs money. To do so it needs to sell oil and re-join global economy.
The nukes are more like a last resort stuff anyway - far better would be to be able to stand up to say Saudi Arabia in conventional terms
Hard to do now... Saudis spend more than Russia!
The nukes are more like a last resort stuff anyway - far better would be to be able to stand up to say Saudi Arabia in conventional terms
Hard to do now... Saudis spend more than Russia!
1
Get it through your head: Iran has no interest in nukes. It has all the money it need and it manufactures practically all its weapons itself. So, stopped being duped by all the lies of Obama, Netanyahu and the right-wing pundits.
All the weapons it needs? You mean the clones of weapons the Shah bought 50 years ago? Or flying aircraft that old that they are more dangerous to the pilot then an enemy?
If they have no interest in nukes then why spend so much time, effort, and money building huge underground production facilities?
If they have no interest in nukes then why spend so much time, effort, and money building huge underground production facilities?
1
Fine then let us just continue sanctions. No reason to do a bad deal.
69
The sanctions are dead. Nobody is going to follow stupid American sanctions. So, shoot yourself in the foot. Iran doesn't need the US. It will just do business with the Chinese, the Russians and the rest of the world.
Not continue. Increase. Tighten.
But by all means go thru the motions. "Negotiate". See where that gets you to. Just have some principles in mind, some red lines. People who don't know where they minimally want to end up are poor negotiators. They generally end up with nothing. They get played. I don't think Mr. Obama knows where he wants to end up, nor does Valerie Jarrett ... or, perhaps, she does ... and that should be a scary thought.
Any agreement with this regime, one they will sign, is bad. Iran needs to be contained. What they want most, the only thing they want, is for sanctions to be lifted. This is why this would be a concession we should never make, unless it was on our terms, and our terms should be severe.
The blather on these posts about a nuclear Iran being in some way equivalent to Israel, the US or Pakistan, is pure ... blather.
But by all means go thru the motions. "Negotiate". See where that gets you to. Just have some principles in mind, some red lines. People who don't know where they minimally want to end up are poor negotiators. They generally end up with nothing. They get played. I don't think Mr. Obama knows where he wants to end up, nor does Valerie Jarrett ... or, perhaps, she does ... and that should be a scary thought.
Any agreement with this regime, one they will sign, is bad. Iran needs to be contained. What they want most, the only thing they want, is for sanctions to be lifted. This is why this would be a concession we should never make, unless it was on our terms, and our terms should be severe.
The blather on these posts about a nuclear Iran being in some way equivalent to Israel, the US or Pakistan, is pure ... blather.
1
Westerners are so gullible. This is the Supreme Leader. It seems that we will never take these guys at their word. If we say the deal on lifting sanctions includes inspections, then no deal and sanctions remain. That's it. We are so weak and gullible. That is why they beleive that can keep moving the goal posts when ever they like.
We are like children to the ME rulers, children with check books. And one big child who wants to burnish his legacy.
Dear President Obama TPP is your anti worker, anti environment, anti consumer, anti human and anti Constitutional legacy. Nothing can fix it.
We are like children to the ME rulers, children with check books. And one big child who wants to burnish his legacy.
Dear President Obama TPP is your anti worker, anti environment, anti consumer, anti human and anti Constitutional legacy. Nothing can fix it.
12
Time to pull the plug on Teheran. Sorry, Mr. Kerry and President Obama, but enough is enough.
So many conditions are being placed on this long-suffering deal, that I fail to see what the US and its partners get at all, if anything. No sanctions, no inspections, no stopping of nuclear "research." What's really left? It used to be "deal or no deal?" but now it's "no deal, or really no deal?"
Punch the time clock, call it a day, and turn your attention to Putin. From what I'm hearing, we'd better hurry up.
So many conditions are being placed on this long-suffering deal, that I fail to see what the US and its partners get at all, if anything. No sanctions, no inspections, no stopping of nuclear "research." What's really left? It used to be "deal or no deal?" but now it's "no deal, or really no deal?"
Punch the time clock, call it a day, and turn your attention to Putin. From what I'm hearing, we'd better hurry up.
65
Thanks. Has someone leaked the terms of an unfinished deal to you??
I am afraid you do not fully understand this deep and complex agreement. The agreement on the table carries great opportunity for the West--and Iran. This is not a TV game show.
1
Anyone who is surprised had never negotiated on a Persian rug with an Iranian. After all, when there is such a passion for a deal on the American side, when Obama’s legacy is more important than world’s peace, when every time Iran demanded - America gave in, why not raise the price even higher. But beyond the devastating effect a nuclear Iran will have on the entire Middle East, beyond the possibility of a Sunni and Shia holy war, beyond the death of any possible reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians, the stature and leadership of the US have been compromise to a point where it will take years to repair. This is the true Obama legacy. This is the hope that never materialized. This is the deep disappointment.
28
Sorry, but that is the Bush legacy. And that is how deep a hole Bush left this country in.
Sorry, Wattsinchicago, that excuse expires about 300 days into a Presidency. Anyway, the original poster was referring to the Iran situation, which is 100% Obama.
2
Nearly 8 years on and the Obama fans can't take responsibility for anything!
1
Iranians know the art of negotiating; Obama's team apparently doesn't. The US has signaled concessions on key points already, which of course encourages pressing further demands, not less (keep going till you hit the red line). Obama also publicly took the military option off the table which, whether he ever considered actually using it or not, was always his trump card.
Instead of conceding, the stance should have been: We will not only maintain sanctions, but increase them if you don't agree to our reasonable terms (full access for inspections is nonnegotiable -- as the French have reiterated), and if you still refuse, we will reexamine the military option along with intensified sanctions.
Let's see what the final agreement looks like. Obama seems eager to earn his Nobel prize legacy, but so far his accomplishments are more in the line of Chamberlain.
Instead of conceding, the stance should have been: We will not only maintain sanctions, but increase them if you don't agree to our reasonable terms (full access for inspections is nonnegotiable -- as the French have reiterated), and if you still refuse, we will reexamine the military option along with intensified sanctions.
Let's see what the final agreement looks like. Obama seems eager to earn his Nobel prize legacy, but so far his accomplishments are more in the line of Chamberlain.
37
Incidentally, it is not just the Ayatolla -- the Iranian Parliament has passed a bill "protecting" their nuclear program from ANY interference by any agreement. This is all over the web, for instance http://news.yahoo.com/iran-mps-pass-bill-safeguard-nuclear-rights-101819...
Time to upgrade the story, nyt.
Time to upgrade the story, nyt.
6
So what? You want them to surrender to the Evil Empire?
Not surrender but live to up the deal and dismantle their military program.
We should walk out of the negotiations. This is all a sham. Any other response is weak and desperate, and makes them stronger.
41
You Liberals told us that you could get a deal and Iran would stick to it--
Thats another reason your regime needs to go away.
Thats another reason your regime needs to go away.
14
Oh, grow up.
16
Verification of compliance with the terms of any nuclear agreement with Iran is essential. And my understanding is that removal of sanctions will not be immediate but phased, and only in response to Iran taking the necessary steps to cease enrichment, dismantle centrifuges and sites, and significantly reduce current stockpiles of fissionable material.
This rhetoric would seem to torpedo any agreement.
It is a strange world when the Supreme leader and the Israeli Prime minister agree that the current deal is "terrible."
This rhetoric would seem to torpedo any agreement.
It is a strange world when the Supreme leader and the Israeli Prime minister agree that the current deal is "terrible."
15
Do you know anything about Amano, the so-called Director General of IAEA. No amount of information is enough for him. His favorite statement is, "We need more information." If it is up to the IAEA, the sanctions will NEVER be lifted. So, please learn something about the subject before talking about it.
If that's your opinion then why even have a deal?
The statement in the article that, "The Supreme Leader also said that verification of Iran’s commitments by the International Atomic Energy Agency is out of the question," is completely false or at least it is taken out of context. Iran is already the most inspected country in the world.
Khamenei objects to the inspection of Iranian military sites by CIA and Mossad agents (I mean IAEA inspectors(!)) and waiting for inspections to lift sanctions. The latter is a fool's errand since IAEA under Yukiya Amano is an incompetent organization and Amano cannot be trusted to be impartial. Thus, sanctions indeed should be lifted from the beginning.
Khamenei objects to the inspection of Iranian military sites by CIA and Mossad agents (I mean IAEA inspectors(!)) and waiting for inspections to lift sanctions. The latter is a fool's errand since IAEA under Yukiya Amano is an incompetent organization and Amano cannot be trusted to be impartial. Thus, sanctions indeed should be lifted from the beginning.
13