Most of the world would like to see progress made towards a peaceful solution, however when one of the signatories is the head of an Anti-Iran group it leaves it all as nothing but war-mongering.
**Also signing the letter were Gary Samore, Mr. Obama’s former chief adviser on nuclear policy who is now the president of the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran.
**Also signing the letter were Gary Samore, Mr. Obama’s former chief adviser on nuclear policy who is now the president of the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran.
1
Iran has a deep and rich history of cheating and refusing to answer inspectors’ questions. The U.S. and its allies can’t be so eager for a deal — any deal — that they turn a blind eye to current sanctions violations and then let Iran gloss over its past weapons research and erect barricades against future inspections by the IAEA. Furthermore, Iran has long stonewalled international inspectors seeking answers about its past nuclear weapons research, just as it has circumvented other U.N. sanctions to build its nuclear prowess. That’s why “anywhere, anytime” inspections are key to a durable nuclear deal. If you cannot verify the agreement than it it’s useless.
7
The alternative, if the US backs away, is for the deal to collapse and for the sanctions to be removed by Russia and China, and likely relaxed by Europe. With substantial Russian and Chinese investments in Iran, what effect would you expect from a unilateral attack from Israel? Go figure!!
2
This whole dispute with Iran's nuclear programme has more to do with overcoming the psychological obstacles than agreeing to technical details. The timing of this deal is perhaps not the right one, due to the geopolitical situation in the Middle East right now. The lack of trust on all sides is one problem. Yet outside forces had in the past played Iran's national pride, Israel's fear and Saudi Arabia's hostility against each other too!
That's why this deal is so complicated.
That's why this deal is so complicated.
4
I agree with the group of former advisers, as well as with former secretaries od State Schultz and Kissinger, that the Obama-Kerry concessions in these negotiations will result in a deal which will allow the Iranian regime to remain a nuclear threshold state and ultimately a nuclear weaponized state.
This will create an enormously dangerous Middle East. Firstly because nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical regime, and a terror-supporting one according to the Obama administration, seeking hegemony over the region will lead to further Iranian aggression and war.
Secondly, nuclear weapons will proliferate throughout the area. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are already signing agreements toward that end.
If Obama and Kerry continue to go down the road of capitulation, their legacy will be the one of Neville Chamberlain.
The US should simply walk away and ratchet up the sanctions. And make the regime believe that if it doesnt roll back its nuclear capabilities significantly, war is a possibility. Under such circumstances, Iran will capitulate.
This will create an enormously dangerous Middle East. Firstly because nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical regime, and a terror-supporting one according to the Obama administration, seeking hegemony over the region will lead to further Iranian aggression and war.
Secondly, nuclear weapons will proliferate throughout the area. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are already signing agreements toward that end.
If Obama and Kerry continue to go down the road of capitulation, their legacy will be the one of Neville Chamberlain.
The US should simply walk away and ratchet up the sanctions. And make the regime believe that if it doesnt roll back its nuclear capabilities significantly, war is a possibility. Under such circumstances, Iran will capitulate.
5
There are already nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical regime; the government of Israel.
3
Israel is eager to drag America and Europe to wage a war for it against the Iranian People.
America must look after itself first. And it's the Secretary's duty to do just that: America First!
Iran has no history of military aggression.
Iran has not used her military to attack a foreign nation in over 200 years. Israel has sought to, and become, "the mad dog of the MidEast". I can see why Iran would want to defend herself, particularly against unlawful bombing attacks by Israel.
Iran is not invading or occupying any People as Israel does. Iran is not threatening anybody for more than 250 years,
And it doesn´t have nukes while Israel has hundreds ready to be used.
America must look after itself first. And it's the Secretary's duty to do just that: America First!
Iran has no history of military aggression.
Iran has not used her military to attack a foreign nation in over 200 years. Israel has sought to, and become, "the mad dog of the MidEast". I can see why Iran would want to defend herself, particularly against unlawful bombing attacks by Israel.
Iran is not invading or occupying any People as Israel does. Iran is not threatening anybody for more than 250 years,
And it doesn´t have nukes while Israel has hundreds ready to be used.
5
This is just dribble. How many times have we heard over the decades that Iran is just a few years away from a nuclear bomb?
Anyway, the US needs Iran with ISIS out of control. The negotiations won't collapse; otherwise, Iran will step back.
Anyway, the US needs Iran with ISIS out of control. The negotiations won't collapse; otherwise, Iran will step back.
2
What people fail to understand is that the threat from Iran with nukes is not that they will launch thousands of nukes at once, overwhelming our missile defenses and killing tens of millions of people.
No, the real threat from Iran (or any other rogue state/terror group) is an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) attack, which only requires a couple of crude nukes about as powerful as the bombs we dropped on Japan to end WW II.
All Iran has to do is park ships off both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, then launch the two nukes so that they explode high up in our atmosphere. The initial explosions kill nobody by themselves because they occur 35,000 feet into the air.
But the resulting EMP fries our entire electrical grid and everything which has electrical components that is not specifically hardened against just such an attack. Our Defense Dept. estimates that in the event of an attack like I have just described at least 90% of all Americans will be dead within a year.
That is the existential threat we face from Iran with nukes. And an Iranian military official spoke out too candidly a couple of years ago when he said an EMP attack on America is exactly why they want nukes.
Will we still be able to turn Iran into a sea of glass with our own counter-strike from our nuclear submarines? Sure - but the fact that Iran has been wiped off the earth will be small consolation to the 300 million dead Americans.
Our country is in the very best of hands. God help us all.
No, the real threat from Iran (or any other rogue state/terror group) is an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) attack, which only requires a couple of crude nukes about as powerful as the bombs we dropped on Japan to end WW II.
All Iran has to do is park ships off both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, then launch the two nukes so that they explode high up in our atmosphere. The initial explosions kill nobody by themselves because they occur 35,000 feet into the air.
But the resulting EMP fries our entire electrical grid and everything which has electrical components that is not specifically hardened against just such an attack. Our Defense Dept. estimates that in the event of an attack like I have just described at least 90% of all Americans will be dead within a year.
That is the existential threat we face from Iran with nukes. And an Iranian military official spoke out too candidly a couple of years ago when he said an EMP attack on America is exactly why they want nukes.
Will we still be able to turn Iran into a sea of glass with our own counter-strike from our nuclear submarines? Sure - but the fact that Iran has been wiped off the earth will be small consolation to the 300 million dead Americans.
Our country is in the very best of hands. God help us all.
2
Why is the Times doing this? These "advisers" have a terrible reputation as backers of disastrous wars. What ties them together is neoconservatism, general hawkishness, and a desire to crush Israel's perceived worst enemy. Why do we care what these people think?
3
Seems like AIPAC tentacles have reached far into the NYT.
3
On one hand, Dennis Ross and crew at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy are hardly seen as objective policy folks. Some of their concerns are valid nevertheless. And on the other hand, Obama's track record in negotiations is limp and his feet need to be held to the fire so that any agreement is effective and enforceable while respecting Iranian sovereignty and meeting the world's, and the region's need for peace, not just a typical knee-jerk bowing to Likud and other Israeli right-wing intransigence. We can't get from here to there if we continually are seen to take sides.
1
So many comments that President Obama is so desperate for a deal with Iran for his legacy that he will capitulate to Iran in all significant matters and kow tow to the "mullahs" who will quickly produce ICBMs with nuclear warheads aimed at the U.S. and its allies.
Of course the fear mongering by the president's critics defies logic. President Obama certainly would not accept a deal consigned to failure and thus leave a legacy burned and buried in the sands of Iran as President Jimmy Carter's legacy was set over burned helicopters in the Iranian desert.
What American's should instead be concerned about is the congress's capitulation to Bibi Netanyahu relative to Iranian matters.
Of course the fear mongering by the president's critics defies logic. President Obama certainly would not accept a deal consigned to failure and thus leave a legacy burned and buried in the sands of Iran as President Jimmy Carter's legacy was set over burned helicopters in the Iranian desert.
What American's should instead be concerned about is the congress's capitulation to Bibi Netanyahu relative to Iranian matters.
4
Are we expected to credit the statement that
Dennis Ross is a former insider and close advisor of President Obama?
And to remember Paterus as one of the advisors who "resigned his
position? Which one? And wasnt' he a General?
Why dress up this five advisors story with all the importance of being
relevant when it's only a group already known to be against any
deal with Iran? The byline is enough to peg the story, as it
surely does to the end.
Dennis Ross is a former insider and close advisor of President Obama?
And to remember Paterus as one of the advisors who "resigned his
position? Which one? And wasnt' he a General?
Why dress up this five advisors story with all the importance of being
relevant when it's only a group already known to be against any
deal with Iran? The byline is enough to peg the story, as it
surely does to the end.
The conspiracy theories alluded to in these comments about "The Israel Lobby" are a knee-jerk response of another lobby to any criticism of the way the administration conducted these negotiations with Iran. There is more than enough evidence by now that these negotiations have degenerated into a joke, "Israeli Lobby" or no "Israeli Lobby".
Obama might as well just give Iran nuclear missiles and give up the posturing of "an agreement".
Obama might as well just give Iran nuclear missiles and give up the posturing of "an agreement".
3
Anyone supporting Netanyahu has not been paying attention. His recent campaign speech to Congress was nothing more than the same song and dance on Iran that is now over 30 years old. Consider:
Part I:
1984: West German intelligence sources claim that Iran’s production of a bomb “is entering its final stages.” US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.
1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon.
1995: The New York Times reports that US and Israeli officials fear “Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought” – less than five years away. Netanyahu claims the time frame is three to five years.
1996: Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres claims Iran will have nuclear weapons in four years.
1998: Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claims Iran could build an ICBM capable of reaching the US within five years.
1999: An Israeli military official claims that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within five years.
2001: The Israeli Minister of Defense claims that Iran will be ready to launch a nuclear weapon in less than four years.
2002: The CIA warns that the danger of nuclear weapons from Iran is higher than during the Cold War, because its missile capability has grown more quickly than expected since 2000 – putting it on par with North Korea.
Part I:
1984: West German intelligence sources claim that Iran’s production of a bomb “is entering its final stages.” US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.
1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon.
1995: The New York Times reports that US and Israeli officials fear “Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought” – less than five years away. Netanyahu claims the time frame is three to five years.
1996: Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres claims Iran will have nuclear weapons in four years.
1998: Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claims Iran could build an ICBM capable of reaching the US within five years.
1999: An Israeli military official claims that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within five years.
2001: The Israeli Minister of Defense claims that Iran will be ready to launch a nuclear weapon in less than four years.
2002: The CIA warns that the danger of nuclear weapons from Iran is higher than during the Cold War, because its missile capability has grown more quickly than expected since 2000 – putting it on par with North Korea.
11
The proposed nuclear deal with Iran stinks, and I don't trust the Iranian government at all -- but what are the alternatives? I have yet to hear any that sound better than this very disappointing deal. Besides trying to fight a war with, and have a sustained occupation of, Iran -- something that would be much more difficult that our miserably failed attempts in Iraq -- it's not clear there is any better option.
If there are any better options I would like to hear of them and the rational behind them.
If there are any better options I would like to hear of them and the rational behind them.
2
" I don't trust the Iranian government at all -- but what are the alternatives?"
Let the mad mullahs of Iran know that if we even suspect that they have a deliverable nuclear weapon we will immediately launch a nuclear strike on them.
All it would take is two Trident D5 missiles and a president with the guts to give the launch order.
Let the mad mullahs of Iran know that if we even suspect that they have a deliverable nuclear weapon we will immediately launch a nuclear strike on them.
All it would take is two Trident D5 missiles and a president with the guts to give the launch order.
1
Wondering, How much AIPAC has given them to suddenly come out and warning now. Couldn't they warn Obama when they were in his administration. As these negotiation get closer to a deal Zionists and Republican get more and more disparate for a way to sabotage it.
6
The president wants a deal, any deal. This is about his legacy. Every non negotiable position has been compromised or eliminates. Now the president's own ex advisers choose to publicly state the deal doesn't reach basis standards. Democrats don't like the deal, and only far leaning liberals are left in support. As President Obama is fond of saying, "elections have consequences."
1
Why is this such a big issue? In whose national interest are we perhaps headed to another attack? Our? That seems implausible.
1
Sorry...Israel no longer dictate to this White House. Netanyahu made sure of that. The US will sign the deal and all will have to live with it. Congress can then refuse to go along. That is their prerogative.
6
They don't dictate to this White House but they disagree with it and that is their prerogative.
1
Brad, they don't just disagree. They give millions of dollars to congresspersons to buy government policy that suits their special interests.
2
Rather than looking back wards Obama has his eyes on the future: (1) Iran will continue to evolve into a more peaceful country compatible with the western world; (2) Iran has to keep other Middle East at bay rather than the US doing the dirty work (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.); (3) All Iranian senior leaders will soon be just seniors staying in homes for seniors or getting a job in the here-and-after (as will the US signatures objecting here). In short, allow evolution to do its job - whatever the US decides, Iran will still run its own course.
9
Excellent post.
you said it all.Thanks
you said it all.Thanks
5
Another lamentable example of people who should know better intruding inappropriately into an important and delicate process for reasons having nothing to do with making anything better. I wouldn't call it "treason" but some watered-down version of that word.
6
I think the President wants to do all he can to find a peaceful solution. He knows Iran evokes negativaty toward the West, but the President thinks that he may be able to change Iran's tone by treating Iran as though Iran does not evoke negativity. Here's my criticism and why I am a pro-Israel hawk who thinks the President is less than helpful to Israel and to the rest of the West: Iranians are not like you and me, they are not Westerners, they cannot be placated because they are actually driven by fear and loathing of the West. Therefore they consider what the President to be doing as an opportunity to rally because the President appears to be weak. Is the only alternative war? No, strong words and strong sanctions are also an alternative.
3
The U.S. should walk away. Having haggled in Arab bazaars (I know Iranians like to claim they're not Arabs) I learned that walking away is a good negotiating tactic. The merchant will more often than not follow you out of the souk, offering a better deal.
If that doesn't happen in this case, the U.S will have to do what was probably inevitable all along --use military force.
If that doesn't happen in this case, the U.S will have to do what was probably inevitable all along --use military force.
2
Why does the U.S. have to use military force? What would be the legal justification? Do you know anything about the UN Charter? No country has the right to attack or even threaten another country except in self defense or if the UN Security Council has approved it. So, just relax. Nothing is going to happen. Iran is not afraid of the USA and will not follow its dictates.
6
Recall a little tiff called Vietnam?
"A judgment from Mr. Obama’s own former advisers that the final accord falls short would provide ammunition for Republican critics." These "former advisers" ARE Republican critics. That's the point. The fact that one is a convicted traitor and several others were involved in war crimes tends to damage their credibility just a wee bit.
4
Got a question for everyone here? Does anyone really believe this president actually knows what he's doing? From all your responses, I see you don't address Mr. Obama's past behavior as an indication of what he plans on doing next. Does everyone not know everything he's done only prove he's going to submit to the Islamic Republic of Iran, a known terrorist entity. Which means everyone, America loses. And your pontificating won't change his behavior any more than this letter will. I recall back in the late 1950/1960s America spoke about bomb shelters in the event of nuclear attack. Now you should be serious about it because Barry can't wait to bow down the Islamic mullahs of Iran. And now it's a certainty; does he care? Nope, not for a nanosecond. Speaking of profound stupidity and ignorance, I highly recommend looking in a mirror.
3
Whenever someone talks about Mullahs of Iran it is clear he or she knows nothing about Iran. There are many Mullahs in Iran but Iran is not ruled by Mullahs. Besides, the Iranian Mullahs are not irrational nuts like those in Saudi Arabia who are our dear friends.
Iran is actually the most democratic country in the Middle East. It is not a theocracy (there is no hierarchy in Shiite Islam) and it is not a dictatorship. All major decisions in Iran are made by a consensus of multiple centers of influence.
Iran is actually the most democratic country in the Middle East. It is not a theocracy (there is no hierarchy in Shiite Islam) and it is not a dictatorship. All major decisions in Iran are made by a consensus of multiple centers of influence.
6
Answer: I firmly believe President Obama knows what he's doing, and that he's doing what's best for the USA and the world.
1
On June 24, 2015, David E. Sanger published "Ex-Advisers Warn Obama That Iran Nuclear Deal 'May Fall Short' of Standards", an article that made me deeply unsettled. The article outlined a letter sent to Mr Obama, urging him to present a longer term solution to Iran's accessibility to nuclear materials for a weapon. The agreement itself as of now "dissuades Iran from manufacturing any actual weaponry", but will not forcibly stop the country's ability for nuclear military supplies after the agreement expires. The letter, signed by five former advisors to Mr Obama's Middle Eastern dealings, shook the White House, along with recent incidents with Iran's ayatollah. The Iranian government has started to back away from some former restrictions on nuclear supplies within the country, as well as the expiration of an agreement in April of this year that has put both the US and Iran on edge for any more agreements. This puts a huge amount of pressure on the White House, as national security may become a question once this new negotiation expires. The ex-advisors involved in the aforementioned letter bring to light the concerns involving international inspection of Iranian nuclear facilities, the disclosure of former nuclear history, and the suspected ability for Iran to begin again their nuclear endeavors once the upcoming agreement expires. The prospect of any country with the ability to cause nuclear war, especially Iran, has certainly caused concern for civilian safety within the US.
1
Negotiations between sovereign nations on issues in dispute can succeed only when there exists a large measure of reciprocal trust. There is absolutely no reason to trust the Iranians. They have demonstrated time and again that negotiations are a ploy to delay positive action by their adversaries.
Negotiations should never be transparent. Transparency severely limits effective give and take, and leads to both sides playing to the media rather than to each other. Volumes have been written concerning the proposed nuclear arms agreement with Iran. At the outset the position of the G5+1 did not reflect the realities of the two sides. At very best Iran is a regional power whose ability to inflect harm on the free world is meaningful but limited. On the other hand the G5+1 represent the combined power of the world’s largest nations. To sit down with the Iranians as equals was foolhardy. The threat that would make Iran a player on the world stage is the issue in debate. The details of an agreement are secondary. There is no room for compromise on the central issue. The full weight of the G5+1 should be made plain to the Iranians at the outset.
In quiet private discussions, the Ayatollah Khomeini should be reminded of the fate of Saddam Hussein and Osama ben Laden. This should not be merely an idle threat.
The way to ensure Iranian agreement is for them to understand and believe in the west’s conviction that Iran will not have a nuclear capability.
Negotiations should never be transparent. Transparency severely limits effective give and take, and leads to both sides playing to the media rather than to each other. Volumes have been written concerning the proposed nuclear arms agreement with Iran. At the outset the position of the G5+1 did not reflect the realities of the two sides. At very best Iran is a regional power whose ability to inflect harm on the free world is meaningful but limited. On the other hand the G5+1 represent the combined power of the world’s largest nations. To sit down with the Iranians as equals was foolhardy. The threat that would make Iran a player on the world stage is the issue in debate. The details of an agreement are secondary. There is no room for compromise on the central issue. The full weight of the G5+1 should be made plain to the Iranians at the outset.
In quiet private discussions, the Ayatollah Khomeini should be reminded of the fate of Saddam Hussein and Osama ben Laden. This should not be merely an idle threat.
The way to ensure Iranian agreement is for them to understand and believe in the west’s conviction that Iran will not have a nuclear capability.
5
And we should remind ourselves of OUR fate from having invaded Iraq: blood and treasure paid; enemies multiplied.
6
Seems obvious the regime's only goal in the episode is escaping the sanctions.
4
Obama is looking for a way out. The pressure from Republican senators and congressmen about this nuclear giveaway is actually working. I hope that the Senate and House have the guts to follow through. No deal is much, much better than this one sided deal.
3
Boy, the NY Times just couldn't wait to rush this non-story onto its pages, could it?
What's the catch?
Well, it's a pretty big one. Spelled out here: "The substance of the letter is less notable for what it says ... than for the influence of its signatories. Among them is Dennis B. Ross, a longtime ...."
Hahahahahaha.
Longtime is right. Twenty years as US Mideast negotiator, and what did we (Americans, the world) get for all his efforts? More Jewish settlers, more Jewish settlements, more dead Palestinians.
Yes, the influence of its signatories is right. You got to have a lot of influence to march backwards, but that's what our policy in the Mideast always did, thanks to the Dennis Rosses.
(And where's Elliot Abrams in this piece??? Come on, Times.)
What's the catch?
Well, it's a pretty big one. Spelled out here: "The substance of the letter is less notable for what it says ... than for the influence of its signatories. Among them is Dennis B. Ross, a longtime ...."
Hahahahahaha.
Longtime is right. Twenty years as US Mideast negotiator, and what did we (Americans, the world) get for all his efforts? More Jewish settlers, more Jewish settlements, more dead Palestinians.
Yes, the influence of its signatories is right. You got to have a lot of influence to march backwards, but that's what our policy in the Mideast always did, thanks to the Dennis Rosses.
(And where's Elliot Abrams in this piece??? Come on, Times.)
11
The Israeli government offered Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, respectively in 2000 and 2008, the return 95% of land captured in the 1967 "Six Day War" in exchange for peace. Both ignored the offers without any counter-offer, or initiative of their own. The refusal of the Palestinians to make a decision, is in itself a decision: acquiescence in the status-quo. As acceptance of the Israeli offers, or alternatively the Arab League Peace Plan, would constitute "de-facto" recognition of Israel's right to exist within "secure and recognized boundaries," per UNSCR 242 and 338, Palestinians prefer the status-quo continue. Under International Law, Israel as the victorious belligerent, may retain captured land until possession is modified by treaty.
See: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis
See: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis
2
We'll see about your interpretation of international law. In the mean time I suggest you read up on the 4th Geneva Convention, which Israel has clearly violated time and again for decades.
Mike 71: It is unbelievable that you still bring up the ridiculous offer that Arsfat supposedly rejected. Why don't you read up on the Taba meeting and the fact that Israel walked away when Barak lost the election and Sharon took over. No deal was offered to Arafat. It was Clinton's idea and it was a joke.
All of this would be so much easier if the nuclear powers would change all civilian nuclear power plants to using the thorium fuel cycle. Then by definition, the use of the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle could be considered for military purposes. Our choice to mingle military and civilian technologies creates a problem that makes us appear hypocritical to the rest of the world.
1
When shall our Neocons realize that there is a limit to Israel meddling in US foreign policy. Bibi has been dissing our president since the murderous December 27th IDF incursion into Gaza. We do not share the same interests; excepting AIPAC's intrusive campaign donations.
10
I thought Obama was committed to unfettered inspections and consequences. This group is just reminding him of his own position.
8
Reagan sat across from Gorbachev. Nixon sat across from Mao. Carter sat across from Sadat and Begin. A deal through proxies won't work. Unless at some point Obama sits across from Ayatollah Khamenei, fuggedaboutit...
6
I fear that Obama and Kerry are so desperate for a deal -- any deal -- that they'll give Iran anything they want. If you allow Iran to dictate which sites are off-limits to inspectors, then there is no point to having a deal. Once sanctions are lifted, Iran will have much more money to spend on their nuclear research and military capability.
"Just a day ago Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, heightened the pressure facing negotiators by appearing to back away from several preliminary understandings reached between Iran and the West in early April."
My understanding is that the Iranian version of the April framework was substantially different than the American version. It may be that Ayatollah Khamenei's statement is consistent with his version of the April agreement.
"Just a day ago Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, heightened the pressure facing negotiators by appearing to back away from several preliminary understandings reached between Iran and the West in early April."
My understanding is that the Iranian version of the April framework was substantially different than the American version. It may be that Ayatollah Khamenei's statement is consistent with his version of the April agreement.
7
Consider the sources, Jebby Run, positions on the Cabinet, even VP in Petraeus case.
1
When two people (in this case Presidents Obama & Rouhani) are hell bent on making friendship then they will always be able to figure out a way to do that.
Yes. That is possible despite hard opposition.
Yes. That is possible despite hard opposition.
2
How long will a corrupt and supine Congress allow Netanyahooo to dictate policy on Iran?
10
It's becoming painfully obvious that getting a deal -- even a bad one -- is so important to the President's legacy that our national interests are being ignored.
7
It's not OUR national interest that is driving this process; it's Israel's national interests.
There is a shared self-deception here. Some basic realities are that 1) Iran, in the climate which has prevailed over the last 15 years, should rationally want nuclear weapons to deter attack by the US, which has invaded two of its neighbors and verbally threatens it regularly. If it had such a stockpile, no one would invade. 2) If it wants such weapons it will get them sooner or later, regardless of any treaty, unless there is a full scale US preemptive invasion and long term occupation, which would be a huge disaster for the US and Iran, possibly the world 3) Deterrence will work with Iran at least as well as with the current North Korea or Stalin's USSR. It is the only prudent long term strategy, if Iran wants weapons. Therefore, the challenge is how to transition to a deterrence policy, or let time reduce the rational need by Iran for such weapons, while avoiding a US invasion. We cannot actually restrain Iran for long if they want weapons, but we may restrain ourselves long enough. That is the real rational goal. Israel will learn, eventually, just as we learned with Stalin, that deterrence, bad as it is, is better than war. In the current technology era, no nation is so privileged that it can do better than a deterrence standoff with its enemies. The missing ingredient in all of this, for any optimistic outlook, is the lack of an Eisenhower with the wisdom and stature to restrain calls for preemptive war.
12
Perhaps the essential question here is whether or not the Iranian hierarchy considers the destruction of their country an acceptable trade-off for the destruction of Israel.
4
deterrence cannot work when Iran is over 10 times the size of Israel. Iran can absorb a lethal nuclear attack that destroys 1/5 of its land mass. Israel cannot. Further Iranians are willing to sacrifice innocents as martyrs.
2
"2) If it wants such weapons it will get them sooner or later, regardless of any treaty, unless there is a full scale US preemptive invasion and long term occupation, which would be a huge disaster for the US and Iran, possibly the world"
The US could also insure that the mad mullahs os Iran will never get the bomb by launching a nuclear strike, no invasion or occupation needed. All that would be required is two Trident D5 missiles and a president with the guts to give the launch order.
The US could also insure that the mad mullahs os Iran will never get the bomb by launching a nuclear strike, no invasion or occupation needed. All that would be required is two Trident D5 missiles and a president with the guts to give the launch order.
1
Strange that the names aren't mentioned till late in the article. Many have an interest in the policies implemented when they were in power: sanctions against Iran, military escalation in the middle east. Not to mention the Bush advisors who signed this. They might have realized that sanctions and military flexing were part of a longer term strategy for seeking peace and not an end in themselves.
6
So what is the alternative? Complete embargo on Iran with the possibility of success like our 50 year embargo on Cuba?
Patreas has quite the gall to sign his name to anything regarding defense and security. He should be in jail rather than second guessing US foreign policy.
What we all know is that Iran would not be pursuing nuclear capability if Israel hadn't already introduced nuclear war heads in the Middle East. Israel is given a carte blanche (no inspections) and yet it continues to call for bombing Iran.
Negotiations will never give a perfect deal with Iran, but at least Obama and Kerry are engaging them to re-enter the world arena. Seeing how ISIS is destabilizing the Middle East perhaps US hawks will see how wrong it has been to isolate Iran all these year.
Patreas has quite the gall to sign his name to anything regarding defense and security. He should be in jail rather than second guessing US foreign policy.
What we all know is that Iran would not be pursuing nuclear capability if Israel hadn't already introduced nuclear war heads in the Middle East. Israel is given a carte blanche (no inspections) and yet it continues to call for bombing Iran.
Negotiations will never give a perfect deal with Iran, but at least Obama and Kerry are engaging them to re-enter the world arena. Seeing how ISIS is destabilizing the Middle East perhaps US hawks will see how wrong it has been to isolate Iran all these year.
13
If you studied recent history, you would be aware that Iran was first to threaten Israel by "wiping it off the map," or "erasing it from the pages of history," depending on which Farsi translation is used. Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Israel as a U.N. nation-state member, is entitled to an "inherent right to individual, or collective self-defense." That may, as was the case in 1967, include a pre-emptive strike!
Israel maintains a nuclear arsenal for the same essential reason that India, Pakistan, China, France, the U.K., the U.S. and Russia does - as a deterrent to foreign aggression. The doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction" still works. The fact that Israel has the capability of turning Iranian targets into the next Hiroshimas and Nagasakis, should give the ruling Iranian Mullahs pause!
Israel maintains a nuclear arsenal for the same essential reason that India, Pakistan, China, France, the U.K., the U.S. and Russia does - as a deterrent to foreign aggression. The doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction" still works. The fact that Israel has the capability of turning Iranian targets into the next Hiroshimas and Nagasakis, should give the ruling Iranian Mullahs pause!
1
For many influential people in Washington DC even Iran's total nuclear surrender would 'fall short" of standards. The bad news for those folks is that President Obama is riding a winning streak.
On foreign policy, the Senate has granted fast track authority to the White House to proceed with the economic integration deals with the EU and Asia-Pacific countries.
Domestically, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act to provide nationwide tax subsidies to poor and middle-class people to buy health insurance.
A few months ago, DC political wonks were betting against Obama's nuclear deal with iran. Israel's fierce opposition culminated with Netanyahu's famous/infamous speech at Capitol Hill. Today, the odds are not totally against President Obama. The game ain't over...
On foreign policy, the Senate has granted fast track authority to the White House to proceed with the economic integration deals with the EU and Asia-Pacific countries.
Domestically, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act to provide nationwide tax subsidies to poor and middle-class people to buy health insurance.
A few months ago, DC political wonks were betting against Obama's nuclear deal with iran. Israel's fierce opposition culminated with Netanyahu's famous/infamous speech at Capitol Hill. Today, the odds are not totally against President Obama. The game ain't over...
9
I marvel at some of the letters putting trust in Obama & Kerry on issues of the middle east. One only needs to look at the facts on the ground & what has transpired as a result of the administrations policies; Isis stronger than ever, Syria virtually destroyed with 200,000 dead and millions of refugees, Yemen in civil war, Libya disintegrating, Iraq being overrun, Hamas building tunnels and arming themselves again for their next serial disaster, Iran fomenting terror across the region, and loss of trust with our allies in the area; Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is no stretch to see that these policies are a disaster. Why would Obama's judgement Iran be different? If he barrels this through, it will become his legacy policy but not in a good way for him nor the world.
20
Ex advisor warns...really, come on folks if you can't figure out just how challenging getting anything accomplished in the middle east is then maybe this headline has meaning. But so much history here to inform us that any and all existing, potential and hopeful agreements are subject to falling short on delivery.
Tis the nature of the beast...stopping covering your butt and recognize the world we live in.
Tis the nature of the beast...stopping covering your butt and recognize the world we live in.
3
It is lamentable that these Americans, once held responsible,
have no sense of history and want to repeat it. America
dictated capitulation law to Iranians after the overthrow
of Mossadeq government in 1953 and Raza shah was
brought in from exile to rule over Iran.This law granted
immmunity to americans for any crimes committed in
Iran. This law became a source of anti-American feeling.
Surprisingly these former officials want to ram down
the tough measures which Iran won't accept. Perhaps
these officials want to scuttle the negotiations and
promoting the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
have no sense of history and want to repeat it. America
dictated capitulation law to Iranians after the overthrow
of Mossadeq government in 1953 and Raza shah was
brought in from exile to rule over Iran.This law granted
immmunity to americans for any crimes committed in
Iran. This law became a source of anti-American feeling.
Surprisingly these former officials want to ram down
the tough measures which Iran won't accept. Perhaps
these officials want to scuttle the negotiations and
promoting the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
10
No "perhaps", you got it bang on.
2
Critics of the Obama administration argue that a "bad" agreement will not prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They are correct. But they fail to recognize that the same would be true of no agreement at all, even if that outcome resulted in enhanced economic sanctions. They also discount far too readily the dangers associated with a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and the most likely response by Iran, which would be to accelerate rather than abandon its nuclear efforts, presumably in a still more clandestine fashion. The sad fact is that there are no good options for the Obama Administration or for whatever administration succeeds it. If the Iranian leadership is determined to have a nuclear arsenal, it will have one, just as the North Korean government now has one, despite years of U.S. efforts to prevent it. Of course, Iran is not North Korea, but the United States and its Asian allies have learned to live with North Korea's nuclear capability. The U.S. and Iran's neighbors in the Middle East and Persian Gulf region (including Israel, which has its own, substantial nuclear arsenal) might well learn to live with Iranian nukes. An Iranian bomb is not a pleasant thing to contemplate, especially in places such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, but there are reasons to think that it might not be the catastrophe some predict.
6
Anything written by Dennis Ross should be ignored. He has been the most useless and dangerous foreign affairs presidential adviser in recent times. Years of his shuttle diplomacy for Clinton accomplished nothing. He completely destroyed any chance of a deal with Iran during the first Obama administration. Now, as a confirmed Israeli agent he is raising his ugly voice as a naysayer. The rest of the signatories are confirmed right-wing zealots or convicted crooks. Who cares what they say?
14
Yes, Dennis Ross is a Mossad agent as was Monica Lewinsky - just ask any Arab.
2
Raining more bombs upon the Middle East, which seems to be the consensus alternative among the armchair warriors who somehow just know the not-yet-completed agreement is a disaster, won't solve any problems.
10
Obama just cemented his legacy with the upholding of the ACA. Now perhaps he'd be willing to drop the pretense that the Iran deal and TPP are "good for Americans".
4
TAQIYYA (Quran 16:106) allows for dissembling when in danger of losing life or property, when faced with persecution. It might seem that the Ayatollah is using the negotiations merely to buy time and to create such a stake for the West in successful completion of negotiations that it will accept a deal made in bad faith by Iran.
The Obama administration has warned that failure to make such a deal might require military intervention sometime in the future. One might look at the possible alternatives that may well arise from what is perceived as a bad deal. All major contenders for the presidency, including the expected Democratic nominee, might feel empowered to advocate strong military action, including the use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's hardened R&D sites. As well, it is not a wild notion that Iran will use its access to assets freed by the deal to enhance its support of Hezbollah and Hamas. The relaxation of sanctions also will enable Iran to enhance its funding of nuclear weapons development.
The recent comments by Khamenei indicate that he has delayed agreement for a sufficient period and no longer needs one except on Iran's terms. No deal might be better than a bad one, even if Mr. Kerry won't get a Nobel Prize.
The Obama administration has warned that failure to make such a deal might require military intervention sometime in the future. One might look at the possible alternatives that may well arise from what is perceived as a bad deal. All major contenders for the presidency, including the expected Democratic nominee, might feel empowered to advocate strong military action, including the use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's hardened R&D sites. As well, it is not a wild notion that Iran will use its access to assets freed by the deal to enhance its support of Hezbollah and Hamas. The relaxation of sanctions also will enable Iran to enhance its funding of nuclear weapons development.
The recent comments by Khamenei indicate that he has delayed agreement for a sufficient period and no longer needs one except on Iran's terms. No deal might be better than a bad one, even if Mr. Kerry won't get a Nobel Prize.
7
When the DNC conducts it's post-mortem on why millions of loyal Democrats refused to vote the party line, resulting in the loss of the WH and decimation of the party for the next 20 years, it needs to look no further than the narcissistic, dangerous, and destructive steps the President and the SOS took to in the pursuit of their so-called "legacies."
Personally the only thing I will remember them for is their recklessness with our country.
Personally the only thing I will remember them for is their recklessness with our country.
9
"Ex-Advisers Warn Obama Iran Deal ‘May Fall Short’"
Boy...that's kind of the understatement of the day for the Times. There never really was a deal, was there? The Iranians basically could continue enrichment as long as they were nicer to inspectors. So...is that a deal, or what?
King Obama continues to do whatever he wants without regard to warnings from his advisers or anyone else. That's why they are "Ex-Advisers."
Boy...that's kind of the understatement of the day for the Times. There never really was a deal, was there? The Iranians basically could continue enrichment as long as they were nicer to inspectors. So...is that a deal, or what?
King Obama continues to do whatever he wants without regard to warnings from his advisers or anyone else. That's why they are "Ex-Advisers."
7
Personally, I do not see the big deal if Iran has nukes. It's called sovereignty and self determination, something this country hates to see others have apparently. American principles are so hypocritical and capricious that no one takes us seriously.
10
Yeah, what's the big deal? Iran is only the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Iran only provides millions of dollars a year to Hezbollah. Iran has only funded Shiite militias in Iraq to kill U.S. troops. Iran has only contracted with Lose Zetas to blow up U.S., Saudi and Israel embassies in South America. Iran has only threatened to wipe Israel off the map. So why not let Iran develop nukes?
5
Notice the shift in goalposts - the consensus view and the Administration's original position was that an Iranian nuclear capability was unthinkable.
2
"Personally, I do not see the big deal if Iran has nukes."
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was a threat, but they weren't suicidal; there were no Russian suicide bombers. Mutually Assured Destruction was an effective deterrent. It's not clear the same situation applies to Iran. There ARE Islamic sucide bombers. There are elements in Islam that believe the destruction of Israel will bring the return of the 12th Imam who will lead Islam to worldwide conquest.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was a threat, but they weren't suicidal; there were no Russian suicide bombers. Mutually Assured Destruction was an effective deterrent. It's not clear the same situation applies to Iran. There ARE Islamic sucide bombers. There are elements in Islam that believe the destruction of Israel will bring the return of the 12th Imam who will lead Islam to worldwide conquest.
2
Now we know what a former general who leaks classified files to his mistress does while on probation, he warmongers on behalf on Israel. A letter signed by Convicted Felon Petraeus and his fellow warmongers Ross and Hadley is not worth the paper that it is written on.
16
Of course, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, their agents, toadies and other enemies of Israel would object to holding the Mad Mullahs to their previous agreements to limit the number of centrifuges, export the most highly enriched uranium stocks, allow inspections of military facilities and so forth.
A previous commentator characterized this behavior as "Taqiyya," which permits dissembling when in danger of losing life,or property, or when faced with persecution, but most Americans would more accurately characterize it as a dishonest "weaseling out" of prior agreements made in the course of negotiations!
A previous commentator characterized this behavior as "Taqiyya," which permits dissembling when in danger of losing life,or property, or when faced with persecution, but most Americans would more accurately characterize it as a dishonest "weaseling out" of prior agreements made in the course of negotiations!
1
The points made in the monograph are reasonable and should be heeded. They are points that Obama et al have been in favor of until the negotiations became more difficult, and are now considering certain concessions. Unwise concessions for the sake of an agreement will diminish its strength and end up not accomplishing the goals that Obama set forth. A gutted agreement will be more harmful than beneficial to the Middle East and the world, by giving Iran, a bad actor, far too much power and influence.
From the moment the initial talks concluded, Iranian negotiators were contradicting Kerry. For those observing with open eyes, the signs have been ominous, with Khamenei periodically walking back already agreed upon aspects of the agreement.
Iran is a leading exporter of terrorism through its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah and should not be trusted. Khamenei is quite clear about sanctions being lifted immediately, which would be a grave mistake. They also refuse inspections of military areas, which is unacceptable.
Let the negotiations proceed, but don't gut the agreement and end up with one that is too far removed from the original goals set by Obama. If the sanctions weren't hurting Iran, they would not be pushing so hard to immediately lift them when the agreement is signed. If a weak agreement is all that can be achieved, it's far more pragmatic to continue sanctions and consider strengthening them.
From the moment the initial talks concluded, Iranian negotiators were contradicting Kerry. For those observing with open eyes, the signs have been ominous, with Khamenei periodically walking back already agreed upon aspects of the agreement.
Iran is a leading exporter of terrorism through its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah and should not be trusted. Khamenei is quite clear about sanctions being lifted immediately, which would be a grave mistake. They also refuse inspections of military areas, which is unacceptable.
Let the negotiations proceed, but don't gut the agreement and end up with one that is too far removed from the original goals set by Obama. If the sanctions weren't hurting Iran, they would not be pushing so hard to immediately lift them when the agreement is signed. If a weak agreement is all that can be achieved, it's far more pragmatic to continue sanctions and consider strengthening them.
5
"Iran is a leading exporter of terrorism through its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah ..."
Seems like one person's "terrorist" is another persons freedon fighter.
Did the US-sourced funds support the IRA? And what about US sponsoring rebel groups in Central and South Americas?
Seems like one person's "terrorist" is another persons freedon fighter.
Did the US-sourced funds support the IRA? And what about US sponsoring rebel groups in Central and South Americas?
3
Iran is not at all a supporter of terrorism since Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist groups. They only challenge the terrorism of Israel. Also, Iran is actually one of the biggest victims of American and Israeli terrorism.
3
@Greg and Quinterius
If you truly believe that Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist groups, then you are severely misguided or refuse to acknowledge their actions. Fortunately, you are in the minority with this viewpoint.
If you truly believe that Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist groups, then you are severely misguided or refuse to acknowledge their actions. Fortunately, you are in the minority with this viewpoint.
3
This is a bad deal as outlined in April and it was headed to a worse deal. Iran can not be trusted and everyone connected with or affected by the negotiations seems to know it. Now even the President's former advisors are opposed to it. Why are they former advisors? Did the pro-deal forces in the administration edge them out of the discussion?
From the beginning, this deal has smacked of a rush to make any kind of accord, no matter what its end result. The remaining advisory team remind me of the coterie that convinced George Bush into the disaster that was the Iraq war.
From the beginning, this deal has smacked of a rush to make any kind of accord, no matter what its end result. The remaining advisory team remind me of the coterie that convinced George Bush into the disaster that was the Iraq war.
5
"May fall short of standards." Ahem.
The Obama administration has capitulated on every aspect of the framework that was announced to such glowing encomiums only a few months ago. The longer the mullahs negotiate with Obama, the more humiliating concessions he makes to them. The inventors of the game are playing chess with a bad checkers player. It's really quite astonishing.
The Obama administration has capitulated on every aspect of the framework that was announced to such glowing encomiums only a few months ago. The longer the mullahs negotiate with Obama, the more humiliating concessions he makes to them. The inventors of the game are playing chess with a bad checkers player. It's really quite astonishing.
5
Let us remember the terms under which these negotiations began. They clearly were based on mutual respect. There was absolutely no way that the Iranian people were going to accept any deal that diminished their legal rights or diminished their self-respect as a nation. Those opposed to the detente with Iran are attacking this very sensitive area, knowing that any humiliation of Iran, past or present, will kill the deal.
8
Valerie Jarrett makes our policy with respect to Iran. She and Obama believe it's inevitable that Iran will get nukes so they are trying to rebuild a relationship with Iran. They think that will make a difference, lol. The two of them, along with Michelle Obama (a lifelong friend of Jarrett) are so besotted with their own sense of their intellectual superiority and ideology that they can't see reality any more. What, you don't believe me? You realize that Jarrett has dinner in the private residence with the Obmaa family most nights when they are both in town, yes? That she and Michelle sit down every night and discuss policy and politics with Barack?
These "advisors" are window dressing. They think they are relevant, lol. Worse yet, after 6+ years they still don't understand Obama. His word means nothing and he listens to almost nobody else other than his inner circle of political hacks and sycophants.
These "advisors" are window dressing. They think they are relevant, lol. Worse yet, after 6+ years they still don't understand Obama. His word means nothing and he listens to almost nobody else other than his inner circle of political hacks and sycophants.
7
No more extensions in a chronically contentious and troubled negotiation that has achieved virtually no unimpeachable agreement.
It is understandably hard to walk away after years of effort, but come June 30, and this very much needs to happen.
It should to be followed by reinvigorated sanctions, and if necessary interdiction of facilities unquestionably dedicated to producing a nuclear weapon.
It is understandably hard to walk away after years of effort, but come June 30, and this very much needs to happen.
It should to be followed by reinvigorated sanctions, and if necessary interdiction of facilities unquestionably dedicated to producing a nuclear weapon.
4
"Interdiction," eh?
translation: bombing or invasion.
you first, buddy.
translation: bombing or invasion.
you first, buddy.
1
Walk away, continued sanctions.
2
It would seem to follow from the recommendations that if there is no agreement with Iran, we should immediately proceed to use military force to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon. Perhaps their next letter can tell us how to use military action effectively and also avoid the consequences.
7
It is hard to tell whether this is sincere advice or a self-serving publicity stunt.
I do not trust the Iranians at all--but do not trust Beltway self-aggrandizers very much, either.
I do not trust the Iranians at all--but do not trust Beltway self-aggrandizers very much, either.
6
It is a sincere self-serving publicity stunt orchestrated by AIPAC.
1
The White House and State Department should return this letter to the source with instructions that it would only be accepted if federal probationer David Patraeus' signature is removed. Anything with his name attached to it lacks credibility due to his admitted bad judgment when he copped his plea, and he should not be allowed to creep his way back into policy arguments like this until he successfully completes his probation, at least.
13
AIPAC, AEI and their ilk can try to huff and puff and try to blow the house down but in truth the fate of the talks and the future of Iran rests with Iran's religious rulers.
How much do they fear an Iran with increased ties and contacts with the West or how much do they fear growing discontent because of the sanctions of Iran's very large young population.
Either way Iran will have a nuclear weapon if they want to. No sane American President is going to start a war with Iran. They know that.
The question really is what is in our best interests. An Iran isolated and bitter or an Iran beginning to transition to more normal nation.
How much do they fear an Iran with increased ties and contacts with the West or how much do they fear growing discontent because of the sanctions of Iran's very large young population.
Either way Iran will have a nuclear weapon if they want to. No sane American President is going to start a war with Iran. They know that.
The question really is what is in our best interests. An Iran isolated and bitter or an Iran beginning to transition to more normal nation.
18
They don't have to. All anyone has to do is listen to the bloviation coming out of "Supreme Leader" Khameini, the continuing weekly chanting of "Death to America" even in what passes for the Iranian parliament ... oh, and of course the continual vows of annihilating a sovereign nation of 7 million people and full member of the UN. But of course you don't listen, because you don't want to know. Easier to blame it all on the Jews ... uh, I mean the Israelis and their mysterious, secret cabals supporting them. Right?
5
Articles such as this one always bring the Jew-haters out from under their rocks. They miss no opportunity to blame the Israel and the Jews for everything and anything. This incipient Iran deal poses a significant danger to the United States and a clear and present danger to Israel. Nonetheless, the Jew-haters are willing to sacrifice the security of the United States in the hope that Iran will destroy Israel and the Jews.
2
Anything that Dennis Ross says must be viewed with considerable skepticism. Mr. Ross was, essentially, a Likud operative in the White House for his entire tenure as, supposedly, an American civil servant.
39
Why is this? Because he contradicts your preconceived notions? By the way: he was there; you weren't. Therefore, he knows what happened. You don't.
8
Dennis Ross has been a consistent supporter of the two state solution from the days of the Clinton administration. The fact that he may agree with Likud on some issues does not make him a Likud operative. In fact, I consider him to have one of the most balanced perspectives of any expert on Israel and the Mideast.
5
I would be more concerned with the, essentially, Iranian operative posing as President.
2
The question really is whether any agreement will really prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Will Obama/ Kerry sell out the American people and Middle Eastern people in order to get an agreement which kicks the can and creates a temporary legacy point for the man who received a premature Nobel Peace prize. Seems to me if the June 30 date is not met serious additional sanctions should be imposed by congress on Iran to demonstrate our resolve for a enforceable , verifiable nuclear agreement. In any negotiation the opposition should understand That walking away is always an option. If implemented it would subject Iran to economic and possible military bombing by the U.S. and its neighbors.The President must press harder and not cave.
15
Obama has been selling out the American people for 6 years, why should this surrender to the mullahs be any different?
1
Your suggestion demonstrates the definition of insanity as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Get it through your head: Iran will not cave in to the Evil Empire whether you like it or not. What you or Congressmen want is irrelevant. The time for bullying is over.
The Iranians know that Obama's cowardice will force him to agree to 110% of what they want
11
Why assume it's cowardice? This outcome is what our president wants. He wants Iran to have the bomb. Digest that. His actions are clear.
The deal with Iran is a transparent disaster, and it while that reality hardly needs the dissenting voices of these Iran experts it is important for them to speak out now. The underlying editorial tone of this piece is disturbing, however. It appears to make opposition to an irresponsible and dangerous deal with Iran a plot by Republicans to deny the President a legacy achievement. I seem to recall it was the GOP that just handed him one, the rather dubious trade agreement. The issue is what makes sense for the US and the world. This agreement is a disaster from start to finish, and it does not require a Republican to see that.
7
The issue of Iran's nuclear program is more about what the Israeli's are allowed to do in the Middle East rather than nuclear proliferation. Suggest you read "Fear and Learning in Tehran" by Michael Cohen in the Spring 2015 edition of Strategic Studies Quarterly. The driving factor in this scenario is the impact of having two nuclear capable states in the region. If the Iranians possess this capability, one can be sure Israeli actions in the region will be restrained and perhaps be made more rational, legal, moral, and accommodating. Might this convince the Israeli's to finally make peace with their enemies? Read the article.
10
"If the Iranians possess this capability, one can be sure Israeli actions in the region will be restrained and perhaps be made more rational...
Can we also assume that a nuclear Iranian regime would stop supporting many of the extremist groups they now aid and that the Iranians will stop trying to gain influence and control in Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere? Can we assume that an Iranian regime with a nuclear "shield" won't feel freer to take a whole range of actions that are threating to many of its neighbors?
Can we also assume that a nuclear Iranian regime would stop supporting many of the extremist groups they now aid and that the Iranians will stop trying to gain influence and control in Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere? Can we assume that an Iranian regime with a nuclear "shield" won't feel freer to take a whole range of actions that are threating to many of its neighbors?
3
"the impact of having two nuclear capable states in the region."
But the difference is that Israel has H-bombs with multi-megaton yields while the mad mullahs will be lucky to have A-bombs with multi-killoton yields, a more than order of magnitude difference in favor of Israel.
But the difference is that Israel has H-bombs with multi-megaton yields while the mad mullahs will be lucky to have A-bombs with multi-killoton yields, a more than order of magnitude difference in favor of Israel.
1
The deal is the right thing to do, considering the options in the Middle East. Having said that, the President's penchant for half a loaf deals should not apply to this deal. The latest remarks coming out of Iran and it's newest strategies in that region says to me that the President should draw a line in a sand, one that does not move with shifting winds.
3
The only solution is to keep the $150 Billion in seized assets. Iran is past the point of no return in getting the bomb. They will use it. When they or one of their agents uses the bomb turn Iran into glass.
Why? A deal will be broken. They will get the $150 Billion and use that to fund further terrorism across the globe.
Why? A deal will be broken. They will get the $150 Billion and use that to fund further terrorism across the globe.
2
Perception is reality in foreign policy. By that standard, these fraught negotiations have been a thumping failure for the US. Even the overly thoughtful and vacillating French have become alarmed over what they see as flagrant pandering by the US team towards their Iranian counterparts. The appearance is the US will make almost any concession just to get a deal done, no matter what that deal looks like. This is getting ugly.
3
Obama is the last one to recognize that the "Iran Nuclear Deal Falls Short" because pf his political desire to claim that he accomplished something.
A President's credibility is a terrible asset to squander but Obama has done just that.
A President's credibility is a terrible asset to squander but Obama has done just that.
5
When the goal of closing an agreement outways the benefits of the agreement the deal fall short. As I think about it, what has the current administration accomplished? What have they done that has not fallen short? Certainly not immigration or health care, certainly not the IRS or Iraq. What?
2
All this strong-arming and posturing is completely alarming in relation to a nuclear agreement. This is a deal that should not be done in bad faith.
It's pathetic how desperate Obama and Kerry are to do a deal...any deal (national security concerns and regional security concerns be damned). Better to stick with harsh sanctions than a Swiss cheese deal.
4
The problem for the Administration is that they have talked themselves in being between a rock and hard place. They have publicly advocated an "any deal is better than no deal," harshly criticizing anyone who suggested that they walk away from the table, dismissing the other sides promises to make enforcement impossible by limiting inspections. Now they mist either accept whatever Iran offers or face doing what the other side has said they should have done much sooner and walk away.
1
I wonder why are the pro-war lobby being given this much "fake News" space in this esteemed paper?
The people you are quoting are essentially the ones who have been doing Bibi Netanyahu's bidding;
I would have thought that the paper would not just be a mouth piece for the Dennis Ross and the Einhorns to name just the two. Dennis was able to publish op-ed also in your paper, now as a News Item?
Stop working for another war as you and your staff started the last Iraq war quoting unnamed sources - remember Judith Miller et al?
Diplomacy is better than drumming for war.
The people you are quoting are essentially the ones who have been doing Bibi Netanyahu's bidding;
I would have thought that the paper would not just be a mouth piece for the Dennis Ross and the Einhorns to name just the two. Dennis was able to publish op-ed also in your paper, now as a News Item?
Stop working for another war as you and your staff started the last Iraq war quoting unnamed sources - remember Judith Miller et al?
Diplomacy is better than drumming for war.
13
A question to all posters here today of negative comments about AIPAC:
When you dream about AIPAC at night, does it have horns and a tail?
When you dream about AIPAC at night, does it have horns and a tail?
13
Think: Simon Legree/Uncle Tom's Cabin
Then think: AIPAC/Congress
Then think: AIPAC/Congress
3
Just the tail.
3
Clearly, as these Obama advisers recommend, a good agreement, incorporating their suggestions, is in the best interests of the U.S., the region and the Iranian people. A bad agreement would have the opposite effect. It will not be difficult to discern which of the two outcomes is reached. Fortunately a strong bi-partisan majority in congress passed legislation, signed by the President, which will allow a bi-partisan review of the agreement and the ability to, in effect, ratify or veto it.
2
The neo cons, the rent boys of AIPAC and the MIC want more war.
There's a surprise.
We should only take them seriously when they volunteer THEIR kids to do the fighting, suffering and dying and pledge THEIR assets to pay for perpetual war.
There's a surprise.
We should only take them seriously when they volunteer THEIR kids to do the fighting, suffering and dying and pledge THEIR assets to pay for perpetual war.
19
"the influence of its signatories?" What influence does convicted leaker of secrets Petraeus still have, and why hasn't the NYT reported on the continued influence of this criminal?
Sanger's piece reads like a beat-sweetener: it might not be the usual neocon suspects, but it's only one degree of separation from them.
Sanger's piece reads like a beat-sweetener: it might not be the usual neocon suspects, but it's only one degree of separation from them.
21
Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP): part of The Israel Lobby.
Dennis Ross: Israel’s lawyer in peace talks, even though allegedly representing the US.
Garry Samore: Head of United Against Nuclear Iran, which somehow came into possession of US state secrets with no peep from the Obama Administration, even while it prosecutes more leakers than any any Administration in history. See Restis v. American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, SD NY, case no. 13 Civ. 5032 (2015). Restis sued United Against Nuclear Iran for defamation for falsely accusing him of helping Iran bust sanctions. Suddenly, the US intervenes and successfully demands the court dismiss the lawsuit because discovery against United would reveal US state secrets. Gee, how did Mr. Samore’s propaganda group come to possess US state secrets? And why has the Obama Administration done nothing to prosecute those who leaked those state secrets to this private group?
David Petraeus: talk about leaks! To his mistress, yet he gets a slap on the wrist.
Stephen Hadley: W’s national security advisor. Iraq will be a cakewalk! Iraq has WMD! Iraq will welcome us with open arms and a bed of roses!
This letter is a sham. Those who signed it are paid lobbyists for Israel and Saudi Arabia. We should pursue peaceful relations with Iran regardless of the effects on those two nations who are utterly dependent upon the US for their very existence.
Dennis Ross: Israel’s lawyer in peace talks, even though allegedly representing the US.
Garry Samore: Head of United Against Nuclear Iran, which somehow came into possession of US state secrets with no peep from the Obama Administration, even while it prosecutes more leakers than any any Administration in history. See Restis v. American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, SD NY, case no. 13 Civ. 5032 (2015). Restis sued United Against Nuclear Iran for defamation for falsely accusing him of helping Iran bust sanctions. Suddenly, the US intervenes and successfully demands the court dismiss the lawsuit because discovery against United would reveal US state secrets. Gee, how did Mr. Samore’s propaganda group come to possess US state secrets? And why has the Obama Administration done nothing to prosecute those who leaked those state secrets to this private group?
David Petraeus: talk about leaks! To his mistress, yet he gets a slap on the wrist.
Stephen Hadley: W’s national security advisor. Iraq will be a cakewalk! Iraq has WMD! Iraq will welcome us with open arms and a bed of roses!
This letter is a sham. Those who signed it are paid lobbyists for Israel and Saudi Arabia. We should pursue peaceful relations with Iran regardless of the effects on those two nations who are utterly dependent upon the US for their very existence.
38
You distrust some American officials. But not Iran?
Dennis Ross, David Petraeus, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, hardly a credible and creditable presence in developing nuclear policy for the Middle East when, for example,not an iota of criticism and restriction is placed on the aforementioned's backer: Israel. Why should Israel dominate the region? More basic, why is not the US taking the initiative to fight for disarmament and a nuclear-free world, period? This holier-than-thou attitude toward Iran, along with the sanctions regime, reeks with moral duplicity. If anything, the US modernizes its nuclear arsenal to make it more lethal.
All of those named as critics of administration policy have been in the forefront of American global intervention. Hawks take one more step to ensure US world supremacy. Is anyone in earnest about seeking peace? Doubtful, whether under Democrats or Republicans. America, on a confrontation course with Russia and China, is hardly the pot to call the kettle black. Rectitude in international politics is not our strong suit. No wonder Iran stiffens its back.
A genuine effort at world citizenship might elicit a better response, whether we speak of Iran, Russia, China, or North Korea. I omit Israel given its incorrigible behavior. Were I an Iranian negotiator, I'd put pressure on the latter to dismantle its stockpile of nuclear weapons before myself disarming.
All of those named as critics of administration policy have been in the forefront of American global intervention. Hawks take one more step to ensure US world supremacy. Is anyone in earnest about seeking peace? Doubtful, whether under Democrats or Republicans. America, on a confrontation course with Russia and China, is hardly the pot to call the kettle black. Rectitude in international politics is not our strong suit. No wonder Iran stiffens its back.
A genuine effort at world citizenship might elicit a better response, whether we speak of Iran, Russia, China, or North Korea. I omit Israel given its incorrigible behavior. Were I an Iranian negotiator, I'd put pressure on the latter to dismantle its stockpile of nuclear weapons before myself disarming.
21
How is opposition to a fatally flawed agreement with a extremist theocratic regime that would give them the capacity to become a nuclear power somehow tarnished if some of the opponents support Israel? Not to mention the fact that Israel has NEVER made a single move in the direction of regional hegemony. That would be a fool's errand for a Jewish state in a Muslim neighborhood.
Also, does highlighting past errors by the US justify making another -- and a disastrous one? What is missing here is logic. What is present in significant amount is hostility to Israel and to America.
Also, does highlighting past errors by the US justify making another -- and a disastrous one? What is missing here is logic. What is present in significant amount is hostility to Israel and to America.
7
I would say that Israel's bombing of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and occupation of the West Bank is a prima facie case of asserting regional hegemony.
3
Norman,
Israel has nothing that can reach where you live with a nuke. Can you say the same about Iran?
Israel has nothing that can reach where you live with a nuke. Can you say the same about Iran?
2
The Iran nuclear deal is a joke.
Too bad the joke is on us, US.
Too bad the joke is on us, US.
16
When one looks at Mr. Obama's chronic fecklessness in negotiating with Congressional Republicans, it's very hard to have much confidence in his ability to negotiate a good agreement with Iran. The President has many virtues, but skill in negotiating with stubborn opponents is definitely not one of them.
Technical details aside, a key difficulty with relying heavily on IAEA inspections is this: what happens when Iran starts to delay, harass, or otherwise impede the inspectors? Just as Saddam Hussein did, Iran will start with very minor, marginal obstructions, and when they get away with that, will push harder. What do we do then? "We will reimpose sanctions" the administration tells us. But this overlooks the enormous economic vested interests that will then be in place that will resist any such revival of the sanctions. Reimposing the sanctions would be almost impossible in response to sophisticated Iranian "salami tactics," no matter what any piece of paper says about how this will be "instant and automatic."
Technical details aside, a key difficulty with relying heavily on IAEA inspections is this: what happens when Iran starts to delay, harass, or otherwise impede the inspectors? Just as Saddam Hussein did, Iran will start with very minor, marginal obstructions, and when they get away with that, will push harder. What do we do then? "We will reimpose sanctions" the administration tells us. But this overlooks the enormous economic vested interests that will then be in place that will resist any such revival of the sanctions. Reimposing the sanctions would be almost impossible in response to sophisticated Iranian "salami tactics," no matter what any piece of paper says about how this will be "instant and automatic."
34
Additionally will the administration /state department truthfully advise us of Iran's stalling and therefore admit their failure . It has been reported that the state department has withheld and failed to produce status timely reports to Congress over the past six years during the Clinton/Kerry /Obama watch.
2
The letter "emerged" from a study group at the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy known to all as an Israeli centered think tank.
One of the many.
So what kind of advice are these 'former advisors' expected to give?
And if their advice were deemed relevant , they'd not be FORMER advisors, one can surmise. It's not as though the subject is new. Nor is anything
in the letter, as presented in the story.
for Near East Policy known to all as an Israeli centered think tank.
One of the many.
So what kind of advice are these 'former advisors' expected to give?
And if their advice were deemed relevant , they'd not be FORMER advisors, one can surmise. It's not as though the subject is new. Nor is anything
in the letter, as presented in the story.
Was there any other expectation in terms of results from this administration??? Iran is playing the USA like a fiddle and 'Nero' is sitting in the WH wondering, as he stares out of the Oval Office at the wreckage he has brought in the past 6 years, "Hmmm, how did my fiddle get all the way to Iran??"
5
Enough of these lying duplicitous Iranians who have been using the negotiations to stall so that they can produce their nuke. It is time to make the negotiations about the terms of the departure of Iran's illegitimate, unelected, religious-fanatic, Twelver dictators. The fact that these Twelvers thugs deposed the last bunch of unelected thugs, (regardless of who installed them), does not confer an iota of legitimacy upon the current bunch of illegitimate despots. It's as if Italy was taken over by the Mafia. If that happened would anyone recognize the Mafia as Italy's legitimate government? I think not. Same thing here.
These Twelver dictators have this insane notion that walking among us is a mythical "12th imam" whom they call "Al Mahdi". They think that Al will show up with Jesus to save the world and install their version of Shia Islam throughout. The nukes are to bring that craziness about. How do you deal with kooks like that? Let them have nukes? I don't think so.
Ramp up the sanctions. Make it so miserable to live in Iran that the Iranian people themselves toss out their illegitimate, unelected criminal rulers. Sanctions work. Do you think that negotiations, no matter how lame they are, would be talking place if it were not for the sanctions? Bring them to their knees.
Now explain to me, what's the argument in favor of oil and energy rich Iran going nuke?
Twelvers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelver
These Twelver dictators have this insane notion that walking among us is a mythical "12th imam" whom they call "Al Mahdi". They think that Al will show up with Jesus to save the world and install their version of Shia Islam throughout. The nukes are to bring that craziness about. How do you deal with kooks like that? Let them have nukes? I don't think so.
Ramp up the sanctions. Make it so miserable to live in Iran that the Iranian people themselves toss out their illegitimate, unelected criminal rulers. Sanctions work. Do you think that negotiations, no matter how lame they are, would be talking place if it were not for the sanctions? Bring them to their knees.
Now explain to me, what's the argument in favor of oil and energy rich Iran going nuke?
Twelvers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelver
13
It is reasonable to fear that the Obama administration is intent on making an agreement at all costs, perhaps, because it is part of the legacy Mr. Obama wishes to achieve for his presidency. An agreement made on those terms will be a disaster in the long run.
An agreement per se, cannot be the objective. The purpose of the agreement is to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions and prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. Any agreement that does not do that is a failure.
Reaching a suitable agreement is a very complex process because Iran cannot be trusted, Iran's views about what an agreement means are quite different from ours, and Iran wants to play a dominant role in the world that requires both weapons and a show of its strength. This latter point makes the negotiating process even more difficult, because reaching an agreement with the US that limits Iran's power will be seen as a sign of Iran's weakness.
Against this background, we send a team of negotiators who, even we perceive, are entirely too conciliatory. Iran recognizes this conciliatory aspect. Thus, Iran's supreme leader is hardening Iran's position day by day to take advantage of it.
Under these circumstances, no agreement would probably be far better option. We would live by the terms of a bad agreement. It is doubtful that Iran would live by the terms of any agreement when it suited its purposes, and we know what those purposes are.
An agreement per se, cannot be the objective. The purpose of the agreement is to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions and prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. Any agreement that does not do that is a failure.
Reaching a suitable agreement is a very complex process because Iran cannot be trusted, Iran's views about what an agreement means are quite different from ours, and Iran wants to play a dominant role in the world that requires both weapons and a show of its strength. This latter point makes the negotiating process even more difficult, because reaching an agreement with the US that limits Iran's power will be seen as a sign of Iran's weakness.
Against this background, we send a team of negotiators who, even we perceive, are entirely too conciliatory. Iran recognizes this conciliatory aspect. Thus, Iran's supreme leader is hardening Iran's position day by day to take advantage of it.
Under these circumstances, no agreement would probably be far better option. We would live by the terms of a bad agreement. It is doubtful that Iran would live by the terms of any agreement when it suited its purposes, and we know what those purposes are.
13
THIS is another letter drafted by AIPAC and signed by the Usual Suspects to Sabotage Iran/P5+1 Negotiations.
AND its Main Strategy is to introduce Conditions that Iran will certainly reject, such as "Inspecting IRGC's Military Installations".
Mr. Obama is on the Right Track to conclude a Balanced and Verifiable Deal and bring Iran back into the International Commerce and Peace & Security fold.
AND its Main Strategy is to introduce Conditions that Iran will certainly reject, such as "Inspecting IRGC's Military Installations".
Mr. Obama is on the Right Track to conclude a Balanced and Verifiable Deal and bring Iran back into the International Commerce and Peace & Security fold.
60
Adam
You are not serious, are you? Have you been paying attention to the actual facts or just reading liberal posts here in the NYTimes?
You are not serious, are you? Have you been paying attention to the actual facts or just reading liberal posts here in the NYTimes?
3
Adam,
The military installations are where Iran is doing the treaty violating now and for decades in the past. If these can't be inspected there is no treaty. Just like the great Clinton deal with North Korea turned out to be.
The military installations are where Iran is doing the treaty violating now and for decades in the past. If these can't be inspected there is no treaty. Just like the great Clinton deal with North Korea turned out to be.
3
The Netanyahu political operation in the United States is tenacious and superbly coordinated. First, Netanyahu denounced the negotiations with Iran before a joint session of Congress. More recently, the former Israeli Ambassador, Michael Oren, cast aspersions on President Obama's honesty and trustworthiness in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. Now these former advisers of the President, who have close ties to AIPAC and the Washington Center for Near East Policy, both of which represent Israeli interests in the United States, raise concerns about the negotiations, when presumably they have little idea of the details.
I prefer to trust Secretaries Moniz and Kerry rather than these apparently unregistered foreign agents.
I prefer to trust Secretaries Moniz and Kerry rather than these apparently unregistered foreign agents.
84
It is striking that the names of the "ex-advisors" do not appear until the 11th paragraph, as if David Sanger's take on their report is what is important. He doesn't question the obvious motives and not-so-hidden agendas of the signatories. These are not patriots whose devotion to the country overrides the imprpriety of stabbing in the back the president who put them into high office. Which is not to say the president, or the Iran deal if it materializes, is immune to criticism . It involves some risk, and for Iran, as well. But to call for a public commitment now to military action if Iran fails to comply, as this group of former aides does, smacks of serving other interests than those of the United States.
73
When deferring to the president who put them in office is more important than exposing defects in the agreement, we will be in real trouble.
4
Surrender to the will of the Ayatollahs seems well within the purview of the current Administration. In some parts of the world that would also be considered a legacy worth bragging about.
8
Maybe the letters' authors can spill some highly classified materials to their mistresses? That might help, somehow.
31
Many of those attempting to derail the 'Iran deal' have vested commercial interests in maintaining the status quo. These are from here, Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Israel, among very many others. The 'bomb' is fairly low on their list of concerns.
40
The most important task a negotiating team must master is to walk away when the other side is intransigent.
The Iranians have very little negotiating power in this matter. Perhaps their strongest card is their willingness to use their proxies to combat ISIS et al. It is clear by now that Sunni theocracies will not do so, so the Iranians are the only regional power who will do so at this point.
Other than that, the Iranians have nothing other than threats to bolster their negotiating position, ... threats which can be defeated militarily.
Sanctions will not hurt Iranian leaders or the power circles enough to cause them to lose power domestically. However, sanctions will hamstring the Iranian economy making it that more difficult to both increase their military strength and placate their population. Ask Putin.
At some point, the Iranian people will decide whether remaining in a state of 15th century theocratic governance yields them an acceptable quality of life. If the answer is "yes," which the Ayatollah clearly suspects, then it makes zero sense for the civilized nations to concede any further. If the answer is "no," then Iranians will have to change their form of governance. Interesting whether or not the Wahabis will understand the implications to their own theocracies.
This is the time for the 5+1 negotiators to stop talking and let the calendar do its work. If the Iranians walk away, let them.
The Iranians have very little negotiating power in this matter. Perhaps their strongest card is their willingness to use their proxies to combat ISIS et al. It is clear by now that Sunni theocracies will not do so, so the Iranians are the only regional power who will do so at this point.
Other than that, the Iranians have nothing other than threats to bolster their negotiating position, ... threats which can be defeated militarily.
Sanctions will not hurt Iranian leaders or the power circles enough to cause them to lose power domestically. However, sanctions will hamstring the Iranian economy making it that more difficult to both increase their military strength and placate their population. Ask Putin.
At some point, the Iranian people will decide whether remaining in a state of 15th century theocratic governance yields them an acceptable quality of life. If the answer is "yes," which the Ayatollah clearly suspects, then it makes zero sense for the civilized nations to concede any further. If the answer is "no," then Iranians will have to change their form of governance. Interesting whether or not the Wahabis will understand the implications to their own theocracies.
This is the time for the 5+1 negotiators to stop talking and let the calendar do its work. If the Iranians walk away, let them.
42
Instead of worrying over Iran for the sake of getting oil and gas strategic control in the Middle East, let's focus on solar on individual homes and businesses. Let's build railways and power them with solar too. Let's put the utilities in the consulting business and the fossil fuel corporations on the side lines. Let's not let them, the banks and the war profiteers keep sucking the good out of our country. This system we are embroiled in, is a fool's errand in the Middle East. Every empire ever involved there has lost. Let's not waste any more effort there. The fact that Obama started out attempting to introduce these very same ideas, is a tragedy. He was thwarted by these very same interests. I do believe somehow, he came to the conclusion he had no choice but to go along with them. I hate this, but it might be true. We need a public out pouring of resistance to this cartel that controls us and keeps us constantly at war for oil and gas interests, war profiteers and banks that fund them.
13
Dear Carolyn,
I was about to write a comment on the Iranian so called, nuclear agreement, until I read your comment, which included much of what i was about to write.There is no question, this Nuclear charade is all about the flow of Oil from the Middle East.Everyone knows that Iran cannot be trusted, but oil is still more precious than blood.
I was about to write a comment on the Iranian so called, nuclear agreement, until I read your comment, which included much of what i was about to write.There is no question, this Nuclear charade is all about the flow of Oil from the Middle East.Everyone knows that Iran cannot be trusted, but oil is still more precious than blood.
1
Liberals,
If this were really just about "Oil" it would be Europe not the U.S. In who's interest it would be! The Europeans produce little oil but consume a lot. The U.S. Is again the largest Oil producer in the world, having just overtaken Russia the second largest producer. Almost none of our energy comes from the Middle East these days. Most of what we import comes from Canada and Mexico.
In fact if this were about Oil it would be better to keep Iran out of the market in order to keep the price of what we produce and sell up! However it's not about oil. Going solar is a great idea but it won't stop those in Iran who have promised to destroy the U.S. From having nukes to place on the rockets they already have. Those rockets can reach the part of the U.S. That you live in. Do you really want them to have nukes too?
If this were really just about "Oil" it would be Europe not the U.S. In who's interest it would be! The Europeans produce little oil but consume a lot. The U.S. Is again the largest Oil producer in the world, having just overtaken Russia the second largest producer. Almost none of our energy comes from the Middle East these days. Most of what we import comes from Canada and Mexico.
In fact if this were about Oil it would be better to keep Iran out of the market in order to keep the price of what we produce and sell up! However it's not about oil. Going solar is a great idea but it won't stop those in Iran who have promised to destroy the U.S. From having nukes to place on the rockets they already have. Those rockets can reach the part of the U.S. That you live in. Do you really want them to have nukes too?
1
You obviously have not done your homework. We, the USA, do not need ME oil. We are the largest producer of hydrocarbons in the world.
This is about security. Maybe you think you can outrun the impact of a nuclear weapon exploding in your back yard....I can not and do not wish to try!
This is about security. Maybe you think you can outrun the impact of a nuclear weapon exploding in your back yard....I can not and do not wish to try!
2
far, far down in the story. Just as well, were they named, the
Dennis Ross and Paterus and the like, up front, who would bother
to read on?
Even the spiffying up of their backgrounds, which border
being false, way out of time, and, for example, the statement that
General Paterus "resigned" his position: , do little to polish their pro Israel, thus anti Iran status. Would anyone expect Dennis Ross, the longtime ME negotiator for "several presidents" to see anything good in the deal?
If their input or very earnest "desire to help" were more than another effort
to squelch the deal they'd be advisors, not "former advisors.