It would be a good time to recall just what guarantees means to US allies. Recall that the US and Europe gave written guarantees to Ukraine about its security if they would give up their nuclear weapons. Guess these guarantees are not worth the paper they are written on.
3
Today, there are many people in many countries, especially Middle Eastern countries, who are anxious for Iran to wipe Israel off the planet.
The biggest problem is that this deal will set off a Middle Eastern Nuclear Arms race. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt others will now rush into Nuclear Weapons so that they have them before Iran does. A Nuclear Middle East is now inevitable. - and that is a very dangerous thing.
3
Even if you accept President Obama's view that it was either a deal or war - a highly debatable proposition - it didn't have to be this deal. It's unquestionably true that the Iranians, along with the entire world, knew that Mr. Obama was desperate to do a deal - his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. When your opponent knows that, you've already lost. Most readers here will assume the deal's opponents are merely perpetual obstructionists who haven't even read the text yet. Aside from the fact that such readers themselves haven't read the text either, and so have no right to complain on that score, enough is known about the deal to raise frightening questions.
For one thing, it looks like the snapback provision will depend at least in part on nations sympathetic to Iran. That means Iran can cheat and in all likelihood get away with it. For another, the I.A.E.A.'s free inspection reign within Iran is subject to a 24 day grace period. That should have been a deal breaker right there, and completely belies the President's assurance that we won't need to trust the Iranians.
The future is clear. Inevitable Iranian clashes with inspectors will result in lengthy delays in resolving the matter at hand, along with ultimate support for Iran's position in any particular instance from those nations cleaning up with their Iranian business deals. The President and Mr. Kerry will get their Nobel Prizes, but the world will pay a heavy price down the road.
For one thing, it looks like the snapback provision will depend at least in part on nations sympathetic to Iran. That means Iran can cheat and in all likelihood get away with it. For another, the I.A.E.A.'s free inspection reign within Iran is subject to a 24 day grace period. That should have been a deal breaker right there, and completely belies the President's assurance that we won't need to trust the Iranians.
The future is clear. Inevitable Iranian clashes with inspectors will result in lengthy delays in resolving the matter at hand, along with ultimate support for Iran's position in any particular instance from those nations cleaning up with their Iranian business deals. The President and Mr. Kerry will get their Nobel Prizes, but the world will pay a heavy price down the road.
1
Our Allies in the Region are in despair and our enemies are celebrating. Meanwhile, Iran will follow the blue print designed by North Korea to reap the benefits of sanctions being lifted and do exactly what they have been doing since 1979. That is to lie, deceive and obfuscate in order to achieve their Islamic Political objectives that Obama and his Fellow Travelers continue to fail to grasp.
Those that delude themselves otherwise ignore the dynamics of Iran's recent history and the history of despots since the beginnings of time.
Those that delude themselves otherwise ignore the dynamics of Iran's recent history and the history of despots since the beginnings of time.
3
Our patriotic duty is to be the most critical toward ourselves and not toward our enemies.
Why?
We have to analyze our position, discover our weaknesses, get them fixed and eliminated so the next time we face any enemy we don’t have those weaknesses any longer.
By criticizing our enemy we just make them stronger...
You criticize your friends to make them stronger too..
Why?
We have to analyze our position, discover our weaknesses, get them fixed and eliminated so the next time we face any enemy we don’t have those weaknesses any longer.
By criticizing our enemy we just make them stronger...
You criticize your friends to make them stronger too..
I'm an optimist but also a realist. If Iran reneges on this deal, it will be unforgivable and they will deserve anything that comes their way. In the meantime, I look at their young people on the News celebrating in the streets and they look pretty much like our own. Maybe the next stage might be for Iran to recognise Israel but probably not while the right wing are in power. Let's see what happens.
"The only thing we have to fear...is fear itself." FDR, circa 1933
"The only thing historic about this deal is how dangerous it is for the United States. This deal was driven more by the President’s legacy than what is best for our national security. Not only will this reckless deal make America less safe, it will also spark an arms race in the Middle East." Ted Poe, my TX Congressional Representative, circa yesterday.
“In the same way that when Ronald Reagan and others negotiated arms agreement with the Soviet Union, you had to recognize, yes, this is an evil, terrible system, but within it are people with specific historic ideas and memories, and we have to be able to understand those things and potentially try to make some connection." President Obama, circa yesterday and in this paper.
FDR and Obama have it right (pun not intended). Ted Poe and today's Republican Party is so fearfully afraid of Obama's legacy that they are selling fear itself to disparage all that he tries to do in the pursuit of an alternative to war.
We are the most powerful military force on in the world. Contrary to past practice, lets let this President.."Give Peace a Chance." We can always "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb" Iran later when it really deserves it rather than based on the same rumors and fears that Bush and company so cynically used in 2003 to take us into Iraq and ...The mushroom cloud that never was. Now we have ISIS and that is even worse.
"Give this deal a chance!
"The only thing historic about this deal is how dangerous it is for the United States. This deal was driven more by the President’s legacy than what is best for our national security. Not only will this reckless deal make America less safe, it will also spark an arms race in the Middle East." Ted Poe, my TX Congressional Representative, circa yesterday.
“In the same way that when Ronald Reagan and others negotiated arms agreement with the Soviet Union, you had to recognize, yes, this is an evil, terrible system, but within it are people with specific historic ideas and memories, and we have to be able to understand those things and potentially try to make some connection." President Obama, circa yesterday and in this paper.
FDR and Obama have it right (pun not intended). Ted Poe and today's Republican Party is so fearfully afraid of Obama's legacy that they are selling fear itself to disparage all that he tries to do in the pursuit of an alternative to war.
We are the most powerful military force on in the world. Contrary to past practice, lets let this President.."Give Peace a Chance." We can always "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb" Iran later when it really deserves it rather than based on the same rumors and fears that Bush and company so cynically used in 2003 to take us into Iraq and ...The mushroom cloud that never was. Now we have ISIS and that is even worse.
"Give this deal a chance!
7
Neville Chamberlain made the same mistake and convinced Hitler to invade Poland. Weakness always causes the next war.
2
The United States is fortunate to have an obviously intelligent and strategically mature President leading a pragmatic realist administration. If we had similar leadership in Canada we would not be laggards on climate change and we would be "higher-value" second level actors on the world stage. Surely in the real world this agreement can be seen as the best option available.
5
" For the near term, the deal’s merit will be judged on whether Iran implements the rollback of its nuclear enrichment capabilities to which it has agreed and whether the deeply intrusive international inspection system it has accepted can detect — and thereby deter — any cheating." If we define the near term as the remaining time of the Obama presidency I expect Iran will be cautious enough to prevent being caught cheating. If Iran is caught, Obama will take his time to have the breach proven as with Assad's use of chemical weapons. If the non-compliance of Iran is proven while Obama still president, he will need support from the UN security counsel to act. The best Iran and Obama can hope for is that the Congress or Bibi will give the excuse for Iran to be overtly in breach of the provisions of the deal.
2
He'll be long gone, basking in a billionaire's retirement like Clinton, before Iran can kill the United States and Isreal. And it will happen -- trust with killers and dictators is a fool's folly. But we are the suckers, dead ones within a decade.
Http://www.periodictablet.com
Http://www.periodictablet.com
2
This is the same naive President that began his Presidency appeasing Putin by agreeing to give up the missile protection shield in Eastern Europe. Putin responded to Obama's weakness by attacking Crimea and the Ukraine. Iran will respond to Obama's weakness in a negative manner as well: taking advantage of the weak inspection and enforcement provisions inherent in the deal to continue making a bomb, taking the billions of dollars that come with the deal to greatly expand their conventional weapons and to expand their state sponsorship of terrorism around the world.
2
The best negotiators, plan 4-5 moves in advance and some of this has already been done. But since our side did not walk away from the negotiations, things were left on the table. Let the Republican's take the fall for turning the deal down, have Obama not veto it and send Kerry and the rest of the nations back to the table to negotiate an even tougher deal. I think it is only a matter of when (not if) Iran gets a nuclear bomb and this deal needs more teeth. Iran needs the deal as much, if not more, than we do and we should not blink first.
The outcome is binary: either the Iranians live by the deal and don't move to acquire nuclear weapons for 10 years, in which case the President deserves credit for being at least a short-term visionary; or, conversely, the Iranians cheat and acquire nuclear weapons, in which case the President has been played for a fool and will acquire all the historical reputation that has previously been held by Neville Chamberlain. I say "short-term" because in 10 years, if the regime remains in place and hasn't changed its character, then we must again confront this difficulty. Then again, it's not hard to imagine Israel raining on this entire parade.
2
Imagine if the negotiations had failed, what could have been the alternative if the differences were not settled by negotiations. I believe President Obama is correct in alluding that failed negotiations would have given contending forces in the Middle East and elsewhere alibi to take things in their own hands, escalating disputes, and dragging us and the rest of the world into a war.
2
Neville Chamberlain made essentially the same arguments and we all know how that ended up. Obama has made the biggest mistake of his life this time because Iran will now have the money to foment terrorism and build the bomb. The world just became a much more dangerous place. Negotiating with Iranian radical Muslims from a position of weakness yields nothing good.
3
Some words are worth remembering -
• Winston Churchill, on 3 October 1938:
"England has been offered a choice (in the Munich Pact) between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war."
• Winston Churchill, denouncing the (Munich) Agreement in the House of Commons:
"We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat ... you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude ... we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road ... And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."
• Winston Churchill, on 3 October 1938:
"England has been offered a choice (in the Munich Pact) between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war."
• Winston Churchill, denouncing the (Munich) Agreement in the House of Commons:
"We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat ... you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude ... we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road ... And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."
6
Mr. Friedman:
I'd like to believe what you say -- "I suspect his [Obama] legacy on this issue will ultimately be determined by whether the deal does, in the long run, help transform Iran, defuse the U.S.-Iran Cold War and curtail the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, not foster their proliferation" -- but my fear (and that of my children and unborn grandchildren) is Iran would soon ratchet up the fiery rhetoric of "Death to America, the Great Satan," when President Obama leaves office in January 2017 to enjoy his golf game in sunny Hawaii, and the next President, Democrat or Republican, will stand holding the bag.
Let's hope and pray that it turns out 15 years from now either as President Obama's enduring foreign policy legacy or gargantuan folly. Time will tell.
I'd like to believe what you say -- "I suspect his [Obama] legacy on this issue will ultimately be determined by whether the deal does, in the long run, help transform Iran, defuse the U.S.-Iran Cold War and curtail the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, not foster their proliferation" -- but my fear (and that of my children and unborn grandchildren) is Iran would soon ratchet up the fiery rhetoric of "Death to America, the Great Satan," when President Obama leaves office in January 2017 to enjoy his golf game in sunny Hawaii, and the next President, Democrat or Republican, will stand holding the bag.
Let's hope and pray that it turns out 15 years from now either as President Obama's enduring foreign policy legacy or gargantuan folly. Time will tell.
2
Obama on Iran Deal: 'I Welcome a Robust Debate' in Congress, But I'll Veto Any Attempt to Stop It!
Translation: Talk/jabber all you want as usual, but don't under any circumstances whatsoever try to exert any of your justifiable prerogatives under the U.S. Constitution.
Message to Garcia: We supposedly have three co-equal branches of government, Mr. President, so go to Hades/hide in the corner while we the members of Congress deliberate! After we're finished we'll be back in touch!
Fred Harden III
Translation: Talk/jabber all you want as usual, but don't under any circumstances whatsoever try to exert any of your justifiable prerogatives under the U.S. Constitution.
Message to Garcia: We supposedly have three co-equal branches of government, Mr. President, so go to Hades/hide in the corner while we the members of Congress deliberate! After we're finished we'll be back in touch!
Fred Harden III
2
This is just another deal with a corrupt authoritarian murderous state, another nation like China, that will result in that other nation violating not doing what they promise to do, and us sticking to the parts of the agreement that benefit them. And yet again the reason for our political class knowingly engaging in this mass deception is basically to deceive our population into believing that our leaders are in control, looking out for our majority interests. When in fact the obvious truth is that if a war occurs with Iran our Obama led 1% will simply use our 99% as cannon fodder to correct their greed based manipulations that involve all manner of other similar 'free trade' agreements made with China et al.
2
Wow the line from Obama says it all. This was just a payoff to Iran for them not building a nuke in the near term, and then allowing them to with no repercussions after a certain timeframe.
3
The President is never more at ease or celebratory then when he is capitulating to America's enemies and betraying our alleys. Absent from his soft-spoken calculus is an American unequivocal victory - he sees failure as inevitable, probably at some level even desirable. Dreams of his father. For me though and for whatever it may be worth and as an American that grew up here my country is the nation that defeated the Germans and Japanese tyrants simultaneously, faced down the Soviet Union to its collapse while putting a man on the moon in its spare time. Victory begins with a decision, one that our president and his supporters have never made.
What part of "Death to America" don't y'all get?
This is how the end begins - with smiles and handshakes - primarily motivated by the opportunism, willful short-sightedness and greed of Indian, Chinese, Russian and other oil conglomerates and an American collective zeitgiest that has lost both its identity and its will while hand delivering to our opponents a uranium plated victory on an ICMB platter.
What part of "Death to America" don't y'all get?
This is how the end begins - with smiles and handshakes - primarily motivated by the opportunism, willful short-sightedness and greed of Indian, Chinese, Russian and other oil conglomerates and an American collective zeitgiest that has lost both its identity and its will while hand delivering to our opponents a uranium plated victory on an ICMB platter.
5
Historic deal worked out with other nations, not just Iran! Amazing. I hope that Congress and it's war on Obama doesn't derail this important deal. This is in the best interest of America.
4
Obama is playing chess while the Republicans are playing the card game War.
To them, international relations must seem like a game of chance, where both sides pull a single card (military strength of course) and they either win, lose, or draw. For the last few decades, it seems like we keep losing or drawing, with nary a win in sight. Even though Bush/Republicans started out with a deck twice the size of any other opponent, Republicans have lost enough for their deck to be almost depleted, as their war rhetoric seems so much less potent now that the sky has NOT been falling for the better part of 3 decades, except for when the play the stupid War game.
Meanwhile, Obama has been playing chess masterfully, carefully cultivating our strengths and mitigating our opponents strengths - international sanctions that bite, supporting American interests where possible but not overplaying our position, slowly but surely boxing in the king and queen, always probing, waiting, planning, and executing to achieve the best result. Sometimes there may be a blunder, but the eye is on the prize and he will not be sidetracked by the war hawks, the political hacks, the ideologues pining for another war to enrich themselves.
Obama is a chess master while Bush couldn't even win a game of chance (the card game War) when he had the biggest deck. And its not even close. America is so much safer with a chess master at the wheel, as opposed to a bunch of school kids playing war in their idle time...
To them, international relations must seem like a game of chance, where both sides pull a single card (military strength of course) and they either win, lose, or draw. For the last few decades, it seems like we keep losing or drawing, with nary a win in sight. Even though Bush/Republicans started out with a deck twice the size of any other opponent, Republicans have lost enough for their deck to be almost depleted, as their war rhetoric seems so much less potent now that the sky has NOT been falling for the better part of 3 decades, except for when the play the stupid War game.
Meanwhile, Obama has been playing chess masterfully, carefully cultivating our strengths and mitigating our opponents strengths - international sanctions that bite, supporting American interests where possible but not overplaying our position, slowly but surely boxing in the king and queen, always probing, waiting, planning, and executing to achieve the best result. Sometimes there may be a blunder, but the eye is on the prize and he will not be sidetracked by the war hawks, the political hacks, the ideologues pining for another war to enrich themselves.
Obama is a chess master while Bush couldn't even win a game of chance (the card game War) when he had the biggest deck. And its not even close. America is so much safer with a chess master at the wheel, as opposed to a bunch of school kids playing war in their idle time...
10
Anyone remember the apple laptop that was stolen in the UK, and the owner who tapped into the camera to take pictures of the recipient of stolen property? This laptop was eventually traced to Iran. There's an untapped market in Iran for US consumer goods, particularly Apple products. (Perhaps there is even enough demand to upgrade enough PCs to lift US computer manufacturers out of their doldrums.)
I'm surprised that nobody is touting the potential boost to corporate profits in the US as a result of this deal.
I'm surprised that nobody is touting the potential boost to corporate profits in the US as a result of this deal.
1
This is a bad deal for the Iranian citizens because when the day comes that the Israelis feeling existentially threatened they shall not hesitate to unleash WHATEVER IT TAKES to defend themselves.
1
Hopingthat this deal holds this srea together
The rambling flotsam spewing from this President's mind reveals that there is no principled foundation for this deal. He's basically saying that Iran will keep being nefarious Iran, but they won't have a nuclear weapon for awhile. And... then....and then....the people of Iran just might influence their leaders to be better....and then...and then....gee....But we have expert inspectors and.....well, I don't trust Iran, but..then.....
In the end, Iran doesn't much care about the babbling Obama, because they will, in fact, have all they need to develop nuclear weapons capability.
In the end, Iran doesn't much care about the babbling Obama, because they will, in fact, have all they need to develop nuclear weapons capability.
3
Liggett, whoever that really is, either didn't listen to what the President said or doesn't believe it because he/she doesn't want to. The foundation of this deal is that it is supported by many nations other than Israel and Sunni Saudi Arabia--these supporting nations also largely supported the sanctions which drove Iran to negotiate. Liggett is the one who is babbling by not paying attention to what alternatives we have if we don't seek this approach--virtually none other than war paid for and fought by us. Liggett undoubtedly reports to or at least supports Netenyahu who would, if this deal were shot down by the Republicans, once again gloat over how he succeeded in getting us to fight and pay for his goals. Liggett's conclusion that Iran will have all they need to develop nuclear weapons is just pure nonsense unless one is referring to a possibility 10 or 15 years from now. But what does the world lose by forcing them to do that? Will Netenyahu attack Iran? Not very likely. Only if he thinks the Republicans will in the end join him to pay for and fight a new war. Isn't that what happened in Iraq?
To engage or not to engage. Has it worked with the Communist Empire? No. We have an out of control China and Russia now grabbing land and sea without one care in the world while stealing every bit of information under the sun. Did it work with the Axis Powers? Certainly! What changed? For the Axis the civilized world insisted on a complete change of their political reality and the results are not perfect but better than anyone could have hoped for 70 years ago. For the Communist Empire we blew it big time by letting them morph in to capitalist monsters without throwing out their inhuman nightmare political rubrics. Bill Clinton and his cadre were a big part of the feeble decisions and actions that let the thugs of the communist failure become the thugs of the greed-based communist "remake". What next is going to be very ugly thanks to the vacuum of moral leadership in the crook-enabling 1990s - which also spawned 9-11.
1
Just as good as we grabbed lands call Afghanistan and Iraq
Yea, we have all those nuc's, let's use them and send everyone back to the stone age!!
Back in 2008, why did I vote for Hope and Change? Competence. Thank you Mr. President for proving to be the most thoughtful, productive and important president since Franklyn D. Roosevelt.
11
• Israel, the nation that has ignored virtually every UN Resolution, now wants to dictate the terms or lack of any to the world.
• The Republican opposition is toadying to Israel and undermine Obama
• To allow another nation to lobby Congress in any form on US foreign relations policy is unacceptable.
• The deal sounds fairly good, one that few other countries would accept. The US would never allow the world to tell its government on what to do.
• 15 years is a long time in technology, international relations, and shifting alliances. When Iran would be allowed to change its nuclear policy and activate a bomb program, the world will have changed greatly..
• Questions: what would prevent Iran from purchasing a bomb from North Korea, or Russia for that matter??
• The best expectation for changes in Iran area more satisfied and more western oriented populace, except for their hard liners, who benefit from current restrictions and internal dissatisfaction with the result of sanctions.
• The best control over Iran had been Saddam Hussein, who defeated them in a bloody war in the1980s, and kept Shia expansionism in check. George W, Bush (R) destroyed that check on Iran with his ill chosen start of war to depose the strongest local opponent to Iran. What lack of foresight!
• Who has a better idea? The GOP ??
• The Republican opposition is toadying to Israel and undermine Obama
• To allow another nation to lobby Congress in any form on US foreign relations policy is unacceptable.
• The deal sounds fairly good, one that few other countries would accept. The US would never allow the world to tell its government on what to do.
• 15 years is a long time in technology, international relations, and shifting alliances. When Iran would be allowed to change its nuclear policy and activate a bomb program, the world will have changed greatly..
• Questions: what would prevent Iran from purchasing a bomb from North Korea, or Russia for that matter??
• The best expectation for changes in Iran area more satisfied and more western oriented populace, except for their hard liners, who benefit from current restrictions and internal dissatisfaction with the result of sanctions.
• The best control over Iran had been Saddam Hussein, who defeated them in a bloody war in the1980s, and kept Shia expansionism in check. George W, Bush (R) destroyed that check on Iran with his ill chosen start of war to depose the strongest local opponent to Iran. What lack of foresight!
• Who has a better idea? The GOP ??
8
Bottom line: This is better than nothing, better than the status quo. I might not trust what my enemy is doing, but if I can make regular visits, inspections, audits, examinations of what he has been doing I'm in a better position to detect that something nefarious is going on. If I can't visit, inspect, audit, examine what he is doing all I have is guesswork, suspicion, and ultimately paranoia. The former keeps me reasonably informed and engaged and still leaves the option of military action if the conditions detected signal the need to do so - the latter means that all I can do is wait and worry and wring my hands and ultimately act militarily abruptly in a blind moment of paranoia. I prefer the former.
5
What the republicans don't understand is that you can deal with so called "evil regimes" successfully. Bill Clinton masterfully negotiated peace with North Korea and prevented them from creating a nuclear bomb. All the republicans at the time were out on the streets saying the same exact thing in regards to N Korea cheating on the deal a creating nuclear arsenal and the democrats rightly explained as they are now about Iran that it would never happen. I've always said any deal is better than no deal It was a diplomatic crowning achievement for President Clinton. When this new deal is stuck we will be laughing at the silly republicans again in 10-15 years.
3
The Iranians won here, the held out and won. The administration clearly was not able to keep the sanctions in place much longer and they wanted to cut a deal that brought some sort of inspections into these Iranian facilities. The Iranians will now get what they want; sanction removal, nuclear technology and three weeks to three months to move any suspicious material around. Pretty much what they are good at. The international community gets a lot of expectations, hopes and dreams. And the Iranian people get a stronger government.
3
Nuclear material is not like bootleg liquor.
Nuclear material leaves a signature wherever it goes. That signature does not fade after 90 days.
Nuclear material leaves a signature wherever it goes. That signature does not fade after 90 days.
1
A radicalized Iran is much more dangerous than a nuclear one. We can prevent the former; nothing can prevent the latter. This deal helps keep Iran's youth engaged and productive. The sanctions regime will only serve to increase their frustration and tilt them towards radicalization. Opportunity is the worlds best antidote to violence.
4
Jack Kennedy once said at a dinner for Nobel Laureates that there was at that moment more intellectual power in the White House than at any time since Thomas Jefferson dined alone. This interview is a masterpiece of intelligent thinking on the part of President Obama. There is clearly more sense in this head than in all the Republican party + Netanyahu; I vote to go with intelligence; the US already tried the “dumb” approach with GWB.
Natanhayu already takes as many free weapon systems as the US makes; is he now in charge of their foreign policy?
Natanhayu already takes as many free weapon systems as the US makes; is he now in charge of their foreign policy?
8
Iran has lied and cheated consistently on ever made. They will lie and cheat on this one as well.
Obama and Kerry may have delayed the need for a war, but they have guaranteed that when it does come it will be a world war, probably nuclear.
Chamberlain must be smiling.
Obama and Kerry may have delayed the need for a war, but they have guaranteed that when it does come it will be a world war, probably nuclear.
Chamberlain must be smiling.
4
The basic premise of Mr. Obama's approach is invalid. He seeks to separate the desire by almost EVERYONE in the world that Iran not obtain nuclear weapon and related delivery capacity with Iran's very nature as a regional and religious hegemonist, reasoning that we can't do all things, so let's try to do one at a time.
But the REASON the entire world is anxious at the prospect of such capabilities by this rogue state IS their very nature and manifestly clear interests and intentions. Nobody is seriously concerned about the nukes and missiles based in Britain, because it's Britain.
You can't separate one aspect of Iran merely because a new Iranian president prevailed upon hardliners there to allow him to throw a Hail Mary pass that Mr. Obama was, in any event, very unlikely to catch -- in a desperate attempt to lift sanctions that were crippling them precisely at the moment that they were faced with pressing internal (democracy and climatic disasters) and external (ISIS) threats. But he caught it, undoubtedly to the astonishment of Ayatollah Khamenei, who has made it abundantly clear that he's going to whatever he wants REGARDLESS of any agreement that might be made with The Great Satan and the rest of the West.
Iran really needs to be approached GENERALLY as the rogue state that it is, where an expedited nuclearized weapons potential is merely one aspect of the danger it presents to the region. We didn't do that. There will be a price to be paid for that failure.
But the REASON the entire world is anxious at the prospect of such capabilities by this rogue state IS their very nature and manifestly clear interests and intentions. Nobody is seriously concerned about the nukes and missiles based in Britain, because it's Britain.
You can't separate one aspect of Iran merely because a new Iranian president prevailed upon hardliners there to allow him to throw a Hail Mary pass that Mr. Obama was, in any event, very unlikely to catch -- in a desperate attempt to lift sanctions that were crippling them precisely at the moment that they were faced with pressing internal (democracy and climatic disasters) and external (ISIS) threats. But he caught it, undoubtedly to the astonishment of Ayatollah Khamenei, who has made it abundantly clear that he's going to whatever he wants REGARDLESS of any agreement that might be made with The Great Satan and the rest of the West.
Iran really needs to be approached GENERALLY as the rogue state that it is, where an expedited nuclearized weapons potential is merely one aspect of the danger it presents to the region. We didn't do that. There will be a price to be paid for that failure.
4
The rest of the world, contrary to your opinion, is celebrating the agreement, with the exception of Israel and some Arab state. Your and all other GOP proposals for comprehensive agreement beyond the nuclear is guaranteed to fail, even as further sanction were to be implemented. Sanctions and isolation didn't stop North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and would not stop Iran's. Your and GOP/conservative approaches will ultimately lead to war, which may still happen if Iran is caught cheating, but at least we have tried diplomacy in the best way possible at this time and with overwhelming international support. Americans and most of the rest of the world are sick of mid-eastern unwinnable wars that could easily have been avoided, except for the rush of the GOP quick trigger crowd of the prior decade.
As hard as it may be to grasp, Richard Luettgen, it is a basic truth that whenever Americans sit down to negotiate an agreement, a treaty or an accord in hopes of averting or lowering the risk of war, we consider the person across the table to be representing a dangerous nation which has committed acts we condemn – even a “rogue state” to use your language.
Whether the American assessment of the opposing nation is accurate or fair does not matter. We proceed, as the Obama team did and the British, French, Chinese and Russians involved in the negotiations did, with extreme caution. That’s why it took so long.
The only thing the negotiators trust is that the opposing nation, Iran, will act in what Iran perceives to be in Iran’s best interests. No one expects Iran to be guided by what it believes is in the best interests of the United States or Russia or Israel or Saudi Arabia. That’s why Obama got our side to agree to impose tough sanctions well in advance of these negotiations – life needed to hurt for Iran in order to bring them to the negotiating table. The slowed timing to let the sanctions work had to be balanced with the fast timing needed to reach a deal before Iran’s nuclear weapon capability had matured.
Republicans are fond of looking for simplistic shortcuts, but they will do great harm to America and to Israel if they blow up this agreement merely because it was the work of Barack Obama’s team or because the process was too sophisticated.
Whether the American assessment of the opposing nation is accurate or fair does not matter. We proceed, as the Obama team did and the British, French, Chinese and Russians involved in the negotiations did, with extreme caution. That’s why it took so long.
The only thing the negotiators trust is that the opposing nation, Iran, will act in what Iran perceives to be in Iran’s best interests. No one expects Iran to be guided by what it believes is in the best interests of the United States or Russia or Israel or Saudi Arabia. That’s why Obama got our side to agree to impose tough sanctions well in advance of these negotiations – life needed to hurt for Iran in order to bring them to the negotiating table. The slowed timing to let the sanctions work had to be balanced with the fast timing needed to reach a deal before Iran’s nuclear weapon capability had matured.
Republicans are fond of looking for simplistic shortcuts, but they will do great harm to America and to Israel if they blow up this agreement merely because it was the work of Barack Obama’s team or because the process was too sophisticated.
1
An Iran without nukes is easier to deal with on the issues you raise than an Iran with nukes.
Naturally, there is no guarantee that Iran will live up to their end of the bargain.
Frankly, there is no guarantee that any of the world powers that signed onto this plan will live up to their obligations.
Nevertheless. the agreement Iran signed with six world powers contains provisions for reinstating the sanctions that were crippling the Iranian economy if Iran fails to live up to their end of this agreement.
Without this agreement, the sanctions would have eventually failed.
Without this agreement, Iran would be increasing instead of decreasing the number of centrifuges it was running. They would be producing plutonium in their heavy water reactor. They would be one to two years away from having a nuclear weapon.
Sanctions alone were not deterring Iran from their nuclear program.
You say there will be a price to pay for not forcing Iran to surrender unconditionally to the will of the world community. (Something they would never do!)
That price would be nothing compared to what it would cost if Iran had a nuclear weapon to back up their goal of dominating the Middle East.
Naturally, there is no guarantee that Iran will live up to their end of the bargain.
Frankly, there is no guarantee that any of the world powers that signed onto this plan will live up to their obligations.
Nevertheless. the agreement Iran signed with six world powers contains provisions for reinstating the sanctions that were crippling the Iranian economy if Iran fails to live up to their end of this agreement.
Without this agreement, the sanctions would have eventually failed.
Without this agreement, Iran would be increasing instead of decreasing the number of centrifuges it was running. They would be producing plutonium in their heavy water reactor. They would be one to two years away from having a nuclear weapon.
Sanctions alone were not deterring Iran from their nuclear program.
You say there will be a price to pay for not forcing Iran to surrender unconditionally to the will of the world community. (Something they would never do!)
That price would be nothing compared to what it would cost if Iran had a nuclear weapon to back up their goal of dominating the Middle East.
1
"Pax Obama"
2
Thank goodness that Iran has used all its Civilizational strengths to carefully negotiate this deal. Enough destruction has been wrought on in the middle east, and Iran was put on the radar through this nuclear issue; does this mean there will be no more stalling on Palestine?
Fools. Now, nuclear war is certain.
4
IMHO, it's a Munich moment in time. There was a slight rationale to Munich as Chamberlain had estimates of the time needed to prep UK air defenses. But that isn't an excuse for us. The State Department historically has been anti-Israel and its elimination makes the Middle East simpler for them.
The deal is also postulated on the idea that time will diminish the fanatics.. Just because some young Iranians want IPhones doesn't mean they are going to make nice.
1. They admit the current sanctions did not stop the road to the bomb. Thus, how would a snap back threat have force in the future if they don't work now.
2. They said that military options were not possible. That means we are saying we are too weak to stop them. So that tells countries like Russia that we are too weak to oppose anything they do also.
3. Since we are too weak to do anything now - why would a threat of military action be scary in the future ? Also, they get a bomb which gives them another level of military deterrence.
4. Persia/Iran is a country with 2500 years of history, they are planning for the longer game then when O and K get out of office .
5. We have told our allies that we will not stand up for them. Does anyone actually think that if Iran nuked Israel, we would launch a truly destructive attack on Iran?
There is a terrible group. Watch the Democrats convolute themselves to explain to their Jewish constituencies why this is good for Israel.
The deal is also postulated on the idea that time will diminish the fanatics.. Just because some young Iranians want IPhones doesn't mean they are going to make nice.
1. They admit the current sanctions did not stop the road to the bomb. Thus, how would a snap back threat have force in the future if they don't work now.
2. They said that military options were not possible. That means we are saying we are too weak to stop them. So that tells countries like Russia that we are too weak to oppose anything they do also.
3. Since we are too weak to do anything now - why would a threat of military action be scary in the future ? Also, they get a bomb which gives them another level of military deterrence.
4. Persia/Iran is a country with 2500 years of history, they are planning for the longer game then when O and K get out of office .
5. We have told our allies that we will not stand up for them. Does anyone actually think that if Iran nuked Israel, we would launch a truly destructive attack on Iran?
There is a terrible group. Watch the Democrats convolute themselves to explain to their Jewish constituencies why this is good for Israel.
5
A couple things.
"Just because some young Iranians want IPhones doesn't mean they are going to make nice." That's extremely patronizing of you. Have you any idea what it would be like to live in a society cut off from the rest of the world? Is the only alternative complete US-style consumerism? I don't think so.
"They said that military options were not possible." They said no such thing. Would you rather have a bloody quagmire be the first option or the last resort?
"So that tells countries like Russia that we are too weak to oppose anything they do also." That's a bit of a stretch. Russia was in on these negotiations - or didn't you read the article all the way through?
"Persia/Iran is a country with 2500 years of history, they are planning for the longer game then when O and K get out of office." ...what???
"Does anyone actually think that if Iran nuked Israel, we would launch a truly destructive attack on Iran?" Yes. Also, Israel has a history of flouting international treaties. Not sure why they should have special privileges when it comes to regional bullying.
It seems you're grasping at straws here. Next time, read the article before commenting.
"Just because some young Iranians want IPhones doesn't mean they are going to make nice." That's extremely patronizing of you. Have you any idea what it would be like to live in a society cut off from the rest of the world? Is the only alternative complete US-style consumerism? I don't think so.
"They said that military options were not possible." They said no such thing. Would you rather have a bloody quagmire be the first option or the last resort?
"So that tells countries like Russia that we are too weak to oppose anything they do also." That's a bit of a stretch. Russia was in on these negotiations - or didn't you read the article all the way through?
"Persia/Iran is a country with 2500 years of history, they are planning for the longer game then when O and K get out of office." ...what???
"Does anyone actually think that if Iran nuked Israel, we would launch a truly destructive attack on Iran?" Yes. Also, Israel has a history of flouting international treaties. Not sure why they should have special privileges when it comes to regional bullying.
It seems you're grasping at straws here. Next time, read the article before commenting.
After the major nuc-powers (US, Russia, etc.) Israel the most highly nuc-armed country in the world, they can take care of themselves.
Mr. Obama is one of our best presidents who has been overly criticized by many. He is to be congratulated for his attempts to achieve a reasoned settlement of the Iran issue. The world needs for the Iranian ns to ally themselves with us against Islamic extremists.
3
Three points are made in this interview that are extremely important but have not entered the conversation. Iran is a rational actor, a nation-state with established borders, a central govt basically elected by the people, and who invests in their own infrastructure.
1) “America has to listen to our Sunni Arab allies, but also not fall into the trap of letting them blame every problem on Iran. The citizens of more than a few Arab Gulf states have been big contributors to Sunni Jihadist movements that have been equally destabilizing."
2) "That’s part of the reason why my argument has been to my allies in the region, let’s stop giving Iran opportunities for mischief. Strengthen your own societies. Be inclusive. Make sure that your Shia populations don’t feel as if they’re being left out. Think about the economic growth. Make sure that we’ve got better military capacity for things like interdiction."
3) "It is highly unlikely that you are going to see Iran launch a direct attack, state to state, against any of our allies in the region. They know that that would give us the rationale to go in full-bore, and as I said, we could knock out most of their military capacity pretty quickly.”
1) “America has to listen to our Sunni Arab allies, but also not fall into the trap of letting them blame every problem on Iran. The citizens of more than a few Arab Gulf states have been big contributors to Sunni Jihadist movements that have been equally destabilizing."
2) "That’s part of the reason why my argument has been to my allies in the region, let’s stop giving Iran opportunities for mischief. Strengthen your own societies. Be inclusive. Make sure that your Shia populations don’t feel as if they’re being left out. Think about the economic growth. Make sure that we’ve got better military capacity for things like interdiction."
3) "It is highly unlikely that you are going to see Iran launch a direct attack, state to state, against any of our allies in the region. They know that that would give us the rationale to go in full-bore, and as I said, we could knock out most of their military capacity pretty quickly.”
5
One thing I haven't seen getting much ink: think back to the Green Movement and Iranian presidential protests during the summer of 2009 - or as I like to call it, the summer Of Obama's laryngitis. With this agreement, wittingly or unknowingly, this administration has crushed any opportunity for further democratization in Iran.
Like it or hate it, the fact is, Iran had literally been squeezed between fledgling, but growing democracy on either side of it's border in Iraq and Afghanistan. The protests, the Green Movement, and the subsequent Arab Spring were proof positive of the possibility of real change in the region. Despite the sacrifice of so many, Obama gave it all away. And now, with this deal and the stroke of a pen, has provided the final nails in the coffin.
Like it or hate it, the fact is, Iran had literally been squeezed between fledgling, but growing democracy on either side of it's border in Iraq and Afghanistan. The protests, the Green Movement, and the subsequent Arab Spring were proof positive of the possibility of real change in the region. Despite the sacrifice of so many, Obama gave it all away. And now, with this deal and the stroke of a pen, has provided the final nails in the coffin.
3
Obama made a deal with the devil. The devil laughs and celebrates.
4
Iran says we are the Great Satan, yet they made a deal with us.
Iran has as many reasons to distrust us as we have reasons to distrust them.
Deals like this are not made by friends.
Iran has as many reasons to distrust us as we have reasons to distrust them.
Deals like this are not made by friends.
1
As usual, in the fictional world that has been created through endless USA-based propaganda, economic sanctions on Iran, interference in Iran's right to do whatever it wants with regard to weaponry or energy generation, the irresponsible actions by the USA to take these actions, precipitated solely by right-wing Israel ueber-all-ists in and out of Israel proper, of course many USA Jews among them. and by the absolutist regime in Saudi Arabia, are the central issue.
The reality of course is that nuclear weaponry has been long possessed and is immediately deployable by two key participants directly and indirectly in all this, the USA and Israel.
Israel in particular is the most venal indirect participant in this given that it has long had an unacknowledged arsenal of somewhere between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the USA, as I always point out, is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons, twice, not once, and on civilian targets, not military forces or military facilities in Japan.
"had not used all the leverage in our arsenal, or alliances, to prevent Iran from becoming a threshold nuclear power, by acquiring a complete independent enrichment infrastructure that has the potential to undermine the global nuclear nonproliferation regime"
This statement from Mr. Friedman's text says it all with regard to the utter hypocrisy and phoniness of officials and mainstream pundits on this issue.
The reality of course is that nuclear weaponry has been long possessed and is immediately deployable by two key participants directly and indirectly in all this, the USA and Israel.
Israel in particular is the most venal indirect participant in this given that it has long had an unacknowledged arsenal of somewhere between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the USA, as I always point out, is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons, twice, not once, and on civilian targets, not military forces or military facilities in Japan.
"had not used all the leverage in our arsenal, or alliances, to prevent Iran from becoming a threshold nuclear power, by acquiring a complete independent enrichment infrastructure that has the potential to undermine the global nuclear nonproliferation regime"
This statement from Mr. Friedman's text says it all with regard to the utter hypocrisy and phoniness of officials and mainstream pundits on this issue.
1
After this deal was struck I had to ask myself some simple questions. How does Israel respond? How does Saudi Arabia respond? How will this effect Irans influence on Iraq? On the home front, are we safer because we stuck a deal where Iraq gets a nuclear weapon in 10 years? With oil flooding the markets, how will is it possible for the oil industry in the US to survive? Does Iran have history of keeping their promises? What did we really accomplish by doing this deal? Perhaps short term cheaper gas prices, lower energy prices until war breaks out in the middle east and all of the oil production facilities damaged or put offline. Unfortunately the US will have shut down most of the domestic production of oil by this point I would venture to guess as they wouldn't be able to compete. Who knows what our relationship with Russia will be at that point because they will be the biggest source of oil and they will be able to charge whatever they want.
I don't see many positives outcomes to these questions. In all honesty I never saw a positive outcome for the middle east before or after the sanctions were lifted but I believe lifting sanctions makes things worse. Essentially the middle east is and has alway been a powder keg and this deal lite the match.
I don't see many positives outcomes to these questions. In all honesty I never saw a positive outcome for the middle east before or after the sanctions were lifted but I believe lifting sanctions makes things worse. Essentially the middle east is and has alway been a powder keg and this deal lite the match.
5
And at least he didn't call him Bibi.
As newsworthy as the Iranian accord itself.
As newsworthy as the Iranian accord itself.
If it is a good deal it will sell itself.
2
When Germany disregarded the Versailles Treaty's strict limits on militarization, the victors of WWI were too tired of war to enforce the treaty. Even if Iran honors the agreement during Obama's final year in office, who has confidence that violations in five or eight years will elicit the mousetrap-like reimposition of sanctions now promised? Perhaps Iran won't build bombs, but just import them from Pakistan. The alternative to which the White House is blind is not another Middle East war, but a brief, intense bombing campaign aimed at nuclear facilities and other infrastructure, a la Serbia, with the clear choice facing the mullahs being unconditional surrender to American demands or an Iranian Stone Age. Such a resolution of the impasse would be swift, definitive, and unopposed, with minimal US losses. As with Germany, it could bring an outlaw state into the community of nations much more than the accord just reached will do.
2
During the first Iraq war, Israel whiled out an estimated sixty nuclear missiles targeting every capital in the Middle East, The first President Bush told them to step down and was ignored. Had Iraqi missiles been more accurate and carried chemicals, the lives of tens of millions would have been sacrificed. Thus, it is hardly a surprise that one of the targets, a country, as President Obama reminds us that threw over its democratic government and replaced it with a dictatorship.
That Iran would move to become a nuclear power, dangerous, but no surprise. That no one mentions the wisdom of working with Israel to reduce or eliminate its nuclear stockpile, in return for continued guarantees of its protection from the US and meaningful negotiations with other countries in the region, well, what pray tell should we make of this?
That Iran would move to become a nuclear power, dangerous, but no surprise. That no one mentions the wisdom of working with Israel to reduce or eliminate its nuclear stockpile, in return for continued guarantees of its protection from the US and meaningful negotiations with other countries in the region, well, what pray tell should we make of this?
1
"During the first Iraq war, Israel whiled out an estimated sixty nuclear missiles targeting every capital in the Middle East, The first President Bush told them to step down and was ignored."
Is this fiction what they teach you at Loyola Marymount? Is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on your reading list as well?
Is this fiction what they teach you at Loyola Marymount? Is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on your reading list as well?
The opposition to this deal have no alternative except regime change in Iran. Which will not happen without the US engaging in another war that violates international law and further destabilizes the area. President Obama is right to try diplomacy. Firstly because his bargaining partners that got Iran to agree will break apart if the deal is rejected. This in turn will end the sanctions which President Obama cobbled together to pressure Iran.
3
"Jaw Jaw is better that War War"
This talk is Obama and Friedman at their best, which is excellent, and deserves a look.
You only need look at the people building up armories here in the US to see that the more you don't talk, but build up fear and hate, the more crazy people are enabled.
Iran is rich in history and civilization and encouraging them to join rather than oppose will help everyone.
http://www.johncunyus.com/jawjaw.html
"So we talk, as long as necessary, despite the frustrations of it, until we're blue in the face if we have to ... under all but the most extreme circumstances.
"Being willing to talk to people we don't like takes a little humility. But isn't a little humility better than a lot of blood? It is if it's my blood!
'Humility requires that we look at the world as it is, rather than only as we wish it would be. In the real world, people do feel offended and grieved. In the real world, prudent people, prudent governments, want to know why. We may not agree with the answer, but we ought to at least want to know ...
"Then, we practice a little compassion. We have a little mercy, even on people who don’t deserve it."
This talk is Obama and Friedman at their best, which is excellent, and deserves a look.
You only need look at the people building up armories here in the US to see that the more you don't talk, but build up fear and hate, the more crazy people are enabled.
Iran is rich in history and civilization and encouraging them to join rather than oppose will help everyone.
http://www.johncunyus.com/jawjaw.html
"So we talk, as long as necessary, despite the frustrations of it, until we're blue in the face if we have to ... under all but the most extreme circumstances.
"Being willing to talk to people we don't like takes a little humility. But isn't a little humility better than a lot of blood? It is if it's my blood!
'Humility requires that we look at the world as it is, rather than only as we wish it would be. In the real world, people do feel offended and grieved. In the real world, prudent people, prudent governments, want to know why. We may not agree with the answer, but we ought to at least want to know ...
"Then, we practice a little compassion. We have a little mercy, even on people who don’t deserve it."
4
Ignore the jibber jabber from Republican politicians and so-called national and foreign policy experts on the right. Listen to arms control experts who can actually speak with authority on the merits of this deal. Most of them are giving this deal high marks.
Ironically, the point has been made that this is an extraordinarily good deal considering the hand Obama was dealt on Iran when he took office, but that a much better deal was available to the Bush administration which, in their utter incompetence and hostility to Iran, they walked away from. The moral: Walking away from an agreement does not necessarily get you a better one later.
Ironically, the point has been made that this is an extraordinarily good deal considering the hand Obama was dealt on Iran when he took office, but that a much better deal was available to the Bush administration which, in their utter incompetence and hostility to Iran, they walked away from. The moral: Walking away from an agreement does not necessarily get you a better one later.
5
You do realize that nobody, including the arms control experts you site have actually seen the deal as it will not likely be released until Friday. Moral of the story, don't judge a deal by it's cover.
"Walking away from an agreement does not necessarily get you a better one later."
Great advice, NJB. Your last sentence is a lesson older Americans should have learned when the tragedy of Vietnam dragged on several more years because of the manipulative bad advice given by an ambitious Henry Kissinger for South Vietnam to reject a deal available from the North.
Great advice, NJB. Your last sentence is a lesson older Americans should have learned when the tragedy of Vietnam dragged on several more years because of the manipulative bad advice given by an ambitious Henry Kissinger for South Vietnam to reject a deal available from the North.
In every negotiation smart negotiators start with the premise of Better Than No Alternative (BTNA) or no deal. This deal, and I have to read the deal to opine accurately, I think we will find is better than no deal. And everyone will have an issue.
What is most critical is that we listen to what Iran and their leadership say about the deal publicly. As Thomas Friedman wrote in his seminal work, From Beirut to Jerusalem, unlike in America, what leaders in the Middle East say publicly they mean. If they think is it a win for them and a pushover deal, we proceed with caution.
As in everything in life we must strive for "progress" not "perfection." This deal and our relationship with Iran is no different. As long as we don't naively believe that this deal is perfect and we proceed with caution, it is better than no deal at all.
What is most critical is that we listen to what Iran and their leadership say about the deal publicly. As Thomas Friedman wrote in his seminal work, From Beirut to Jerusalem, unlike in America, what leaders in the Middle East say publicly they mean. If they think is it a win for them and a pushover deal, we proceed with caution.
As in everything in life we must strive for "progress" not "perfection." This deal and our relationship with Iran is no different. As long as we don't naively believe that this deal is perfect and we proceed with caution, it is better than no deal at all.
7
I believe we are witnessing the most successful presidency since FDR.
9
FDR's presidency ended with world war and nuclear detonations.
It was a joy to listen to such a thoughtful and differentiated interview. I am proud to have a president who is a leader and deep thinker, who has an understanding for as well as empathy with other country's concerns.
An I thank the NY Times for publishing the whole interview - not just cherry-picked 30-sec soundbites.
An I thank the NY Times for publishing the whole interview - not just cherry-picked 30-sec soundbites.
6
Let's spell out the Conservative opinion on this deal. From Ben Shapiro:
"Obama’s defenders today ask his detractors, “If the deal works, isn’t it a good deal?”
"Sure. If the Munich Agreement had worked, it would have been a masterpiece of diplomacy.
"But promising a unicorn in a diplomatic negotiation isn’t quite the same thing as delivering one. And delivering billions of dollars, international legitimacy, and a protective shield around a terrorist regime in exchange for that unicorn makes you either a fool or an active perpetuator of that terrorist regime."
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/14/everything-you-nee...
"Obama’s defenders today ask his detractors, “If the deal works, isn’t it a good deal?”
"Sure. If the Munich Agreement had worked, it would have been a masterpiece of diplomacy.
"But promising a unicorn in a diplomatic negotiation isn’t quite the same thing as delivering one. And delivering billions of dollars, international legitimacy, and a protective shield around a terrorist regime in exchange for that unicorn makes you either a fool or an active perpetuator of that terrorist regime."
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/14/everything-you-nee...
2
The Iran deal will be a death nail for Israel. Soon ; her monopoly of nuclear bomb in the middle east will end when not Iran but several other nations will start developing nuke bombs without any restriction from anyone. Until now; Israel was using her nuke bombs as the sole weapon to grab the Arab land and Palestinian humanity; but soon Israel will realize that now the time has come to make peace with Palestinian or her own existence will be in doubt !!!! Sooner is better if Israel and her protectors understand this fact.
Friedman thinks Congress is going to spend one second considering the president' "logic" and "reasoning"? THIS congress???
8
If there had been no agreement with Iran they would now be free to proceed on any nuclear development path of it's choosing, without ANY inspection regime at all. The only way to delay them would be through military action and even our own military and the Israel Defense force estimate a best case that intensive bombing would set Iran back 24 to 36 months. Then what? We would be in the midst of a long drawn-out war, with terrorist attacks likely all over the world, huge tax increases for many years (or even larger deficits) and an Iran still going ahead with nuclear development, but under hardened defenses with no prospect of ever being monitored again in the future by anyone. Is that really the better alternative?
38
"Better" is depending on who is looking at it. The military establishment looks at the alternative as pretty desirable (larger budgets); the puppet masters too (increase the justification for more control of the populace).
All voiced from undisclosed locations, naturally.
All voiced from undisclosed locations, naturally.
You write like a "failure junkie". "Our own military and the Israel Defense force estimate a best case that intensive bombing would set Iran back 24 to 36 months. Then what?".. 1. Repeat as needed. What costs more, constructing enrichment centers or obliterating them from the air? 2. Intensify sanctions. If it works, don't fix it. They were working, bringing the Persians to the table, they held a very weak hand which Obama/Kerry enabled them to play to maximum affect. 3. Next "velvet revolution" comes around as it's all but sure to, especially after steps 1 and 2 support the reformers not the mullahs. Imagine that? Exactly like the administration failed to do last time and repeated to disastrous consequence in Egypt. Victory begins with a decision, absent that, failure via capitulation is all but assured. Unless of course this is what the American Left spearheaded by President Barack Hussein Obama intend and call "fundamental transformation". Then America's defeat become their victory. Then what?
These negotiations gave new meaning to the term 'concession stand', as Mr. Obama caved in on every key issue at the Persian bazaar. The world is a far more dangerous place now, as Iran and its genocidal plans receive legitimacy from the leaders of the "free world".
We shall remember this day as a turning point in world history, a milestone in the demise of Pax Americana, and, quite possibly, the prologue to the next world war.
We shall remember this day as a turning point in world history, a milestone in the demise of Pax Americana, and, quite possibly, the prologue to the next world war.
3
Obama and Kerry are not politicians with great mastery of basics or many accomplishments to their names.
When they get into international horse-trading and negotiations, both are babes- -in-the-woods.
Their forte is international foto-ops or sounding off about how things are or should be. And it looks like we will get another President fitting that outline.
Against that is a slew of Republican presidential hopeful. Most of them are even more internationally naive, and a good many seem to favor shooting first and asking questions after in tense international matters. Like Obama and Kerry, any of them can shine on the banquet merry-go-round.
When they get into international horse-trading and negotiations, both are babes- -in-the-woods.
Their forte is international foto-ops or sounding off about how things are or should be. And it looks like we will get another President fitting that outline.
Against that is a slew of Republican presidential hopeful. Most of them are even more internationally naive, and a good many seem to favor shooting first and asking questions after in tense international matters. Like Obama and Kerry, any of them can shine on the banquet merry-go-round.
1
The Obama administration presents a very cogent rationale for why this deal is extremely likely to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - and it provides actual facts and evidence to support that claim.
AIPAC, Netanyahu and all the war-mongerers just howl and scream about how this is a terrible deal. Not a shred of evidence is presented to support their bellicose position.
As usual, there are people in this world who try to make decisions carefully, using reason, logic and evidence as their guide. And then there's AIPAC and the Republican party.
AIPAC, Netanyahu and all the war-mongerers just howl and scream about how this is a terrible deal. Not a shred of evidence is presented to support their bellicose position.
As usual, there are people in this world who try to make decisions carefully, using reason, logic and evidence as their guide. And then there's AIPAC and the Republican party.
5
The deal can best be described by what someone once said about marriage--a triumph of hope over experience.
3
About SECOND marriages....
1
Our Presidents are allegedly “the master negotiators and leaders”.
President Obama made the Iranians give up their nuclear weapons after the hard and prolonged negotiations. That’s something Tehran repeatedly claimed they never wanted to have because that’s a kind of battle they had no chance of winning. It means our negotiating team gave up something for nothing in return.
In 1953 our government organized a coup in Iran that overthrew democratically elected secular government and installed the dictatorial tyrant Shah Reza Pahlavi. Of course, the tyranny led to desperation and rage of the local population that was instrumental in bringing the Ayatollahs to power. Ever since our Administrations are trying to bring back to power in Tehran democratically elected government, meaning the conditions we had without any our involvement 62 years ago.
Then in 1980 our government encouraged, prodded and pushed the regime of Saddam Hussein to invade Iran. To enable a smaller country to attack much stronger neighbor we had to arm, finance and train the Iraqi Army. After the failed Iran War, Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and we have waged two Gulf Wars and the current bombing campaigns to reverse the consequences of our wrong foreign policies. In this case, it’s only 35 years and counting...
Please, can’t we stop what we have been doing to protect America?
President Obama made the Iranians give up their nuclear weapons after the hard and prolonged negotiations. That’s something Tehran repeatedly claimed they never wanted to have because that’s a kind of battle they had no chance of winning. It means our negotiating team gave up something for nothing in return.
In 1953 our government organized a coup in Iran that overthrew democratically elected secular government and installed the dictatorial tyrant Shah Reza Pahlavi. Of course, the tyranny led to desperation and rage of the local population that was instrumental in bringing the Ayatollahs to power. Ever since our Administrations are trying to bring back to power in Tehran democratically elected government, meaning the conditions we had without any our involvement 62 years ago.
Then in 1980 our government encouraged, prodded and pushed the regime of Saddam Hussein to invade Iran. To enable a smaller country to attack much stronger neighbor we had to arm, finance and train the Iraqi Army. After the failed Iran War, Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and we have waged two Gulf Wars and the current bombing campaigns to reverse the consequences of our wrong foreign policies. In this case, it’s only 35 years and counting...
Please, can’t we stop what we have been doing to protect America?
4
The Iranians learned all they need to know about President Obama when he blurted out "Don't call my bluff, Paul!" during the ACA negotiations (alleged) with the political opposition. They knew that Obama is exactly the kind of person they want sitting on the other side of the table in a game of high-stakes poker.
2
As Mr. Friedman was so correct on his decision to support the invasion of Iraq I await with baited breath for him to weigh in whether the deal with Iran is a good one.
3
The neo-cons along with the Israeli hawks who want to keep the embargo on Iran fail to see the hypocracy of their position. Israel does NOT allow international inspection of their nuclear facilities and it was the introduction of nuclear bombs into the Middle East by Israel that started this whole arms race.
Embargos have never worked towards a regime change. The most obvious example is Cuba where the same regime has been in place for over 50 years! To ensure world peace we must open Iran to the rest of the world, promote its economy and allow its citizens to enter into the free world. Keeping walls up and doors closed just instills hatred, resentment and extremism.
As to the question of "can we trust Iran", my only statement would be "who can you trust?". Israel spies on the US; the US spies on Germany, France and other 'allies"; US presidents lie to the American public about "weapons of mass destruction"; and the list goes on. Basically on the world political stagge, you can trust no one, no one.
All the naysayers on this initial accord eventually come to the same alternative: bomb Iran! Wow. That is certainly a recipe for world disaster.
Embargos have never worked towards a regime change. The most obvious example is Cuba where the same regime has been in place for over 50 years! To ensure world peace we must open Iran to the rest of the world, promote its economy and allow its citizens to enter into the free world. Keeping walls up and doors closed just instills hatred, resentment and extremism.
As to the question of "can we trust Iran", my only statement would be "who can you trust?". Israel spies on the US; the US spies on Germany, France and other 'allies"; US presidents lie to the American public about "weapons of mass destruction"; and the list goes on. Basically on the world political stagge, you can trust no one, no one.
All the naysayers on this initial accord eventually come to the same alternative: bomb Iran! Wow. That is certainly a recipe for world disaster.
6
NYTimes: Will you please stop embedding video or audio that starts automatically? It is incredibly annoying and you joining my list of websites that I never visit for that reason. If I want to watch the video I will simply click play.
13
Is the same country that can't and couldn't protect itself against known cyberthreats and had full knowledge of its weaknesses and full access to its infrastructure to effect any patches and corrections, the same country leading an effort to control nuclear proliferation by an entity outside its control and jurisduction?
Like most Canadians, I envy the fact that you have such an intelligent, precient leader, able to see the world outside the box of current geopolitical constraints. Up here, our current right-wing government serves as an echo-chamber for the Netanyahu right-wing government and refuses to endorse what is likely to be the most significant, game-changing agreement of our time.
10
Wayne, Steven Harper is almost certainly the worst player on the world stage, the only possible exception: Greece Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras.
1
This deal is better than any other deal on the table. Oh there aren't any? What a surprise. Netanyahu hates the deal but offers nothing in return except the prospect of War. I say Netanyahu is a bigger enemy to the middle east than Iran. Note, not the Israeli people - Netanyahu.
6
I fully agree with the President that this deal needs to be judged on the basis of whether it keeps Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon...nothing more...nothing less. When judged on that criteria is fails for one simple reason. It has an end date. 10 - 15 years from now having lived up to every clause in the agreement Iran can then ramp up it's nuclear program and we cannot stop them. Tell me Mr. President, what do we do then?
2
You're right that the agreement does not prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in 10-15 years. Do you really think that an agreement to prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon was possible?
The world now has 10 years to find a way to live with Iran or destroy Iran.
Without this agreement, the world had at best, two years to find a way to live with or destroy Iran.
Are we really in such a rush to start what could become WWIII?
The world now has 10 years to find a way to live with Iran or destroy Iran.
Without this agreement, the world had at best, two years to find a way to live with or destroy Iran.
Are we really in such a rush to start what could become WWIII?
1
The problem with the Republican argument on the Iran deal is the same one they have in opposing the ACA: that if either were dissembled something quite like them would have to be put in place.
2
After the bitter memory of CIA assisted coup in 1953 leading to American embassy hostage crisis of 1979, the two countries finally sit down and make peace for the long term interests of the Mideast and the US. This is a crowning achievement for Mr. President despite the xenophobic view of Netanyahu, bitter opposition from Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia and the Zionist lobby group within the US Congress.
9
Here's the bottom line: Iran can either comply with this agreement to the letter or face the consequences of a belligerent Israel, which will go literally ballistic if this grand attempt at diplomacy doesn't work out. Bibi is not only channelling Nixon's "Madman Theory" here, but probably isn't bluffing. Does Iran truly wish to assume that risk?
2
The weapons Bizzare has truly opened. My question is how did Russia contract to build more than 20 different nuclear plants in various middle eastern countries? How is lifting an arms embargo going to create peace? I only see more death and destruction in the region! I suppose because we are not doing the killing, this is good?
Friedman. Give me a break. The ObaMessiah always interviews with Friedman. Why doesn't he man up and interview with Wush Limbo, someone like that who'll ask him some real questions. Give me a break.
1
Obama's a great talker, the anti-Dubya: articulate, compelling, persuasive. When he explains the rationale for this deal, it sounds completely...well, rational; the best possible outcome given the circumstances. Bibi says in effect Iran is "evil", and you can't make deals with Evil. The failed North Korean "deal" is evidence of same. Frankly, I agree with Netanyahu. When PM Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler in the early 20th century, he thought he'd achieved something constructive and lasting. We know how that fiasco turned out. This thing sounds alarmingly similar, 85 years later. This is like publicly hailing Al Capone for building a community center in Chicago, or giving out free turkeys to poor people on Thanksgiving, while behind the scenes he continued his "normal" businesses. Fundamentally naive, on a global scale, but still, perhaps, the best deal possible short of another all-out war, one that could easily lead to WWIII (or, effectively, the end of the world).
1
The United States is blessed to have a real leader, a thinking ADULT, as our President. What a wonderful difference, what new day!
Can you run for President again? :-)
Thank you, President Obama!
Thank you, Secretary Kerry!
Can you run for President again? :-)
Thank you, President Obama!
Thank you, Secretary Kerry!
2
The Obama Administration is tragically incompetent.
It is targeting the nuclear weapons that Iran solemnly declared they would never develop.
Why would they do it?
So they could drop it on Israel and Israel retaliate against them, thus leading to the mutual annihilation?!
This might sound as a good and reasonable action plan only to Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu.
The Obama Administration should target the Ayatollahs, not the Iranian scientific advancements.
Who has put the Ayatollahs in power?
America!
Without our meddling, the Iranians democratically elected a secular government in 1953 and the Ayatollahs weren’t even close to the power.
Only after we installed the dictatorial Shah regime that tyrannically ruled Iran for a quarter of century, the rage and desperation of the population helped bring the Ayatollahs into the power.
Should not we officially apologize to the Iranian people for our old mistakes?
Afterwards we should continue targeting the Ayatollahs, by simply asking why Iran is intervening into the internal Arab conflicts in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.
The only rational justification is the Shiite dogma. There is no Shiite dogma in the Koran at all.
It means the Ayatollahs are pushing Iran to intervene into the internal civil wars abroad thus disobeying the Koran verses and the strict bans. That makes the Ayatollahs unbelievers, if we used the term they used so many times.
Isn’t meddling into the internal affairs abroad something very bad?
It is targeting the nuclear weapons that Iran solemnly declared they would never develop.
Why would they do it?
So they could drop it on Israel and Israel retaliate against them, thus leading to the mutual annihilation?!
This might sound as a good and reasonable action plan only to Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu.
The Obama Administration should target the Ayatollahs, not the Iranian scientific advancements.
Who has put the Ayatollahs in power?
America!
Without our meddling, the Iranians democratically elected a secular government in 1953 and the Ayatollahs weren’t even close to the power.
Only after we installed the dictatorial Shah regime that tyrannically ruled Iran for a quarter of century, the rage and desperation of the population helped bring the Ayatollahs into the power.
Should not we officially apologize to the Iranian people for our old mistakes?
Afterwards we should continue targeting the Ayatollahs, by simply asking why Iran is intervening into the internal Arab conflicts in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.
The only rational justification is the Shiite dogma. There is no Shiite dogma in the Koran at all.
It means the Ayatollahs are pushing Iran to intervene into the internal civil wars abroad thus disobeying the Koran verses and the strict bans. That makes the Ayatollahs unbelievers, if we used the term they used so many times.
Isn’t meddling into the internal affairs abroad something very bad?
1
Please stop. This was multilateral decision in broad daylight.
Petey,
what was multilateral decision in broad daylight?
what was multilateral decision in broad daylight?
2
Petey,
The multilateral decision in broad daylight should have been applied against the countries with the nukes that over the last several decades launched the aggressive foreign wars and previously been involved in the ethnic cleansing of the local population like Israel, India and Pakistan.
Why to discriminate against a country that doesn't have the nukes, that didn't launch an aggressive war over the last few decades and didn't commit any ethnic cleansing on its territory?
The multilateral decision in broad daylight should have been applied against the countries with the nukes that over the last several decades launched the aggressive foreign wars and previously been involved in the ethnic cleansing of the local population like Israel, India and Pakistan.
Why to discriminate against a country that doesn't have the nukes, that didn't launch an aggressive war over the last few decades and didn't commit any ethnic cleansing on its territory?
Dick Cheney says that President Obama is the worst President ever. That is all you need to know regarding the Iran deal. Thank you President Obama for withstanding the lies told by Mr. Cheney and others. You have earned your Nobel.
8
When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, Iran had a couple of dozen centrifuges, and North Korea was a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty with precisely zero nukes. After eight years of scathingly brilliant GOP/neo-con US foreign policy, Iran had thousands of centrifuges and was well on its way to a bomb, and the DPRK had withdrawn from the NPT and had manufactured a half dozen A-Bombs. Those were not co-incidences. That was causal. We should by all means listen to & consider all rational criticism of the agreement. But it is incumbent on all of us to keep in mind what their track record says about the judgement and prejudices of those who have come out in attack. And let's face it, a lot of these people will reject immediately anything Obama proposes, and figure out why it's terrible later.
6
It is amazing how Republicans expressed their opposition against the deal with Iran within minutes after its announcement, in unison. Their impossible expectation of the Administration has been to put the Iranian nuclear genie back in the lamp. No matter what deal was negotiated the naysayers were going oppose it.
The UN and the five world powers placed sanctions on Iran to bring the country back to the negotiating table. Later US joined the UN and the other five powers. After reaching an agreement the UN+ Five world powers were always planning to remove the sanctions disregarding of the US actions.
The alternative to negotiations is only war because sanctions have not worked after decades. US created a disaster in Iraq and Syria by its abrupt removal of Saddam. Going to war and occupation of a country of 80 million people, which is no easy task, would unleash a chaos the likes of which has never been seen before. Remember Alexander, Muslim Arabs, Mongolian Genghis Khan and others attempted to occupy the heart of the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan) without success. We tried to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq to no avail. Has our nation not shed enough blood and treasure in those lands without a single positive outcome? The dead and maimed youth and the wasted trillions could have been devoted to improve the American's lives. We could have prosperity by using those resources instead of broken education, health care, economy etc. We do not need more of the same.
The UN and the five world powers placed sanctions on Iran to bring the country back to the negotiating table. Later US joined the UN and the other five powers. After reaching an agreement the UN+ Five world powers were always planning to remove the sanctions disregarding of the US actions.
The alternative to negotiations is only war because sanctions have not worked after decades. US created a disaster in Iraq and Syria by its abrupt removal of Saddam. Going to war and occupation of a country of 80 million people, which is no easy task, would unleash a chaos the likes of which has never been seen before. Remember Alexander, Muslim Arabs, Mongolian Genghis Khan and others attempted to occupy the heart of the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan) without success. We tried to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq to no avail. Has our nation not shed enough blood and treasure in those lands without a single positive outcome? The dead and maimed youth and the wasted trillions could have been devoted to improve the American's lives. We could have prosperity by using those resources instead of broken education, health care, economy etc. We do not need more of the same.
2
Congratulations President Obama. Thanks to Secretary Kerry and the negotiating team from both sides. It was not easy but they did it. This deal or any deal is not with friend but with a adversary hostile country and for that reason deal will not be perfect for both sides. The critics of the deal know that this is the best deal we can get and it is good for us and the world. But our politician critics do criticize and oppose the deal only for partisan reason. Their self interest come first. They only think for to be reelected and raise money for their campaign war chest. They should say what is the alternative. With all the sanction North Korea made their nuclear bombs and with all these sanction , Iran came so far and Iran is still the 17th economic power. Israel does not like this deal and it was never expected. Israel should say how many nuclear war heads they have. Netanyahu can not dictate our foreign policy and no other country can interfare in our own policy.
2
I will support the decision of my currently "neutral" Democrat Senator. However, the President seems to think that newly found prosperity and global engagement will convince Iran that nuclear capability will not be necessary, particularly as their very young population becomes enthralled by the availability of all the "stuff" in the world, but would rather limit its possibilities. I think Islamic sectarianism will overwhelm such possibilities. The few will continue to rule the many.
But for the fact that Mr. Netanyahu has held P. Obama's political feet to the fire, this wretched deal would be 10 times worse than it is.
3
This is not a deal. it is a one sided capitulation by Obama to the will of the Iranian mullahs who continue to chant "Death to America" and burn the american flag as the Iranian president did only 4 days ago. Iran will have nuclear weapons in 10 short years, if not sooner. Meanwhile hundreds of billions in Iranian assets will be released so that Iran can ramp up its role as the number one nation of state sponsored terrorism. The mullahs are laughing all the way to the bank and their future nuclear weapons stockpile.
11
Without this deal, the estimate are that Iran will have nuclear weapons in mere months. 10 years strikes me as much better.
As usual, the Press decided to make the Republican Party, rather than Iran, its enemy. Many Democrats find this a terrible deal (basically a deal with the Devil). In the "simple explanation of the deal" the NYT put out it fails to mention that if our inspectors even hope to actually gain access to a facility they have to give 24 days notice to said facility. Of course, Iran doesn't allow us to inspect even now at all and should they cooperate with this timeline they will have moved enough material that its absurd to expect compliance anyway. Take a look at the key players who endorsed the deal along with our President and one will learn we have just abandoned Israel and our future is not a good one.
11
Moving weapons is addressed though. The half life of the radioactivity would still be detected, I imagine, well after the 24 hour grace period.
I admit i know practically nothing about nuclear tech., but i also think that a concern like yours is something that was probably addressed before signing a deal.
I admit i know practically nothing about nuclear tech., but i also think that a concern like yours is something that was probably addressed before signing a deal.
Did the Iranians do anything of "good faith" for this deal? Return our current hostages? Turnover the Khobar Towers bombers? Give personal guarantees that they would not ship anymore IED materials for use against our troops in Afghanistan? H-E-double hockey sticks NO. I assure you, the centrifuges will keep spinning, the Iranians will continue to work on the means of weapons delivery with their ballistic missile programs. If you think that Iran's intentions were to not produce a bomb, or if you think they are going to stop trying to get a bomb, you are nuts, naïve, crazy, etc. or some combination thereof. It won't be long until we are cleaning up the broken china from this mess--long after Obama has started the "Obama Foundation" and Michelle is commanding her own $200K+ for a speech.
11
Hmmmm...SanDiego San Diego 37 minutes ago
"Those who are viscerally opposed to any leniency towards Iran keep bringing up ancillary issues that were not the objective of these negotiations."
"Those who are viscerally opposed to any leniency towards Iran keep bringing up ancillary issues that were not the objective of these negotiations."
What an expert at everything! It seems that war is your preferred answer to all problems.
I swear that if the US had negotiated a treaty based on toughening sanctions that would be permanent forever, installing an MIT scientist in every nuclear lab or installation in the country, and insisting the price of signing the deal included killing the Supreme Ayatollah, the GOP would have still been against it.
4
I don't think Obama has ever had a second thought in his life. That inability to step back and reflect MIGHT just why the country has got into the mess it has on his watch.
3
Republican's will criticize this deal vehemently until gas prices retreat to $2.00 per gallon. Then, they'll try to take credit for it. I'm grateful for having a President with vision and the intelligence to properly act on it.
2
The best part will be how it decimates the fracking industry here in the USA.
Although President Obama's foreign policy has on the whole been quite weak and naive, on the Iranian nuclear issue, he is spot-on. Many will criticize this agreement without offering any realistic alternatives.The critics prefer to keep the sanctions in place hoping this will cause the overthrow of the mullahs ignoring that without this agreement, the Iranians can proceed full speed with developing a nuclear weapon. Hope is not a strategy. This agreement severely constrains Iranian nuclear arms ambitions and is a win for world peace. Whether the people of Iran want to continue to governed by medieval clerics is up to them only.
This is a flawed agreement but a perfect one is impossible, and it's immature to demand one. The Republicans as usual are all bark and no bite; they reject the deal but can't offer an alternative or say what they really seem to want. This agreement will slow down Iran, the only alternative to another God-forsaken war in the Middle East, against a far more significant power than Iraq.
2
I preferred negotiations with Iran rather than using military force regarding Iran's nuclear program. I had hoped that an ironclad, verifiable deal could be reached to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
However, after reviewing the terms, I have concluded that this is a bad deal for one reason alone: it is unverifiable.
The final deal permits Iran to stonewall the International Atomic Energy Agency's ("IAEA") request for access to suspect sites for up to 24 days. There are no anytime, anywhere inspections - the deal envisions a long process of consultation, arbitration, and implementation. 24 days is more than enough time for Iran to conceal any illicit activity.
In addition, Iran can further delay the process because it would have the right to challenge a UN request to visit a site and would sit on the arbitration board that settles disputes on inspections.
Granting Iran the ability to manage access will severely undermine the IAEA’s ability to verify an agreement. Former Deputy Director of the IAEA Olli Heinonen has warned that inspections must not be subject to a dispute resolution mechanism because it would hinder IAEA access. President of the Institute for Science and International Security, David Albright, has similarly argued that given Iran’s history of deceiving the international community and “abusing the consultation process with the inspectors,” a deal must ensure anytime anywhere inspections. The deal falls far short of that.
However, after reviewing the terms, I have concluded that this is a bad deal for one reason alone: it is unverifiable.
The final deal permits Iran to stonewall the International Atomic Energy Agency's ("IAEA") request for access to suspect sites for up to 24 days. There are no anytime, anywhere inspections - the deal envisions a long process of consultation, arbitration, and implementation. 24 days is more than enough time for Iran to conceal any illicit activity.
In addition, Iran can further delay the process because it would have the right to challenge a UN request to visit a site and would sit on the arbitration board that settles disputes on inspections.
Granting Iran the ability to manage access will severely undermine the IAEA’s ability to verify an agreement. Former Deputy Director of the IAEA Olli Heinonen has warned that inspections must not be subject to a dispute resolution mechanism because it would hinder IAEA access. President of the Institute for Science and International Security, David Albright, has similarly argued that given Iran’s history of deceiving the international community and “abusing the consultation process with the inspectors,” a deal must ensure anytime anywhere inspections. The deal falls far short of that.
4
This brings to mind what came first the chicken or the egg? After our CIA overthrew the government in Iran and installed the dreaded Shah Iran went rogue. When the hedge fund managers and the new Billionaires in Iran start wearing Brooks Brother suits and carrying IPads will they be anxious to go back out in the cold again? Most of the population is under thirty do we really think they want go back to outside looking in mode? Sure the hardliners want the status quo but hardliners have wives and kids also. Let’s give the deal a chance because we can always bomb. When they become a legit player in the region I believe hearts and minds will change. They have idiots in the streets chanting death to the west. We have our idiots in the streets also thinking the US Army is going to invade Texas. Touché! We must not forget that you cannot turn an ocean liner on a dime. Fifty years of animosity is just not going to go away overnight.
1
Although the lack of ironclad verification is reason enough to not support the Iran nuclear deal, the deal is also bad for two others reasons:
1. The UN arms embargo on Iran, which bans Iran from exporting arms and importing major arms, will be lifted in 5 years, regardless of Iran’s behavior. The ban could even be lifted earlier if the IAEA grants permission to do so. This will facilitate Iran’s attempts to expand its support for terrorist proxies and other allies that destabilize the Middle East. Iran will also be able to acquire sophisticated weapons from other countries like Russia and China. Just last week at a Senate hearing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey testified that “[u]nder no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.”
2. The deal ends the ban on ballistic missile trade in 8 years, possibly earlier, though administration officials originally promised that existing restrictions would remain in place. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter testified last week about the threat Iran’s ICBMs pose to the US, stating “The reason that we want to stop Iran from having an ICBM program is that the ‘I’ in ICBM stands for ‘intercontinental,’ which means having the capability of flying from Iran to the United States.”
The Iran deal stands to weaken US national security, as well as the security of our allies. I cannot support it. I feel very let down.
1. The UN arms embargo on Iran, which bans Iran from exporting arms and importing major arms, will be lifted in 5 years, regardless of Iran’s behavior. The ban could even be lifted earlier if the IAEA grants permission to do so. This will facilitate Iran’s attempts to expand its support for terrorist proxies and other allies that destabilize the Middle East. Iran will also be able to acquire sophisticated weapons from other countries like Russia and China. Just last week at a Senate hearing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey testified that “[u]nder no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.”
2. The deal ends the ban on ballistic missile trade in 8 years, possibly earlier, though administration officials originally promised that existing restrictions would remain in place. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter testified last week about the threat Iran’s ICBMs pose to the US, stating “The reason that we want to stop Iran from having an ICBM program is that the ‘I’ in ICBM stands for ‘intercontinental,’ which means having the capability of flying from Iran to the United States.”
The Iran deal stands to weaken US national security, as well as the security of our allies. I cannot support it. I feel very let down.
3
Jack Kennedy once said at a dinner for Nobel Laureates that there was at that moment more intellectual power in the White House than at any time since Thomas Jefferson dined alone. This interview is a masterpiece of intelligent thinking on the part of President Obama. There is clearly more sense in this head than in all the Republican party + Netanyahu; I vote to go with intelligence, the US already tried the “dumb” approach with GWB.
Natanhayu already takes as many free weapon systems that the US makes; is he now in charge of their foreign policy?
Natanhayu already takes as many free weapon systems that the US makes; is he now in charge of their foreign policy?
2
Whether or not you think the agreement is advisable, you have to respect the President's thoughtful remarks. Let others who disagree be equally articulate and insightful, and then the debate that follows will be a great one for our country. President Obama may be right or wrong to do this deal, I am not knowledgeable enough to know, but his approach elevates the level of discourse on issues that too often are reduced to cliches and name calling.
Let's take his lead and discuss things intelligently. I am not a Democrat, but I am very proud of this man.
Let's take his lead and discuss things intelligently. I am not a Democrat, but I am very proud of this man.
1
Thanks to the harsh economic sanctions that the Bush and Obama Administration imposed on Brazil, that country was unable to produce the nuclear weapons and launch the arm race in the South America.
Wait a moment, Brazil never tried to develop the nuclear weapons in the first place!
Exactly, that’s what Tehran repeatedly claimed too but nobody cared.
We blame Iran for the conflicts in the Middle East too in spite of the facts.
The Sunni-Shiite conflict is waged solely between the Arabs but somehow the White House is blaming the Iranians for it.
The original Sunni-Shiite conflict raged for a couple of centuries even before Persia became a majority Muslim country.
The original Persian sin is that they have successfully dismantled a sign of equation between the Koran and the Arabs.
The Persians are never forgiven for accepting the Koran and rejecting some portions of the Arab culture.
The Iranian problems stem from the fact that they accepted the other parts of the Arab culture so they accepted the Shia traditions as if those traditions weren’t of the Arab origin too.
That’s why Iran supports today one side in the internal Arab wars, while simultaneously blaming America for doing exactly the same in Iran in 1953.
In the Sunni-Shia conflict there is no good side because there is no such a schism in the Koran.
If the conflicts aren’t just, why to support any side?
That’s identical to our meddling into the internal affairs abroad...
Wait a moment, Brazil never tried to develop the nuclear weapons in the first place!
Exactly, that’s what Tehran repeatedly claimed too but nobody cared.
We blame Iran for the conflicts in the Middle East too in spite of the facts.
The Sunni-Shiite conflict is waged solely between the Arabs but somehow the White House is blaming the Iranians for it.
The original Sunni-Shiite conflict raged for a couple of centuries even before Persia became a majority Muslim country.
The original Persian sin is that they have successfully dismantled a sign of equation between the Koran and the Arabs.
The Persians are never forgiven for accepting the Koran and rejecting some portions of the Arab culture.
The Iranian problems stem from the fact that they accepted the other parts of the Arab culture so they accepted the Shia traditions as if those traditions weren’t of the Arab origin too.
That’s why Iran supports today one side in the internal Arab wars, while simultaneously blaming America for doing exactly the same in Iran in 1953.
In the Sunni-Shia conflict there is no good side because there is no such a schism in the Koran.
If the conflicts aren’t just, why to support any side?
That’s identical to our meddling into the internal affairs abroad...
I admire President Obama. He’s tall and thin and gives good speeches. He had a bum for a father, but has done well for his family. I’d like to shoot baskets with him, eat Chinese and discuss women. He has Israel’s back. I need a President who will take Israel’s front.
1
What plausible alternative to a negotiated settlement do the Republicans offer? Easy answers like a "surgical" strike? War? There is no critical area of national concern, be it national health care, climate change or immigration, where the Republican give Americans a concrete, specific plan that would be better than what President Obama has put forward. Instead all we get is vitriolic criticism and doomsday scenarios. Talk about nattering nabobs of negativism! Congratulations Mr. President for this diplomatic victory and to the New York Times for this in-depth, lucid interview.
3
I am proud of our country, and proud of our President. It irks me that coverage in the news of this treaty largely seems to leave out the fact that we were just one of 6 nations all working toward an agreement. The leverage to be applied was not ours alone, nor was the dialogue ours to control. Our legacy of unilateralism, underpinned by media fanned flames of nationalism, couldn't leave soon enough.
6
The analogies to Nixon and China and to Reagan and arms control are useful in considering the merits of the agreement with Iran. China has prospered, the Communist Party is cracking down on grassroots political movements and China is asserting itself militarily in the South China Sea and economically on a global scale. The Soviet Union has fallen and Putin now controls an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Under the Iran agreement, in all probability, Iran will prosper, the Supreme Leader will remain in power and Iran will assert itself militarily and economically in the Middle East. After a pause, the Supreme Leader or his successor will resume Iran's nuclear enrichment program and control any nuclear weapons that Iraq is able to build or acquire.
However, we are better off engaging China, Russia and Iran diplomatically than militarily. The step from diplomacy to nuclear war is much longer than the step from conventional war to nuclear war.
Under the Iran agreement, in all probability, Iran will prosper, the Supreme Leader will remain in power and Iran will assert itself militarily and economically in the Middle East. After a pause, the Supreme Leader or his successor will resume Iran's nuclear enrichment program and control any nuclear weapons that Iraq is able to build or acquire.
However, we are better off engaging China, Russia and Iran diplomatically than militarily. The step from diplomacy to nuclear war is much longer than the step from conventional war to nuclear war.
1
Obama has give Iran a clear path to a nuclear bomb (albeit with a minor delay), and all the money it needs to pursue any agenda it hopes to seek, including the destruction of Israel.
Those commenters on these NYT pages cheering the deal and secretly hoping for Israel to be destroyed may very well see their wish come true. But my guess is that Israel will not simply wait for Iran to put this plan into action, whether by a nuclear bomb targeting Tel Aviv or more likely a huge investment in sophisticated offensive weapons for a colossal offensive by Hamas and Hezbollah.
This deal, in my mind, solidifies Israel's obligation to eliminate the Hezbollah and Hamas forces before they become an imminent existential threat. In that respect, Obama and Kerry have just accelerated the path to war, not blocked it.
Those commenters on these NYT pages cheering the deal and secretly hoping for Israel to be destroyed may very well see their wish come true. But my guess is that Israel will not simply wait for Iran to put this plan into action, whether by a nuclear bomb targeting Tel Aviv or more likely a huge investment in sophisticated offensive weapons for a colossal offensive by Hamas and Hezbollah.
This deal, in my mind, solidifies Israel's obligation to eliminate the Hezbollah and Hamas forces before they become an imminent existential threat. In that respect, Obama and Kerry have just accelerated the path to war, not blocked it.
2
Thank you Friedman - this is one of the best articulated interview of Obama on this complex treaty. Obama kept a razor sharp focuse on the nuclear arms capability of Iran and successfully achieved a treaty to stop it. Critics will try to mess up this with all the issues of Iranian regime and how this treaty is not solving those problems. Their cobwebs of confusion will not allow them to see the clear strategy behind this treaty. The great leaders like Obzma make the world a safer place - a visionary.
1
Regardless of one's support for the agreement (and I for one believe that forgoing progress because it doesn't reach perfection is stupid and dangerous to the best interests of the U. S.) I'd be surprised if any American can imagine a similar, lengthy and well-informed interview about a serious issue being conducted by our current president's predecessor or by any of the crowd of Republican aspiring to replace him. His grasp of facts, in both breadth and detail, his understanding of the history and politics of Iran and the region, and even his explanation of the technical details of enrichment and inspection that belie his "high school physics", were refreshing to say the least. His ability to speak in grammatical sentences and paragraphs without reading from a prepared text was also impressive to this former teacher from a generation that believed that such skills were important reflections of intellect and serious thought.
1
When leaders of countries act like peevish little children, many people suffer, when they sit down and discuss issues like adults the whole world benefits!
Hopefully republicans shelve their contrary attitudes and see this as a positive for the world!
Hopefully republicans shelve their contrary attitudes and see this as a positive for the world!
" For the near term, the deal’s merit will be judged on whether Iran implements the rollback of its nuclear enrichment capabilities to which it has agreed and whether the deeply intrusive international inspection system it has accepted can detect — and thereby deter — any cheating."
The inspection rule allow Iran to delay inspections for up to 24 days. This will not deter cheating. Obama sold the farm and didn't even need to be desperate. He chose legacy over wisdom and safety.
The inspection rule allow Iran to delay inspections for up to 24 days. This will not deter cheating. Obama sold the farm and didn't even need to be desperate. He chose legacy over wisdom and safety.
1
Please change "Republican" to "Republicans" in my previously submitted comment if you decide to publish it.
Awesome, Obama stopped Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.....for 10 years. Let's come back and review all of the praise in 10 years when Iran is threatening all of its neighbors with nuclear annihilation and see just how great this deal really was.
2
How come all the bashing of Netanyahu and Israel but no bashing of Saudi Arabia and its leaders who also call this a bad deal? Why no bashing of Iranian terrorism?
3
I think we all know the answer to that one.
I think we all know the reason why Israel and Netanyahu are bashed, but nobody else. Sadly, centuries-old hatreds don't disappear quickly.
When you hear a thoughtful, positive statement as opposed to a narrow, negative one it should give us pause. More and more I notice this stark difference in aspirants to positions of leadership. One side deriding those very qualities that should define us as human beings. Shouldn't we all be striving to become more thoughtful, more tolerant, more humane?
1
Historians will record this as Pres. Obama's (and John Kerry's) greatest achievement. This extraordinary act of diplomacy and statesmanship has the potential of actually reordering the world, without war, for the better. We all must hope the next administration has the foresight build on this achievement.
1
Friedman had it right. Before assigning a grade to this deal, why don't we see how it turns out? Anything else, is speculation, most of it heavily influenced by partisanship.
Friedman still owes us an apology for his wrong-headed support of the Iraq invasion.
1
Anyone responsible for national security should have second and third thoughts when dealing with one of the most untrustworthy and murderous regimes in the world today.
Obama, desperately seeking a 'legacy' among the ashes, accepts Iranian assurances at face value, akin to Nixon's acceptance of North Vietnam's assurances and Henry Kissinger's bogus 'peace is at hand'. Big mistake.
War is unnecessary. Maintain the sanctions and be ever vigilant, as we should be.
Obama, desperately seeking a 'legacy' among the ashes, accepts Iranian assurances at face value, akin to Nixon's acceptance of North Vietnam's assurances and Henry Kissinger's bogus 'peace is at hand'. Big mistake.
War is unnecessary. Maintain the sanctions and be ever vigilant, as we should be.
2
If asked, I could not articulate what the Obama Doctrine is or has been aspired to be, or if one even exists. But it does seem that the USA is moving into a parenting role, trying to engage misbehaving petulant child like regimes and teaching them how to grow up. Pretty remarkable for the USA which is still a relatively young approach to self governing. The good news, if the child does not respond well and continues to be problematic, its the kids in THEIR neighborhood that will suffer the consquences. The bad news is that the gang warfare will eventually spill over into our gated community.
Just another reminder that Obama/ Biden vs. McCain/Palin was an absolute no-brainer. The American arsenal remains intact & ready. Israel has nuclear submarines. What more could you ask for?
A nuclear deal with Iran and a diplomatic opening with Cuba: President Obama has achieved two huge foreign policy feats, with help from the Pope and hard work by Secretary of State John Kerry. President Nixon's diplomatic opening of relations with China recognized the reality of the existence of Mainland (Communist) China and set aside the absurd position and wishful thinking of our two China policy; these two recent foreign policy successes are equally important in that they enable us to deal with the world as it is, not as we want it to be. And what do Republicans say: they say NO, but offer no alternative other than more war while waiting for regime change. Let's hope that in the next 60 days, serious and influential Republican foreign policy experts read the Iran agreement and concur that it offers the better alternative.
1
NO ONE, including President Obama, should have EVER sat down at that table of discussing nuclear warfare, until all four American hostages, being held in Iran, had been freed!! They EVEN have names: Robert Levinson, a retired FBI Agent; Jason Rezaian, a Washington Post Reporter; Amir Hekmati, a former Marine; Saeed Abedini, a Christian Pastor. America just sat down at the table like a bunch of half-starved pigs, making deals without ever having asked for a "good faith" action by Iran first. God bless these four hostages, God bless their families, and God Bless America, because the way I see it, God is our only hope!!
I find both the fawning over Obama, Kerry and their deal and the instant repudiation of the deal by a variety of opponents to be equally disturbing. How many,. on either side have read in full and then pondered the full implications of the deal? I suspect few if any. So, is this a deal worthy of Neville Chamberlin at Munich or Jimmy Carter at Camp David? For myself, I am doubtful of anything produced by Obama and Kerry, but until a lot more details come out and are analyzed by people from different viewpoints with different agendas, I withhold a judgement and stay merely skeptical yet hopeful.
Re: [Obama's legacy will] ..."be determined by whether the deal does, in the long run, help transform Iran, defuse the U.S.-Iran Cold War and curtail the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East — not foster their proliferation."
This is a highly unlikely and unrealistic prognostication, as no one, ever, can formulate long-term expectations on any single event. That is like claiming that Reagan's legacy has been diminished by what Putin has done with Russia, or that Nixon should be blamed for China's dominance in the world economy.
This is a highly unlikely and unrealistic prognostication, as no one, ever, can formulate long-term expectations on any single event. That is like claiming that Reagan's legacy has been diminished by what Putin has done with Russia, or that Nixon should be blamed for China's dominance in the world economy.
When interviewing President Obama on Iran’s nuclear agreement yesterday, Thomas Friedman asked the president why Iran should fear the United States.
“Because we could knock out their military in speed and dispatch if we chose to,” President Obama quickly responded.
This may or may not be true. It is an unfortunate response to an inappropriate question nevertheless. It degrades the armed forces of the United States and diminishes President Obama, because flexing one’s muscles is a sign of weakness and not of strength.
And the United States should not be viewed as a symbol of peril or of fear. It should be viewed as one of reason and of peace.
It is therefore comforting that the United States has diligently participated in attaining a peaceful outcome to the Iran nuclear deal.
That agreement is a sign of strength and of wisdom for which President Obama deserves credit.
“Because we could knock out their military in speed and dispatch if we chose to,” President Obama quickly responded.
This may or may not be true. It is an unfortunate response to an inappropriate question nevertheless. It degrades the armed forces of the United States and diminishes President Obama, because flexing one’s muscles is a sign of weakness and not of strength.
And the United States should not be viewed as a symbol of peril or of fear. It should be viewed as one of reason and of peace.
It is therefore comforting that the United States has diligently participated in attaining a peaceful outcome to the Iran nuclear deal.
That agreement is a sign of strength and of wisdom for which President Obama deserves credit.
3
The Iranian nuclear deal is absolutely irrelevant because Iran has never been our problem.
It’s accurate to say that we have been the Iranian problem after we overthrew their democratically elected, secular government in 1953 by a military coup that led to Shah Reza Pahlavi tyrannical dictatorship and direct reactionary swing into theocracy.
Without our direct meddling, Iran would still be a secular democracy as in 1953.
It would be reasonable that the Obama Administration issues an official apology for our previous interference into their democracy and unwanted tragic consequences (the Ayatollahs).
They had a home-grown democracy without the Ayatollahs in power but we dismantled it, thus we are responsible for their current conditions.
It’s insane to claim that Tehran would develop the nuclear weapons to conquer the Middle East if Iran hasn’t launched a single aggressive foreign war over the last few centuries.
What about all those conflicts across the Middle East between the Sunnis and the Shiites?
Those are the internal Arab conflicts that are 14 centuries old.
Those wars are the result of Sunni-Shiite schism that developed immediately after Prophet Mohamed death, but long before Persia even became a Shia Muslim country.
The only logical step is to blame the old Saudi elite for distorting the faith and the Koran teachings with their local ancient culture immediately after Prophet’s death in the battle for the earthly power.
The politicians never change...
It’s accurate to say that we have been the Iranian problem after we overthrew their democratically elected, secular government in 1953 by a military coup that led to Shah Reza Pahlavi tyrannical dictatorship and direct reactionary swing into theocracy.
Without our direct meddling, Iran would still be a secular democracy as in 1953.
It would be reasonable that the Obama Administration issues an official apology for our previous interference into their democracy and unwanted tragic consequences (the Ayatollahs).
They had a home-grown democracy without the Ayatollahs in power but we dismantled it, thus we are responsible for their current conditions.
It’s insane to claim that Tehran would develop the nuclear weapons to conquer the Middle East if Iran hasn’t launched a single aggressive foreign war over the last few centuries.
What about all those conflicts across the Middle East between the Sunnis and the Shiites?
Those are the internal Arab conflicts that are 14 centuries old.
Those wars are the result of Sunni-Shiite schism that developed immediately after Prophet Mohamed death, but long before Persia even became a Shia Muslim country.
The only logical step is to blame the old Saudi elite for distorting the faith and the Koran teachings with their local ancient culture immediately after Prophet’s death in the battle for the earthly power.
The politicians never change...
1
Why oppose a deal because you just have to do so. If there is philosophical and rational reasons to do so it would be great to hear them. However emotional responses and scare mongering tactics don't add to having a common sense debate on the pros and cons of this agreement.
While common sense and decency seem to go missing in a political debate I wish the opponents would at least step up to have undisputable facts and an understanding of the details on the ground to have a discussion.
Sadly shrill noise and emotional responses seems to be the order of the day preventing the ability of the public to assess the merits of the case.
While common sense and decency seem to go missing in a political debate I wish the opponents would at least step up to have undisputable facts and an understanding of the details on the ground to have a discussion.
Sadly shrill noise and emotional responses seems to be the order of the day preventing the ability of the public to assess the merits of the case.
This is not what a good deal feels like. In a fair deal both sides feel good when the deal is done.
Why is it that only Iran is celebrating in the streets?
Because they got what we wanted.
Obama gave away far too much, in exchange for very little.
Why is it that only Iran is celebrating in the streets?
Because they got what we wanted.
Obama gave away far too much, in exchange for very little.
2
This interview is indeed a lesson in political science on how to negotiate with an enemy not by threatening them but cajoling them with the prospect of mutual benefit. By understanding Iran's historical insecurities that form the basis of their current behavior Obama seems to have skillfully negotiated this agreement directed specifically at curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions. No one can project Iran's future behavior but one can hope that by bringing Iran back as a regional power its own outlook may change. That is a concession that grates the Israelis and its allies in the Republican Party. The P5+1 took the approach by focusing on a specific problem just as a doctor would at treating a patient. Those who are viscerally opposed to any leniency towards Iran keep bringing up ancillary issues that were not the objective of these negotiations.
36
I have ranged from tepid support to overwhelming approval for the Obama administration. This is a home run that puts my support for whatever its worth over the top. The lucidity of his thinking in contrast to the knee jerk rejection that can be anticipated from the republican leadership is refreshing and reinforcing in the belief in American leadership. His nuanced view of Iran's motivations and even Russia's participation in lieu of our current differences is what leadership is all about. Contrast this with the grandstanding perspectives of current candidates.
So, it's this or war? The argument then is; how costly is war, correct?
This is not the 1940s, when "war" was "WAR." Recent history demonstrates that Americans can do war as a hobby. Enlistees line up for various questionable reasons. Congress throws money or piles on debt. The citizens use the war for psych support: "support the troops," "wounded warriors," even the protest faction is invested as a lifestyle rather than an ideology, we say nothing against the Iraq Quagmire like we did vs Vietnam.
So it's actually; this or a a hobby. Americans like their hobbies. This may be a hard sell.
This is not the 1940s, when "war" was "WAR." Recent history demonstrates that Americans can do war as a hobby. Enlistees line up for various questionable reasons. Congress throws money or piles on debt. The citizens use the war for psych support: "support the troops," "wounded warriors," even the protest faction is invested as a lifestyle rather than an ideology, we say nothing against the Iraq Quagmire like we did vs Vietnam.
So it's actually; this or a a hobby. Americans like their hobbies. This may be a hard sell.
1
"Verify". But they made an agreement without real ability to verify. Iran can setup new sites or existing military sites in which it is violating the agreement, and verification will only come after a warning and 24 days for Iran to delay inspection if it wants to.
In other words, enough time for Iran to hide any evidence of violations before inspections occur. So where's the ability to verify?
"Snap back" on sanctions - Orwellian newspeak. Sanctions can be "snapped back" only after a majority of the parties agree. Once the sanctions end, you can be sure that Iran, Russia, China, and at least one other party with big financial interests in sanction free Iran will vote against renewal.
The agreement sounds good on paper. In reality, Iran can start violating it next year with little or no consequences. Therefor everything the President said is a sham.
In other words, enough time for Iran to hide any evidence of violations before inspections occur. So where's the ability to verify?
"Snap back" on sanctions - Orwellian newspeak. Sanctions can be "snapped back" only after a majority of the parties agree. Once the sanctions end, you can be sure that Iran, Russia, China, and at least one other party with big financial interests in sanction free Iran will vote against renewal.
The agreement sounds good on paper. In reality, Iran can start violating it next year with little or no consequences. Therefor everything the President said is a sham.
I need to hear more about why the seemingly lengthy appeals process around "anytime/anywhere" inspections still leaves this deal with a sufficiently robust verification protocol. But if that doubt can be resolved, the deal needs to happen. And needs to be viewed as only step one in bringing a rogue nation and its people in from the cold.
One small comment on this long and impressive article: this deal will NOT prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. [What also bothers me is that they are already preparing to "shore up" the Middle East -- more iron domes, less Hezbollah, etc.] I watched Obama's speech yesterday carefully and when he said, emphatically and without any hesitation, that this would prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon, I think I saw VP Biden lower his head and non-verbally make a mini-second faux pas -- as if to say -- yeah, sarcastically
Will we ever see a time when there are responsible politicians who understand that their role, as opponents, is to present a better solution? The chorus of "we're going to stop this" is a tired old tune. If you want another useless 10 year war just say so. If you have another solution then put it on the table.
The President is disingenuous. He says that if the other countries saw the US walk away from a reasonable agreement they would be lost as allies in the sanctions. This however ignores the fact that the drive to achieve an agreement that could have been walked away from was exclusively a fevered push by him and his administration. No, this was not necessitated by some loss of patience by the other countries, Obama very much wanted this deal.
Obama wants to leave the White House with a domestic legacy (Obamacare), a trade legacy (TPP), and a foreign policy legacy in the form of this agreement with Iran. The rush was due to time running out to get it done while he was in office, and nothing to due with our sanctions partners.
You can expect Obama to travel to Tehran a la Nixon to China prior to leaving office. That is his ultimate goal. He can already see the cover of Time magazine. It will be his foreign policy opus. (Lest you credit Obama with this all, actually you can rather thank Valarie Jarrett as the brainchild here. Having grown up in Iran, it was a natural idea for her.)
Obama wants to leave the White House with a domestic legacy (Obamacare), a trade legacy (TPP), and a foreign policy legacy in the form of this agreement with Iran. The rush was due to time running out to get it done while he was in office, and nothing to due with our sanctions partners.
You can expect Obama to travel to Tehran a la Nixon to China prior to leaving office. That is his ultimate goal. He can already see the cover of Time magazine. It will be his foreign policy opus. (Lest you credit Obama with this all, actually you can rather thank Valarie Jarrett as the brainchild here. Having grown up in Iran, it was a natural idea for her.)
Obama reckons it would be better to deal with one mega state in the middle east than many smaller ones. Tragic choice.
This is a thoughtful article/interview.
I beg the NYTimes to NOT give equal time to either Netanyhu or some Adelson paid for American for a "response".
Our country needs to get back to being one of seeking peace not just engaging in endless, fruitless, outrgeously expensive war.
If the right wing people in congress, the senate or anywhere else in America are so bent on violence as the foreign policy solution everywhere, let each and every one of them, man or woman, follow their self proclaimed "partiotism" and sign up to be a military contractor/mercenary. They are all free to do so - it's not illegal.
The website 'dangerzone.jobs' is a perfect place to start. It lists paid-to-kill opportunities all over the world.
I beg the NYTimes to NOT give equal time to either Netanyhu or some Adelson paid for American for a "response".
Our country needs to get back to being one of seeking peace not just engaging in endless, fruitless, outrgeously expensive war.
If the right wing people in congress, the senate or anywhere else in America are so bent on violence as the foreign policy solution everywhere, let each and every one of them, man or woman, follow their self proclaimed "partiotism" and sign up to be a military contractor/mercenary. They are all free to do so - it's not illegal.
The website 'dangerzone.jobs' is a perfect place to start. It lists paid-to-kill opportunities all over the world.
3
thats right, absolutely do not give any air space or cyberspace to Netanyahu.
How about no deal? How about war--us and Israel against 80 million? Or better yet, let's let build bombs & missiles--now. Let's make it a nuclear war--tomorrow.
Or--how about putting all that off for a decade or more? How about allowing a moderate opposition to coalesce in Iran? How about fostering a prosperous society with a stake in peace?
Or--how about putting all that off for a decade or more? How about allowing a moderate opposition to coalesce in Iran? How about fostering a prosperous society with a stake in peace?
1
You all are going to find this odd, but even honest Republicans want this president to have an honest legacy. And preventing war certainly would be a shot at that. The problem many of us have with this particular attempt at it is that we don't believe for a moment that this deal will secure that objective.
You see, there's no rule that says the U.S. needs to go to war again in the Middle East, to counter a nuclear-armed Iran or for any other reason. The problem is that if we telegraph to the world that we won't go to serious war for ANY reason, we get the world we see developing around us every day. And we still get war -- it may not be us that fights it initially, but Saudis and Egyptians on one side and Iran on the other; or Israel and Iran; or an entrenched ISIS and Iran. In any event, a nuclear bomb in the hands of revolutionary Islamists SHOULD be enough to send a chill up the spine of ANYBODY. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that north of 40 MILLION American jobs hinge on global trade, to one extent or another, and those jobs are threatened in a world destabilized by war that affects its sources of energy.
Many believe that Mr. Obama simply THINKS he's foreclosed paths to a quick bomb by an entire NATION, soon again to have swelled petroleum pockets.
In the end, most of us want a real, positive legacy for this truly historic president. But we see him pursuing it in directions that we just don't believe will create it, but will encourage catastrophe.
You see, there's no rule that says the U.S. needs to go to war again in the Middle East, to counter a nuclear-armed Iran or for any other reason. The problem is that if we telegraph to the world that we won't go to serious war for ANY reason, we get the world we see developing around us every day. And we still get war -- it may not be us that fights it initially, but Saudis and Egyptians on one side and Iran on the other; or Israel and Iran; or an entrenched ISIS and Iran. In any event, a nuclear bomb in the hands of revolutionary Islamists SHOULD be enough to send a chill up the spine of ANYBODY. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that north of 40 MILLION American jobs hinge on global trade, to one extent or another, and those jobs are threatened in a world destabilized by war that affects its sources of energy.
Many believe that Mr. Obama simply THINKS he's foreclosed paths to a quick bomb by an entire NATION, soon again to have swelled petroleum pockets.
In the end, most of us want a real, positive legacy for this truly historic president. But we see him pursuing it in directions that we just don't believe will create it, but will encourage catastrophe.
The opponents of this agreement state it will allow Iran to have more funds to support their "proxies" in the middle east. Is that not what we do? Are we not saying we will increase this support to offset those concerns? Another article states the Republicans have already vowed to do everything possible to stop the agreement without even taking the time to review it? They are already using this diplomatic approach as a political tool for the upcoming election. Is that not completely self-serving? When someone like Scott Walker, who knows nothing about foreign policy, states the agreement needs to be defeated, does that not show how politics is now part of our foreign policy? What a circus the Republicans are going to put on regarding this diplomatic success. Sit back and watch the show!
Many ask what is the alternative to this deal?
Very simple.
Keep things exactly as they are and tighten the sanctions.
How does that prevent Iran from getting the bomb?
By recognizing reality.
It prevents Iran from getting the bomb by recognizing that the only thing that has really ever prevented Iran, (or Iraq and Syria in the past) from getting the bomb is the credible threat of military strikes. That is the only thing that has prevented them from going full nuclear in the past, present, or future.
Inspections are meaningless in a country as large and sophisticated as Iran. They have fooled them many times before, (by the inspectors own admission) giving an illusion of security while Iran builds secretly.
So why keep sanctions in place?
Sanctions serve an entirely different critical purpose. They check Iran's growing power at a time of severe regional turmoil that has opened opportunity for Iran to dominate the region.
How can we maintain a credible military threat?
By going in the exact opposite direction we are going in now. If Iran would know that Israel has full US support to attack if they cross certain red lines than it would not come to that point. Attacking one facility as a demonstration would be enough as well. A credible threat would prevent the possibility of real war. It has for many years now.
Bottom line:
We are giving Iran new strength and access to billions, plus weakening the only real deterrence, in exchange for an illusion of security.
Very simple.
Keep things exactly as they are and tighten the sanctions.
How does that prevent Iran from getting the bomb?
By recognizing reality.
It prevents Iran from getting the bomb by recognizing that the only thing that has really ever prevented Iran, (or Iraq and Syria in the past) from getting the bomb is the credible threat of military strikes. That is the only thing that has prevented them from going full nuclear in the past, present, or future.
Inspections are meaningless in a country as large and sophisticated as Iran. They have fooled them many times before, (by the inspectors own admission) giving an illusion of security while Iran builds secretly.
So why keep sanctions in place?
Sanctions serve an entirely different critical purpose. They check Iran's growing power at a time of severe regional turmoil that has opened opportunity for Iran to dominate the region.
How can we maintain a credible military threat?
By going in the exact opposite direction we are going in now. If Iran would know that Israel has full US support to attack if they cross certain red lines than it would not come to that point. Attacking one facility as a demonstration would be enough as well. A credible threat would prevent the possibility of real war. It has for many years now.
Bottom line:
We are giving Iran new strength and access to billions, plus weakening the only real deterrence, in exchange for an illusion of security.
1
The President's line about '...when we are able to see their country and their culture in specific terms, historical terms, as opposed to applying a
broadbrush..." sounds a lot like the Kennedy 'stand in someone's shoes' axiom.*
What the Prez can not say, because it blows the whole rule Britannia the sun never sets on our flag bit (we inherited, or usurped, as Brittan sank following its heavy weight bouts with Germany) is that The world was just going to start ignoring the sanctions anyway. Trade was going to happen, if not with currency flowing through Brussels, then Shanghai. Further China and Russia are going to sell modern arms---in order to help Iran kill the Islamic Gollum we created to go after Afghanistan and then CA, that has got out of hand, being DAESH.
So better something formal than an erosion. & since it is formal for the EU plus three (plus everybody) any sourgrape scorched earth "rejection" beating a veto by the Goppers here will make no difference to the other players. They will do their deals with Tehran, period
(and wasn't 'stand in some one else's shoes' the last graf in MOCKINGBIRD?)
broadbrush..." sounds a lot like the Kennedy 'stand in someone's shoes' axiom.*
What the Prez can not say, because it blows the whole rule Britannia the sun never sets on our flag bit (we inherited, or usurped, as Brittan sank following its heavy weight bouts with Germany) is that The world was just going to start ignoring the sanctions anyway. Trade was going to happen, if not with currency flowing through Brussels, then Shanghai. Further China and Russia are going to sell modern arms---in order to help Iran kill the Islamic Gollum we created to go after Afghanistan and then CA, that has got out of hand, being DAESH.
So better something formal than an erosion. & since it is formal for the EU plus three (plus everybody) any sourgrape scorched earth "rejection" beating a veto by the Goppers here will make no difference to the other players. They will do their deals with Tehran, period
(and wasn't 'stand in some one else's shoes' the last graf in MOCKINGBIRD?)
Solve the small problems, don't waste time trying to solve huge ones. This agreement greatly reduces Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon within the next 10-15 years. AMEN.
1
I so enjoyed how Mr. Friedman blithely mentioned that Prime Minister Netanyahu would be leading the opposition in the US Congress against the Iranian Agreement. Of course we all know the drill, Netanyahu will address the joint session of Congress and Congressmen will politely applaud, and on cue stand and cheer. In the end, the agreement will pass.
Then Mr. Friedman tacitly lobbied President Obama on whether there would be any free goodies, aka new weapons technology for Israel that might sweeten the deal. How utterly pathetic. When is the NYTimes going to accurately illuminate the dichotomy of Israel where it propagates this false idea that their very existence is at issue, yet it sells weapons using technology harvested from the free US weapons to their number one customer, China? When is Israel's weapons sales to China going to be considered an existential threat to America? Oh I get it, Netanyahu will instead draw a new red line using an Israeli developed ultra micron Sharpy to add a hairline fracture
to the chart on how close Iran is to developing a nuclear weapon. Oh wait that was three years ago. I so look forward to that expose on Israel's weapons sales to China, thank you NYTimes.
Then Mr. Friedman tacitly lobbied President Obama on whether there would be any free goodies, aka new weapons technology for Israel that might sweeten the deal. How utterly pathetic. When is the NYTimes going to accurately illuminate the dichotomy of Israel where it propagates this false idea that their very existence is at issue, yet it sells weapons using technology harvested from the free US weapons to their number one customer, China? When is Israel's weapons sales to China going to be considered an existential threat to America? Oh I get it, Netanyahu will instead draw a new red line using an Israeli developed ultra micron Sharpy to add a hairline fracture
to the chart on how close Iran is to developing a nuclear weapon. Oh wait that was three years ago. I so look forward to that expose on Israel's weapons sales to China, thank you NYTimes.
1
Let's face it, Republican most vocal critics' preferred policy would be to "bomb, bomb, Iran." That alternative would be insane and much of this continued repudiation goes back to a strategic planning meeting Republicans had the night of Mr. Obama's inauguration in 2009: "we intend to do everything to make this (black) man fail in his presidency, jab Obama relentlessly."
Republicans surprised no one with their long-ago agreed to NO, harkening back to McConnell's declaration of no cooperation with the newly elected President.
If Mr. Obama had delivered all of Iran's centrifuges to Boehner's doorstep, the answer would still be no.
And one of the Republican's favorites, Russian President Putin, "real leader", signed the deal.
Maybe this will keep Trump's insanity off the front pages for a while, a boon for the Clown Car.
If Mr. Obama had delivered all of Iran's centrifuges to Boehner's doorstep, the answer would still be no.
And one of the Republican's favorites, Russian President Putin, "real leader", signed the deal.
Maybe this will keep Trump's insanity off the front pages for a while, a boon for the Clown Car.
How does the President explain not getting the release of the 4 americans that are in a prison in Iran? This is typical for the worst negotiator in the history of the world. What a disgrace and we are worse off for it.
My concern is that Congress is too long on ideology and too short on intellectual capacity to be of much use in deliberation.
How can the agreement be verified without access?
Netanyahu, Adelson, AIPAC, and Saudi Arabia with other Sunni monarchies were against this negotiation before it concluded. They are against it now. What do they offer? Bomb Iran?
Israel's extremist leader has already demonstrated his lack of manners, his disrespect, and his willingness to employ the rabid Republican opposition to anything Obama. He hopes to rally Congress to defeat this agreement by provoking fear in the American Jewish community, mustering Adelson's money and that of Adelson's friends, and openly using racist tactics against our President as he did before. Netanyahu has no gratitude for Obama's support for Israel. He has aligned himself with the WAR wing of American politics.
Americans recognize that this negotiated plan is not perfect. Americans know that, in the middle east, only Israel has nuclear weapons and the full support of America in the event it is attacked. Americans also recognize that Netanyahu was among those who provoked our disastrous war in Iraq. Americans know that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, and ghettoizing those lands and annexing and settling those lands have provided inspiration to Arab terrorists throughout the world. Americans are not willing to risk this peaceful negotiation with Iran, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China and join extremists in Israel who want to bomb Iran or Republicans who want to bomb Iran. Americans want to give diplomacy a chance and support the President who we elected twice.
Israel's extremist leader has already demonstrated his lack of manners, his disrespect, and his willingness to employ the rabid Republican opposition to anything Obama. He hopes to rally Congress to defeat this agreement by provoking fear in the American Jewish community, mustering Adelson's money and that of Adelson's friends, and openly using racist tactics against our President as he did before. Netanyahu has no gratitude for Obama's support for Israel. He has aligned himself with the WAR wing of American politics.
Americans recognize that this negotiated plan is not perfect. Americans know that, in the middle east, only Israel has nuclear weapons and the full support of America in the event it is attacked. Americans also recognize that Netanyahu was among those who provoked our disastrous war in Iraq. Americans know that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, and ghettoizing those lands and annexing and settling those lands have provided inspiration to Arab terrorists throughout the world. Americans are not willing to risk this peaceful negotiation with Iran, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China and join extremists in Israel who want to bomb Iran or Republicans who want to bomb Iran. Americans want to give diplomacy a chance and support the President who we elected twice.
1
Thank you for this column, Mr. Friedman. The article says “We are not measuring this deal by whether it is changing the regime inside of Iran,” said the president." WE the people are measuring the deal as putting a stop to the war mongers of the world who would suck up more of OUR resources and OUR children for another war in the middle east. No more money for war. No more poor children as war fodder. No more war. Thanks to President Obama, Secretaries Clinton and Kerry, leaders of the other countries involved and all those who helped bring this agreement about. WE can have peace if we elect the right leaders!
7
Indeed. "Peace in our time," they said.
Much of what Obama says is quite true about the dilemma of having or not having a deal with Iran. Unfortunately there are many hawks in the Congress, who won't agree with him, just for the sake of selfish politics, not for the sake of global common good. They have support from Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Obama is also right about Iran, deserving to be a regional power. If its relations improved with Washington, the US would regain an ally, lost after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. For years the US supported the Shah regime, which had excellent relations with Washington. Saudi Arabia became America's regional ally, only after the hostage crisis in Tehran in 1979.
Unfortunately we have in the Middle East a bunch of intransigent gerontocrats, who indulge in power games that oil money affords them. Sunnis and Shias had had a long history of coexistence. Much changed since the discovery of oil and the economic clout that comes along. The Sunni Arabs have become assertive. They now fear that the lifting of sanctions would help Iran sell more of its oil, competing with them on the world market, while helping Tehran consolidate power in the region. Saudi Arabia has a strong Shia population in its oil-rich Eastern Province.
Obama is also right about Iran, deserving to be a regional power. If its relations improved with Washington, the US would regain an ally, lost after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. For years the US supported the Shah regime, which had excellent relations with Washington. Saudi Arabia became America's regional ally, only after the hostage crisis in Tehran in 1979.
Unfortunately we have in the Middle East a bunch of intransigent gerontocrats, who indulge in power games that oil money affords them. Sunnis and Shias had had a long history of coexistence. Much changed since the discovery of oil and the economic clout that comes along. The Sunni Arabs have become assertive. They now fear that the lifting of sanctions would help Iran sell more of its oil, competing with them on the world market, while helping Tehran consolidate power in the region. Saudi Arabia has a strong Shia population in its oil-rich Eastern Province.
5
Interesting how Obama cleverly deflects responsibility for sticking to these terms to "our friends". He talks about "engagement with the Middle Eastern countries" as if he has been successful in bringing our "Arab friends" to the table to enforce them as well. Judging from their response, I'd say this was not the case at all.
The Obama Doctrine in the Middle East seems to be to move responsibility for events there to someone else. He is creating a regime to remove sanctions while cleverly sliding away from the responsibility for enforcing it.
The Obama Doctrine in the Middle East seems to be to move responsibility for events there to someone else. He is creating a regime to remove sanctions while cleverly sliding away from the responsibility for enforcing it.
13
Excellent analysis. Would that we COULD move responsibility for the EFFECTS of events there to the regional players alone; but, alas, they sit atop the energy source for much of a world that serves as our markets and suppliers, and the sustaining global trade force for north of 40 MILLION American jobs, to one extent or another.
As long as oil is as important as it is, we won't avoid responsibility for enabling SOME degree of stability in that part of the world, in our OWN self-interest. And this deal not only doesn't get us there, it makes our required future involvement that much MORE intense and expensive, likely in both fortune AND blood.
As long as oil is as important as it is, we won't avoid responsibility for enabling SOME degree of stability in that part of the world, in our OWN self-interest. And this deal not only doesn't get us there, it makes our required future involvement that much MORE intense and expensive, likely in both fortune AND blood.
1
As opposed to the Bush Administration, which took it upon itself to eschew international negotiation and spend trillions of dollars, countless lives, and America's standing in the world, only to leave the region (much, much) worse off than when he took office.
Diplomacy. What a blunder.
Diplomacy. What a blunder.
I debated responding to this and felt I had to.
Could you not disagree while sticking to the truth? How is Obama moving responsibility to someone else? How is he moving away from the responsibility to enforce sanctions? It's pretty clear that neither of these things is true.
It has become a staple of many professional talking heads and people who respond in venues like this, to lie, dissemble, prevaricate about the story on which they are commenting, even as the facts are easily verifiable.
I don't understand what satisfaction is gleaned from this kind of intellectual dishonesty.
Could you not disagree while sticking to the truth? How is Obama moving responsibility to someone else? How is he moving away from the responsibility to enforce sanctions? It's pretty clear that neither of these things is true.
It has become a staple of many professional talking heads and people who respond in venues like this, to lie, dissemble, prevaricate about the story on which they are commenting, even as the facts are easily verifiable.
I don't understand what satisfaction is gleaned from this kind of intellectual dishonesty.
2
I sure like the way the President talks in this interview. He and his people are trying to think of all the angles. Quite different from the Republican and some Democrats mono 'Iran evil' mantra. I just don't understand why he picks Friedman to talk to. How about Christian Amapour?? It's like when he talked to O'Reilly on super bowl day. Anyway Obama sounds very thoughtful here.
11
The only alternative to an agreement that opponents have is war. And we know how well that went in Iraq. So puhleez, this is as good a deal as it gets. How do you take back the knowledge that a society has? There are many smart and talented Iranians. Let us work with them instead of trying to "bomb them back to the stone ages" as John McCain, Bibi Netanyahu and their friends would prefer. Give peace and humanity a chance.
12
"No deal" was and still remains an option. It was the president who decided sanctions weren't working and that war was inevitable if we didn't proceed.
This is not unlike his rationalizations that "he had no choice" in other endeavors where he doesn't have support and needs to justify his actions.
This is not unlike his rationalizations that "he had no choice" in other endeavors where he doesn't have support and needs to justify his actions.
7
He said that our friends who agreed to sanctions were getting restive, especially those who are dependent on importing foreign oil and have taken an economic hit because they agreed to the embargo.
The rest of the civilized world wants an agreement, our allies in Europe support this across the board, along with Japan, India, etc. And the American people by a large margin don't want to go to war. This is a good deal for everyone, and as Obama says Israel will be safer because of it.
The rest of the civilized world wants an agreement, our allies in Europe support this across the board, along with Japan, India, etc. And the American people by a large margin don't want to go to war. This is a good deal for everyone, and as Obama says Israel will be safer because of it.
1
No deal means that Iran would be free to pursue making a nuclear bomb.
I think the President is naïve, but we have to hope that the inspectors and inspections are vigorous and timely. IRAN will cheat at every opportunity, and their worldwide terror network is going to be strengthened with the release of the money.
I just hope that Israel isn't wiped out before we wake up.
I just hope that Israel isn't wiped out before we wake up.
6
OK, so Nixon could go to China, and negotiate arms deals with the USSR. Reagan sold arms to Iran and negotiated arms deals with the USSR, and now the GOP only wants confrontation and war threats. Because [now] you don't talk to bad people.
Were the GOP's prior leaders were such failures? While the guy who took the confrontation and war approach, Bush, proved that this is the effective way?
Warped thinking from warped thinkers.
Were the GOP's prior leaders were such failures? While the guy who took the confrontation and war approach, Bush, proved that this is the effective way?
Warped thinking from warped thinkers.
10
"And what I’m going to be able to say, and I think we will be able to prove, is that this by a wide margin is the most definitive path by which Iran will not get a nuclear weapon"
For the next few years....
so long as they keep to the agreement....
So they were under world sanctions and inspections and they were getting close to the "bomb"
But now because you have an agreement for inspections....they'll play nice....
For the next few years....
so long as they keep to the agreement....
So they were under world sanctions and inspections and they were getting close to the "bomb"
But now because you have an agreement for inspections....they'll play nice....
5
I think President Obama's most important point was that sanctions would not be permanent because other countries would not maintain them. This is the fatal flaw in the Republican criticism, which presumes that sanctions could have driven Iran into the ground, giving the US more leverage to eliminate all nuclear capacity in Iran. The sanctions would have actually let off with time, reducing leverage.
I hope that news organizations start confronting Republican critics with this fact, and ask them what they would do in those circumstances - you know, the real ones.
I hope that news organizations start confronting Republican critics with this fact, and ask them what they would do in those circumstances - you know, the real ones.
17
Can you point to one story, anywhere in the world, that covers protestations by other sanctions countries that they are running out of patience?
Google this "china complains Iran sanctions", you'll come up with exactly nothing that supports that contention. (Although you will see "Why China Loses Out If Sanctions On Iran Are Lifted" in the Agence France Presse.)
The truth is, the Obama administration wanted this deal before he left the White House. The timing was driven by him, not the other sanctions countries. He is being, at best, disingenuous with that assertion.
Google this "china complains Iran sanctions", you'll come up with exactly nothing that supports that contention. (Although you will see "Why China Loses Out If Sanctions On Iran Are Lifted" in the Agence France Presse.)
The truth is, the Obama administration wanted this deal before he left the White House. The timing was driven by him, not the other sanctions countries. He is being, at best, disingenuous with that assertion.
I would agree that he is being disingenuous by naming China and Russia, which would either not care too much (China) or want continued oil price support (Russia). In reality, it's European countries that would want to end sanctions in order to prop up the Euro with Iranian business. Of course, this can't be said out loud.
Agreed. Not to mention that sanctions (like austerity policy) invariably harm the wrong people. Those funding terrorists have the means to find ways around sanctions - it's the common people just trying to get by who are hurt the most by economic isolation.
Can we please just assemble the diplomats and bureaucrats who assembled the Nuclear regulatory agreement with North Korea which promised to limit that country's nuclear club admittance through inspections and threat of "snap back" sanctions?
How's that agreement working out?
How's that agreement working out?
8
As you probably know, jubilee133, things did not go well. The North Korea agreement was signed in September 2005, early in the second term of George W. Bush. About a year later, North Korea detonated an atomic bomb and became the 8th member of the “nuclear club”, as you put it. Three weeks later, North Korea agreed to a new round of talks, which took place in February of 2007. The Bush negotiators agreed to send $400 million in fuel oil, and North Korea agreed to begin disabling nuclear equipment and to allow inspectors back in the country.
Other than blowing up one cooling tower in the Spring of 2007, nothing much happened, and inspectors were never allowed access. North Korea complained they were still on a list of state sponsors of terrorism, and by September 2008 they were reprocessing plutonium. Whether or not they had ever stopped is unknown. The Bush team removed them from the terrorism list, and North Korea renewed its old promises. By December, North Korea announced that there would be no more talks and that they were accelerating their nuclear program.
Other than blowing up one cooling tower in the Spring of 2007, nothing much happened, and inspectors were never allowed access. North Korea complained they were still on a list of state sponsors of terrorism, and by September 2008 they were reprocessing plutonium. Whether or not they had ever stopped is unknown. The Bush team removed them from the terrorism list, and North Korea renewed its old promises. By December, North Korea announced that there would be no more talks and that they were accelerating their nuclear program.
My fear, after reading this article, is the President's thinking is far too complex for our public to understand and Congress, I think we all know the level of thinking in that governmental body. Maybe, he should forget about justifying this from an strategic standpoint, and instead, sell it Mad Men style, with the $2.00 a gallon gas strategy --- Americans will support anything that gets them back in an SUV.
77
The world is complex. Much of our interconnectedness interdependence is invisible to most people who overlook the possibilities of so many peaceful options available to us.
1
I highly doubt that this is a case of Obama playing chess while the world plays checkers. Zero proof of that these past 6 years..
ACJ - What you have written, in other words, is those who agree with the President are very smart while those who disagree with him are very stupid! So say you for the nation.
In one sentence thought, Iran will not be able to produce a nuclear weapon for ten years and in another they will not be able to produce a nuclear weapon. Isn't there an obvious inconsistency in his statement?
3
Agree or disagree with him, the President is clearly one of the brightest, most thoughtful politicians to sit in the White House in a long time. Can you imagine George W Bush sitting down for such an interview and providing such a thoughtful, clearly stated analysis? The "give it to me in one page" guy couldn't possibly have been so subtle.
As for the rest of today's Republicans, maybe if they had ever met an Obama proposal they liked, they would have more credibility in challenging this one. But they have shown that they simply say "black" every time he says "white" and so have no credibility. Only an idiot would vote for another idiot like the clowns vying for the Republican nomination now.
As for the rest of today's Republicans, maybe if they had ever met an Obama proposal they liked, they would have more credibility in challenging this one. But they have shown that they simply say "black" every time he says "white" and so have no credibility. Only an idiot would vote for another idiot like the clowns vying for the Republican nomination now.
23
Well, they certainly liked the TPP!
I'd still prefer Bush's straight talk over Obama's delusions.
Yes, Obama's intelligence is a great asset for a law professor. However, for someone who has to negotiate with the Iranians and set US policy for the snake-pit of the Middle East, you need a lot more than 'book smarts'.
The fear from (powerful) opponents of the Iranian deal is quite understandable. It may set a precedent in foreign policy making.
Obama is the first president in recent memory to solve a potential national security threat by diplomatic not military means.
The Iranian accord sets an 'awful' precedent in the eyes of Israel and folks benefiting from the industrial-intelligence-military complex. Diplomacy may become America's first resort to solve foreign policy conflicts.
Obama is the first president in recent memory to solve a potential national security threat by diplomatic not military means.
The Iranian accord sets an 'awful' precedent in the eyes of Israel and folks benefiting from the industrial-intelligence-military complex. Diplomacy may become America's first resort to solve foreign policy conflicts.
4
I would like to see President Obama sit down to an interview with a WSJ editorial board, who have read the agreement in full. I'm guessing the questions would be rather more pointed and we would see a very different take on the President's ability to deflect criticism of this deal.
9
President Obama is a visionary leader who takes a long view and who will not tie himself to failed paradigms just because they have become tradition. Yes, there are risks associated with Iranian negotiations and No, this deal does not address all of our concerns regarding this dangerous regime. Oversight is a big concern.
But remember how controversial Nixon's outreach to China was and the risks that Reagan took with the USSR. The fact that we are negotiating with Iran is Historic.
The opponents of this agreement have no alternative plan, except to take military action against Iran or allow its nuclear program to proceed. We must always negotiate first.
But remember how controversial Nixon's outreach to China was and the risks that Reagan took with the USSR. The fact that we are negotiating with Iran is Historic.
The opponents of this agreement have no alternative plan, except to take military action against Iran or allow its nuclear program to proceed. We must always negotiate first.
102
For starters, Mr. Friedman and the President had a good talk and I thank them both.
It saddens me to hear and see Boehner saying he (and the rest of the Republicans) will do all in his (their) power to defeat the agreement. That is wrong and discouraging and reflects the "wrong in any case" mind set of the Republican Congress.
At least there is an agreement and it has world powers behind it. That is very important and it needs to be allowed to work.
Thinking ahead to the possibility of a Republican president chosen from the likes of a Trump or a Cruz or a Bush is frightening.
It saddens me to hear and see Boehner saying he (and the rest of the Republicans) will do all in his (their) power to defeat the agreement. That is wrong and discouraging and reflects the "wrong in any case" mind set of the Republican Congress.
At least there is an agreement and it has world powers behind it. That is very important and it needs to be allowed to work.
Thinking ahead to the possibility of a Republican president chosen from the likes of a Trump or a Cruz or a Bush is frightening.
5
This accord is not unilateral, correct. Our European allies were engaged in the negotiations and signed the proposal, right? I'll be curious to know domestic reactions in those countries, and whether their citizens support the prospect of reducing the threat of nuclear war in the ME, or whether, like many Members of Congress, they will be against the settlement before reading or understanding it.
4
If Obama had been president in the 1860s, there would still be slavery now. There is simply no evil that cannot be endured by his logic. His logic is: "what can we do about it? Are we going to have our children die because of this?" This will prevent fighting for any principle
1
Can you elaborate? The logic of your statement is hard to follow.
5
As James Rubin mentions in an adjacent op-ed, this deal's objective was to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions and should be viewed as a great victory for peaceful non proliferation. Adversaries of the negotiations in the U.S. and in the region tried from the beginning to create an amalgam trowing broader issues such as Iran's support for terrorism, the Assad regime, Houthis, etc together with the nuclear issue. This deal was never deemed as a grand bargain but might create a favorable environment to tackle common threats such as ISIS. The U.S. should not soften its stance vis a vis Iran's bad behavior but at least now there's a direct channel of communication between the two countries which can resolve some of the differences over time.
4
The bluster emanating from Republicans and the Israelis ignores the blunt truth: either this agreement is implemented, or the United States goes to war with Iran. There is no alternative built around being tough with the Iranians and maintaining the international sanctions until Iran accepts an agreement satisfactory to the hawks. The critics ignore the fact that the other signatories to the agreement believe this is the best that can currently be obtained. They are not willing to maintain the sanctions to accommodate the hawks. They will withdraw support for sanctions if the U.S. rejects the deal, leaving us with no leverage.
The Iranians, too, apparently have gone as far as they will go. Not only will they not make further concessions if this deal becomes a dead-letter, Iranian hardliners will be in the ascendency and stiffen Iranian intransigence. This would be true even if the international community maintained a unified commitment to the sanctions. But the other signatories will break away, bolstering Iran’s defiance.
Net result: the Iranians would resume their march toward producing a nuclear weapon, and eventually, the United States will have no choice but to launch a war to prevent that result. And there will be no surgical U.S. air strikes. It will be all-out war, and the U.S. will take major blows. Now, maybe the agreement is so flawed, its critics will be justified in rejecting it. But let us not doubt the consequences.
The Iranians, too, apparently have gone as far as they will go. Not only will they not make further concessions if this deal becomes a dead-letter, Iranian hardliners will be in the ascendency and stiffen Iranian intransigence. This would be true even if the international community maintained a unified commitment to the sanctions. But the other signatories will break away, bolstering Iran’s defiance.
Net result: the Iranians would resume their march toward producing a nuclear weapon, and eventually, the United States will have no choice but to launch a war to prevent that result. And there will be no surgical U.S. air strikes. It will be all-out war, and the U.S. will take major blows. Now, maybe the agreement is so flawed, its critics will be justified in rejecting it. But let us not doubt the consequences.
5
The President claims that this deal will prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. If so, then he has kept his earlier assurances that Iran will never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons--and he deserves great praise for having done so.
But critics claim that it only prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons for 10 years or the like. In the scheme of things, that's not a very long period of time. If this is the case, then the President is overstating things when he says that the deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; it simply postpones the problem for a short time.
Obviously, we are in no position to judge until we see the deal, but I think that we should reserve our enthusiasm at least until that time.
But critics claim that it only prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons for 10 years or the like. In the scheme of things, that's not a very long period of time. If this is the case, then the President is overstating things when he says that the deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; it simply postpones the problem for a short time.
Obviously, we are in no position to judge until we see the deal, but I think that we should reserve our enthusiasm at least until that time.
3
Since when are Republicans interested in logic? They're opposing the deal before they even know what's in it. It's being opposed not on its merits but, like the attempt to make him a one term president, because he is Obama and cannot be allowed to succeed even when it is in the national interest. There is no serious viable alternative short of starting another middle east war which Republicans are always eager to do of course (as are the Israelis who think they own us). It's very unlikely Republicans are going to derail this agreement but what if they did manage to force us to renege on it? What are the countries involved going to do? Leaving aside that three of our closest allies have signed off on it, China and Russia would love the opportunity to break ranks and start assisting Iran who would be entirely freed from any constraints by our rejection. So where does that leave us? Another war as the only alternative? This is as Obama says the best option on the table and in the longer term gives us the opportunity to normalize relations with Iran. China and Vietnam are responsible for the deaths of many more Americans than ever Iran has been and we've ultimately come to the table with them. Why is Iran different?
9
Some Republicans are opposed, some Democrats are opposed (see former Senator Lieberman's remarks yesterday before the House Foreign Affairs Committee), some Republican's are for it, with reservations (Ambassador Burns at the same hearing) and retired military are cautious (General Hayden at the hearing, as well as other retired generals). This is a tough call, the agreement is far from perfect, but then Iran is a sovereign nation and coercion, short of war, can only go so far. This is a time for lowered partisanship, the issue is too important.
I do think Mr. Pombriant's view (below) is a wise one.
I do think Mr. Pombriant's view (below) is a wise one.
@A.S.R.
Kansas
Are you serious? Since when is Burns a representative of official Republican opinion in congress or amongst presidential candidates? They are all unanimously against it or hadn't you noticed?
Kansas
Are you serious? Since when is Burns a representative of official Republican opinion in congress or amongst presidential candidates? They are all unanimously against it or hadn't you noticed?
It would be helpful to regard this deal not as a transaction but as a set of rules of engagement. We now have a way to engage with Iran that we have not had since 1979 and it is our responsibility to now engage according to the terms of the agreement. If we neglect the agreement there will certainly be cheating but if we continue to engage throughout its life we can reasonably expect reciprocity.
61
Congratulations Presidents Putin and Obama. It took both of you to stand firm and keep the peace. Next, eliminate all nuclear weapons. Remember, Russia offered to eliminate all their nuclear weapons, America failed to accept, now President Obama can join hands with Putin and do away with all nuclear weapons in this small plant of ours!
Bless the peace keepers, Putin and Obama, thank you both.
Bless the peace keepers, Putin and Obama, thank you both.
Join hands with Putin? What insanity has gripped the planet? Next you will want to give the Ayatollah a Nobel peace prize?
1
The naivete of some commentators is staggering. The NYT reports today that Russia violated previous commitments on Ukraine and is strongly believed to be about to violate another, yet you want to congratulate peacekeeper Putin and wants us to remember that Putin offered to eliminate Russia's nuclear weapons. I urge you to remember that Adolf Hitler made many promises as well as he swallowed smaller pieces of territory until he started WWII. Promises are worthless.
The historic nuclear control agreement reached with Iran provides a unique, 11th-hour opportunity to avert a deadly military confrontation with a hitherto implacable Islamic government. The deal may hold the keys to stability and peace in the Middle East. We should be proud that the United States led the way in this lengthy effort, but we now face a straight up-or-down vote in the Senate for approval.
Republicans oppose the agreement, as does the government of Israel and, probably, Saudi Arabia. The rest of the world appears to be very happy and relieved with this diplomatic breakthrough. Normalization of relations with Iran and a greater voice of the Iranian people in their governance are expected to be agreement byproducts, but in his recent interview President Obama stressed that containing the Iranian nuclear program was the sole focus of negotiations.
President Obama with his cool, almost detached analysis stands out from the Republicans applying war paint to their faces and from the other usual all-in advocates for Israel girding for battle. Whether the Obama calmness will win the hearts and minds of Americans is not yet known, but he certainly is much more presidential than any of the 15 posturing Republicans now seeking to be our next president.
President Obama's ability to focus on what really matters also contrasts with the Republican alarmists hunting a political edge. None of the opponents to the agreement have stepped forward with a plausible alternative.
Republicans oppose the agreement, as does the government of Israel and, probably, Saudi Arabia. The rest of the world appears to be very happy and relieved with this diplomatic breakthrough. Normalization of relations with Iran and a greater voice of the Iranian people in their governance are expected to be agreement byproducts, but in his recent interview President Obama stressed that containing the Iranian nuclear program was the sole focus of negotiations.
President Obama with his cool, almost detached analysis stands out from the Republicans applying war paint to their faces and from the other usual all-in advocates for Israel girding for battle. Whether the Obama calmness will win the hearts and minds of Americans is not yet known, but he certainly is much more presidential than any of the 15 posturing Republicans now seeking to be our next president.
President Obama's ability to focus on what really matters also contrasts with the Republican alarmists hunting a political edge. None of the opponents to the agreement have stepped forward with a plausible alternative.
159
This is just the logic Abraham Lincoln should have used to avoid the massive number of deaths of the U.S. Civil War and Roosevelt should have used to stay out of WW II in Europe.
To say that the rest of the world is 'very happy' about this deal is overstating the case I'm afraid. The rest of the world is skeptical at best.
Contrast Obama the thinker vs. Bush the Younger the "believer".
I'm not strong in the domain of nuclear physics, but common sense tells me that instituting a regime of inspections and monitoring would be better than none, which is what we have now, and we still always have the military option. We still have the bombers and the pilots and we can always resort to shock and awe, because look how well that worked out in Iraq. We have all forgotten that there were weapons inspectors in Iraq before 2003 and in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction there when our military arrived, on the premise that there were such weapons, and failed to find them. So, in that case, it looks as though the weapons inspectors were effective and the military response that came anyways was an unmitigated disaster.
7
I leave an evaluation of the merits of the deal to far more knowledgeable and sophisticated commentators. To those Republican Congressmen opposed to this deal without having read the hundred plus pages of it, when you vote against it, please be sure to include an amendment to reinstate the selective service draft system for every US citizen. That will insure that ALL the American people have a real stake in the consequences of your decision-making. You can even include undocumented immigrants in that amendment. That will surely persuade them to self-deport!
9
The Congressional opponents to this deal are not "skeptics." They oppose the deal because it pleases Netanyahu to do so. It pleases the US oil companies to do so (unsanctioned Iranian oil will further reduce the price per barrel) and, they can't tolerate the reality that Obama has once more proven that a Democrat, and a black one at that, has shown a manner of statesmanship and political leadership that they are unable to match.
Plus, SecState John Kerry, with his brilliant and indefatiguable efforts these past 20 months has exposed the war mongering bluster of the likes of McCain and his Republican followers for the dangerous creatures that they are to this country.
Plus, SecState John Kerry, with his brilliant and indefatiguable efforts these past 20 months has exposed the war mongering bluster of the likes of McCain and his Republican followers for the dangerous creatures that they are to this country.
12
Most inspiring to see john Kerry work nonstop using crutches, despite leg surgery. He is great, proud of him our former senator.
1
I find it particularly galling that the leader of what is in reality a rogue nation dominated by a group of religious extremists, itself sitting on a huge undeclared arsenal of atomic weapon, including hydrogen bombs, would so vocally oppose this sensible agreement. Perhaps the only thing more galling is that this tiny nation, the largest single recipient of US foreign aid over the last 4 decades, can skillfully use checkbook lobbying to so influence our Congress that there can be concern that Congress might torpedo the agreement.
Israel with at least 200 nuclear weapons is not a member of the IAEA, refuses to sign the NPT & allows no international inspections of its nuclear facilities. How is it possible that so many members of Congress blithely condone this behavior while criticizing the agreement with Iran. The answer is money spread widely throughout the halls of Congress by the clever operatives of the AIPAC.
Shameful!!
Israel with at least 200 nuclear weapons is not a member of the IAEA, refuses to sign the NPT & allows no international inspections of its nuclear facilities. How is it possible that so many members of Congress blithely condone this behavior while criticizing the agreement with Iran. The answer is money spread widely throughout the halls of Congress by the clever operatives of the AIPAC.
Shameful!!
55
Complete and total nonsense, just the usual anti-Israel rant that passes for thoughtful analysis in so-called "progressive" circles.
Maybe the answer to your last question is that for the past 35 years, Iran has consistently worked to undermine US interests in the Middle East, attack US allies, fund groups that killed US citizens and soldiers (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq) etcc.....and there is on inkling in this deal that Iran intends to change any of this behavior.
Maybe the answer to your last question is that for the past 35 years, Iran has consistently worked to undermine US interests in the Middle East, attack US allies, fund groups that killed US citizens and soldiers (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq) etcc.....and there is on inkling in this deal that Iran intends to change any of this behavior.
History will not be kind to the Obama/Kerry foreign policy. Gambling with the existence of nations (western and otherwise) and our own security poses unacceptable risks and consequences. Politically, he may have handed the Republicans the next election.
18
This president chose peace over war. Au contrary, history will treat this presidents as one of the best president. We see the result of 2003 invasion.
2
Has history been kind to President Reagan who actually gave Iran arms during the height of the Iran crisis - not to mention in doing so, drew Panama into the mess?
Nonsense.
The dramatic contrast of the intelligent, thoughtful and articulate Obama, compared to the host of the woefully less capable GOP representatives who will criticize this deal is truly awe inspiring. The level of nuance and determination that has been employed on this deal, struck such as it was with a country which only now has an opportunity now to enter into meaningful relationships with the rest of the world, is a momentous event, and deserves the equivalent of a Nobel Peace Prize times 100 for the negotiators. As someone who spent time in the Middle East negotiating constantly with Arabs on much lesser matters, I can only say that the ability of the negotiators to work tirelessly to achieve the proper results is probably going to be remembered as one of the most difficult, yet gratifying achievements to ever come out of this region of the world.
Hopefully, Iran will make the choices necessary over time to utilize this deal as a springboard to integrating itself into a community of nations, and eventually become a moderate force that helps lead other war torn Middle East countries out of their sectarian and 3rd World ways.
As for the critics, may they go quietly when it comes time for Congress to vote. For once, may the moderates in the GOP do the right thing, and vote to approve this deal.
Hopefully, Iran will make the choices necessary over time to utilize this deal as a springboard to integrating itself into a community of nations, and eventually become a moderate force that helps lead other war torn Middle East countries out of their sectarian and 3rd World ways.
As for the critics, may they go quietly when it comes time for Congress to vote. For once, may the moderates in the GOP do the right thing, and vote to approve this deal.
260
What do Arabs have to do with this? You might as well have said you have experience negotiating with Jews or Christians. Persians are not Arabs.
What moderates?
Iran will no more become our friend than the USSR did after we negotiated arms treaties with them. The two countries simply have (mostly) opposite goals in that region. That is the world's balance of power paradigm as long as there has been human civilizations. As w the USSR, we don't need them as friends/allies; we simply want to co-exist without war.
Mr. Obama's critics would attack this deal no matter the logic or outcome. The critics are of the von Clausewitz variety, "war is diplomacy by other means". We have the evidence in Iraq and Afghanistan of just how well that works.
Iran may be lying, may be trying to build nuclear devices or, if they are really intent on starting a worldwide conflagration, may just be developing chemical/biological weapons (Since our "intelligence" agencies are looking at nuclear material, I would assume in their own, bumbling fashion, they are completely ignoring these other 2 more "concealable" WMD's).
In any case, Congress and the plethora of GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE presidential candidates will be screaming "bloody murder" as long as it's some unfortunate soldier's blood and the murder of Mid East people and not their own skins on the line.
Thank you, Mr. President for, at least, a verifiable deal versus another war without winning.
Iran may be lying, may be trying to build nuclear devices or, if they are really intent on starting a worldwide conflagration, may just be developing chemical/biological weapons (Since our "intelligence" agencies are looking at nuclear material, I would assume in their own, bumbling fashion, they are completely ignoring these other 2 more "concealable" WMD's).
In any case, Congress and the plethora of GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE presidential candidates will be screaming "bloody murder" as long as it's some unfortunate soldier's blood and the murder of Mid East people and not their own skins on the line.
Thank you, Mr. President for, at least, a verifiable deal versus another war without winning.
18
President Obama is the prototypical model of a modern President because of his knowledge and reach across technology, politics and goodwill. Someone that can articulate nuance of physics and console family and National grief. I wonder why anyone might think him unworthy of his Presidency yet historians will certainly count him among the best.
39
This agreement came pretty much as a surprise. We deserve credit for persistence and for proposing a workable solution. But anyone who knows how it works knows that the key to success was that Ali Khamenei and the other ruling clerics came around. When they get serious about explaining this agreement to us, they will tell us why they think the clerics changed their minds.
Netanyahu is 'in bed' with Saudi, other region's Arab countries objecting the 'deal'.
The greatest fault here is a myopic, narrow minded view of restraining Iran's nuclear, but leaving aside Iran's proxy meddling in the region - we see it as we speak in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, its rhetoric of (first) destroying Israel, all likely to worsen once sanctions are lifted.
Emoji
The greatest fault here is a myopic, narrow minded view of restraining Iran's nuclear, but leaving aside Iran's proxy meddling in the region - we see it as we speak in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, its rhetoric of (first) destroying Israel, all likely to worsen once sanctions are lifted.
Emoji
1
Unfortunately, our President and his sycophants seem incapable of distinguishing between attractive statements and concepts on one hand and harsh realities on the other. The bottom line for Iran's real leaders ia, first that, however egregious their violations of the agreement, the lag time in detection by the West will give them nuclear weapons at any time they wish to have them, while President Obama's loathing of serious military action and Putin and Xi Ping's agendas will immunize them against any substantial threats, military or economic, from the U.S. til at least January 2017.
5
Lets get real about all of this. Some nations in the region would love to keep Iran on the outside looking in. To them it’s more about the loss of power than trying to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Keeping Iran as the bad step child of the region serves well for those involved. The logic of bombing our way to salvation escapes me. Anyone remember the line we are going to bomb Hanoi back into the Stone Age? The other week the leader of the country we sent packing to the Stone Age was visiting the White House. We really showed those Cave Men! I suggest the folks who were against the deal before it was a deal get a crash course in History. Maybe if our learned Hawks would have did more reading and less Sabre rattling we wouldn’t be in mess we are in Iraq. Like the right is tone deaf to the Donald I guess they think war is the answer to every question. The last war we really won was seventy years ago. I guess they think if they keep trying they have to win one.
21
I can't believe the amount of people who are charmed without ever having read,seen the agreement. I personally could care less what the President or his mouth piece Mr. Friedman say, what I want is to see and read the agreement as should Congress. Only than can I make a decision as to what it means to America and the world. I do hope the NYT will publish it in its entirety.
5
Don't count on the Republicans ever reading it. Their minds are made up.
Netanyahu is 'pm bed' with Saudi, other Arab countries.
The greatest fault here is a myopic, narrow minded view of restraining Iran's nuclear, but leaving aside Iran's proxy meddling in the region - we see it as we speak in Syria, Yemen, its rhetoric of (first) destroying Israel, all likely to worsen once sanctions are lifted.
The greatest fault here is a myopic, narrow minded view of restraining Iran's nuclear, but leaving aside Iran's proxy meddling in the region - we see it as we speak in Syria, Yemen, its rhetoric of (first) destroying Israel, all likely to worsen once sanctions are lifted.
I really cannot believe the incredible naivety, even stupidity, of President Obama's admissions. The fact that he is not concerned with events that ocurred "before he was born" shows the folly of an inexperienced leader who does not recognize the continuum of history in the shaping of events.
We have two main groups of opinion: those who recognise the catastrophic consequences of the so-called "agreement" and those who for reasons known only to themselves do or will not.
All of us who recognise the folly of this White House and its ambitions must join hands, regardless of political allegiances, in securing the over two thirds majority needed to defeat a Presidential veto.
This is above party politics and the World has to know that America does not reward evil, especially the evil in our midst and stands by its long time proven friends with whom we may not always agree but nevertheless would never, never stab in the back as does this reckless agenda of appeasement and capitulation.
We have two main groups of opinion: those who recognise the catastrophic consequences of the so-called "agreement" and those who for reasons known only to themselves do or will not.
All of us who recognise the folly of this White House and its ambitions must join hands, regardless of political allegiances, in securing the over two thirds majority needed to defeat a Presidential veto.
This is above party politics and the World has to know that America does not reward evil, especially the evil in our midst and stands by its long time proven friends with whom we may not always agree but nevertheless would never, never stab in the back as does this reckless agenda of appeasement and capitulation.
5
Geoffry: So what is your solution? More same old/same old?
It is cowardly to criticize when you have an alternative.
It is cowardly to criticize when you have an alternative.
Just reading your "reasoned" Comment helps me better understand the reason why so many despair at the hope of ever achieving peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
The concessions made on the critical key points of inspections make the deal a joke. This has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice but knowing who you are dealing with and what lays ahead if the regime's nuclear ambitions are not dashed period. It is cowardice to stand down in the face of a determined opponent and America has faced worse and triumphed. The attraction of short term economic gains has prevailed for the moment but will be followed by unimaginable losses if the deal goes through in its present form.
Show me a candidate, either Democrat or Republican, that can think so clearly or express themselves with such lucidity and precision, and they will have my vote.
10
There are few countries more anti-Western than Iran. Yet the West brought Iran to its knees with its sanctions. Nobody escapes the influence of Western consumerism. It's our world and everyone is at our mercy. Like us or hate us, Coca Cola makes the world go round.
1
Since Iran does not want Nuclear weapons on the grounds that they are immoral this discussion can be described in Shakespearian terms as "Much Ado about nothing"
3
It is sad that in all of this negotiating, we have come no closer to bringing peace to any part of the Middle East, and done nothing to reduce the war efforts by terrorists from all over the globe, who keep destroying and trying to defeat any governments that even remain around Israel.
What has been the source of these nefarious plots, machinations, lies, by the neocons in their 'Project for a New American Century' ? We are seriously misled, and are just burying our heads in the sand, about all this.
And each major party let it happen, keeps letting it go on!
The Republicans cry: War! War! War! "Bomb Iran" (John McCain).
The Democrats cry: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste." (Rahm Emanuel), including a 'good war' like against identifiable 'dictators' such as Col al-Qaddafi or Pres. al-Assad, on trumped-up excuses.
Shame on both major parties, backed by the military industrial complex's money, for the shameful unconscionable policies they foist upon the unwitting populace thru their complete domination of all the major media, and goaded on by the vicious crony capitalists of today.
What has been the source of these nefarious plots, machinations, lies, by the neocons in their 'Project for a New American Century' ? We are seriously misled, and are just burying our heads in the sand, about all this.
And each major party let it happen, keeps letting it go on!
The Republicans cry: War! War! War! "Bomb Iran" (John McCain).
The Democrats cry: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste." (Rahm Emanuel), including a 'good war' like against identifiable 'dictators' such as Col al-Qaddafi or Pres. al-Assad, on trumped-up excuses.
Shame on both major parties, backed by the military industrial complex's money, for the shameful unconscionable policies they foist upon the unwitting populace thru their complete domination of all the major media, and goaded on by the vicious crony capitalists of today.
2
To the ridiculous Republicans, this is Obamacare Part 2. They decided years in advance to oppose it regardless of what it says o r doesn't say.
6
This is a Pascal's wager for the U.S.If we approve the agreement and Iran keeps its word then Iran has no nuclear weapon.If Iran cheats and we destroy their nuclear capability then Iran has no nuclear weapon. How can we not give the deal a chance.?
After much Republican sound and fury, Congress will not override a veto by President Obama.The Republicans will vote as a block, although there maybe a few "profiles in courage".In crunch time Democrats will not abandoned Obama.The opponents will not get to 67,
The agreement was not an Obama and Iran agreement.Our credibility is at stake.It was negotiated and agreed to by the five other most significant countries in the world.The U.S. can not afford to be the outlier.The sanctions can not be effective without their participation.
Rejection of this agreement greatly increases the chance of war in the Middle East Ultimately,the war fatigued American public will not support rejection of the best chance for peace.Netanyahu's arrogance,while popular with "super pac"loving Republicans,is wearing thin with the American public.
The Republicans continuing demonization of Obama without ever suggesting an alternative is becoming a theatre of the absurd. How surreal was it for prominent Republicans to attack the Iran deal while acknowledging they hadn't read it?
The testimony of Dr.Ernest Moniz will be incontrovertible.The dogma driven Republicans will have no answer for his empirically based testimony.
After much Republican sound and fury, Congress will not override a veto by President Obama.The Republicans will vote as a block, although there maybe a few "profiles in courage".In crunch time Democrats will not abandoned Obama.The opponents will not get to 67,
The agreement was not an Obama and Iran agreement.Our credibility is at stake.It was negotiated and agreed to by the five other most significant countries in the world.The U.S. can not afford to be the outlier.The sanctions can not be effective without their participation.
Rejection of this agreement greatly increases the chance of war in the Middle East Ultimately,the war fatigued American public will not support rejection of the best chance for peace.Netanyahu's arrogance,while popular with "super pac"loving Republicans,is wearing thin with the American public.
The Republicans continuing demonization of Obama without ever suggesting an alternative is becoming a theatre of the absurd. How surreal was it for prominent Republicans to attack the Iran deal while acknowledging they hadn't read it?
The testimony of Dr.Ernest Moniz will be incontrovertible.The dogma driven Republicans will have no answer for his empirically based testimony.
8
It's time to tell the truth--the main reason the commenters are so happy is that this deal with Iran is the perfect excuse to stick it to Israel. However everyone had better think again before declaring a jubilee complete with dancing and rejoicing. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Prime Minister Netanyahu wasn't meeting with his military advisers to plan some pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Hey Israel took out Iraqi nukes in the early 1980's. Could history repeat itself?? After Israel didn't sign this treaty so it's perfectly free to go rogue in its own defense. It would be so much easier if everyone didn't view Iran with rose colored glasses. Iranians aren't these ultra cool western oriented hipsters Times bloggers believe they them to be. Iranians of all ages still yell Death to America and Death to Israel on a regular basis in the streets of Tehran. Iran is still a rigid theocracy ruled by these old ayatollahs and mullahs who chose to remain in the Middle Ages. However, I feel like Cassandra--no one is going to believe me and I doubt that this comment will see the light of day.
4
Sharon:
Israel is also a theocracy.
Israel is also a theocracy.
3
Unit 5101
Your argument expresses your fondness for Israel, but parts of it are somewhat puzzling. Because Israel was not a party to the deal with Iran, therefore Israel is free to go rogue — your words — and attack Iran at will.
You may recall from the Nuremberg trials that the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties is conceived to be the most grievous of all violations of international law.
It's remarkable that Israel and its partisans believe that international law somehow doesn't apply to them. What is the basis for such a belief?
Your argument expresses your fondness for Israel, but parts of it are somewhat puzzling. Because Israel was not a party to the deal with Iran, therefore Israel is free to go rogue — your words — and attack Iran at will.
You may recall from the Nuremberg trials that the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties is conceived to be the most grievous of all violations of international law.
It's remarkable that Israel and its partisans believe that international law somehow doesn't apply to them. What is the basis for such a belief?
3
Are the rest of your predictions as useless as your last one, Cassandra?
1
For once I wish that Obama would get the Shia and Sunni Islamic faction to one round table conference / Sumit and stop the rift between the two factions. For them to resolve their religious indifference and move forward together. It is time high time and he is about the right person to at least make an attempt.
3
Obama is quoted as saying that the deal is to be measured by whether "Iran could not get a nuclear weapon" and that this deal is "the most definitive path by which Iran will not get a nuclear weapon".
However if there is one thing that is clear about this deal that is the very fact that Iran can and will get a nuclear weapon, just after 10 years. In the eyes of Netanyahu, and any objective observer for that matter, the president did not keep his word, nor did he achieve what was clearly and plainly the objective when sanctions were first put in place. And that was as Obama himself said that "Iran will not get a nuclear weapon".
All that Obama achieved, and that was his goal the whole time, was a "historic deal" for which he will be applauded and will enhance his legacy. And in ten years when Iran builds its 190,000 centrifuges and may or may not announce that it has built its bomb, whatever threat that was posed by iran having a nuclear weapon will be just as must a cause for concern. So this deal did not achieve anything in the long run.
However if there is one thing that is clear about this deal that is the very fact that Iran can and will get a nuclear weapon, just after 10 years. In the eyes of Netanyahu, and any objective observer for that matter, the president did not keep his word, nor did he achieve what was clearly and plainly the objective when sanctions were first put in place. And that was as Obama himself said that "Iran will not get a nuclear weapon".
All that Obama achieved, and that was his goal the whole time, was a "historic deal" for which he will be applauded and will enhance his legacy. And in ten years when Iran builds its 190,000 centrifuges and may or may not announce that it has built its bomb, whatever threat that was posed by iran having a nuclear weapon will be just as must a cause for concern. So this deal did not achieve anything in the long run.
6
...a sentence fixed
We should understand how the U.S. and the West could really be getting nothing out of this deal with Iran. Already Iran was not trying to make A-bombs. That's because they know as soon as they got anywhere near that point, their facilities would be bombed. Israel absolutely would not stand by and allow it, and it has many A-bombs. And would the U.S. really try to stop Israel from doing that? The only way Iran can make a bomb is using its deeply buried facilities, immune to destruction.
And the deal really only helps if it produces enough trust that Iran would not try doing so.
It stands to reason Iran has every right to make nuclear bombs anyway, since it's a sovereign nation.
So why haven't the U.S. and the West demanded more in return for lifting the onerous sanctions? They could have demanded Iran stop supporting terrorism. They could have demanded Iran stop supporting Syria's government.
On the contrary, why hasn't Iran demanded the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Britain, etc., that backed war against Syria since at least 2 years before any protests broke out (2011), stop it ?
Why anyway, not stop allowing, and actively facilitating, inflows of thousands of terrorists into Syria, and supplying them with armaments, like from Libya, for purpose of taking Pres. al-Assad out? In any case, why hasn't the U.N. taken action against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, even the U.S. or Britain, for this useless, inhumane, very cruel war they began?
We should understand how the U.S. and the West could really be getting nothing out of this deal with Iran. Already Iran was not trying to make A-bombs. That's because they know as soon as they got anywhere near that point, their facilities would be bombed. Israel absolutely would not stand by and allow it, and it has many A-bombs. And would the U.S. really try to stop Israel from doing that? The only way Iran can make a bomb is using its deeply buried facilities, immune to destruction.
And the deal really only helps if it produces enough trust that Iran would not try doing so.
It stands to reason Iran has every right to make nuclear bombs anyway, since it's a sovereign nation.
So why haven't the U.S. and the West demanded more in return for lifting the onerous sanctions? They could have demanded Iran stop supporting terrorism. They could have demanded Iran stop supporting Syria's government.
On the contrary, why hasn't Iran demanded the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Britain, etc., that backed war against Syria since at least 2 years before any protests broke out (2011), stop it ?
Why anyway, not stop allowing, and actively facilitating, inflows of thousands of terrorists into Syria, and supplying them with armaments, like from Libya, for purpose of taking Pres. al-Assad out? In any case, why hasn't the U.N. taken action against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, even the U.S. or Britain, for this useless, inhumane, very cruel war they began?
I find the criticisms from the Republicans and Netanyahu to be insincere and probably amount to little more than political posturing and not real policy differences with Obama. I actually think that in their heart of hearts the Republicans (and maybe even Netanyahu) believe this is a good deal that helps prevent more war but they have talked themselves into a box of hatred that they cannot get out of.
8
A big step forward indeed.
6
Yeah, right! The Drone terror czar and his favorite commissar! "Iran's aggressive behavior"? Yeah, it was Iran which invaded Iraq and practically destroyed it killing hundreds of thousands of people!
Russia as an "evil empire"? Yeah, it is Russia which is building bases and moving troops and heavy weapons in countries bordering the US!
"Iran sponsors terrorism"? Yeah, it is Iran which is supplying weapons to the medieval fundamentalist regime of Saudi Arabia and shamelessly supporting it! And it was Iran which planned and backed terrorist actions against the Cuba and Nicaragua!
All this would make even the masters of Orwell's 1984 cringe!
.
Russia as an "evil empire"? Yeah, it is Russia which is building bases and moving troops and heavy weapons in countries bordering the US!
"Iran sponsors terrorism"? Yeah, it is Iran which is supplying weapons to the medieval fundamentalist regime of Saudi Arabia and shamelessly supporting it! And it was Iran which planned and backed terrorist actions against the Cuba and Nicaragua!
All this would make even the masters of Orwell's 1984 cringe!
.
1
Obama, a visionary foreign policy president, now has to debase himself, explaining to petulant and skeptical children (including neoliberals at the New York Times) why fresh fruits and vegetables are, in fact, healthy. He deserves a parade. What a thankless job.
Obama is the hardest working and most patient president we've experienced in a generation. Democrats who undermine this agreement should become the targets of crowdfunding funding their primary opponents. I'm tired of Democrats, with strong attachments to AIPAC, undermining their fellow Democrats and our national security. If this deal collapses, the rest of the Western world will walk on the United States. Europeans will profit in Iran at our expense and, we will lose all our credibility.
Obama is the hardest working and most patient president we've experienced in a generation. Democrats who undermine this agreement should become the targets of crowdfunding funding their primary opponents. I'm tired of Democrats, with strong attachments to AIPAC, undermining their fellow Democrats and our national security. If this deal collapses, the rest of the Western world will walk on the United States. Europeans will profit in Iran at our expense and, we will lose all our credibility.
15
NCRI - Despite many shortcomings and unwarranted concessions to the mullahs, the nuclear deal struck between P5+1 and the Iranian regime represents a reluctant retreat by Khamenei and a violation of red lines upon which he had repeatedly insisted over the past 12 years, including in recent weeks, said the Iranian Resistance's President-elect Maryam Rajavi.
1
Thank you Mr. President! So great to have a President who actually seeks to reduce the prospects of war rather than orchestrating propaganda to trick Americans into invading another Muslim country.
Exactly, if Reagan could "Trust but verify" Gorbachov's Russia and Nixon trust Chou En-lai's China, why can't Republicans accept Obama's deal with Iran?
Exactly, if Reagan could "Trust but verify" Gorbachov's Russia and Nixon trust Chou En-lai's China, why can't Republicans accept Obama's deal with Iran?
12
Iran hates our guts, Obama is naive
Ditto!
My ditto is in response to zDude and not barb.
Thank you for bringing us this brilliant interview Mr. Friedman. It feels good to watch an intelligent, articulate, honest visionary in action.
The one thing he couldn't say, because it would be inappropriate, is that Iranian regime has proven to be stable, whereas the Sunni countries are on very shaky grounds lacking the support of their populace. We cannot bank on having unstable regimes as our only allies in the region.
The one thing he couldn't say, because it would be inappropriate, is that Iranian regime has proven to be stable, whereas the Sunni countries are on very shaky grounds lacking the support of their populace. We cannot bank on having unstable regimes as our only allies in the region.
8
I put far more credence in Iranians chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" yesterday and their dancing in the street today regarding their future intentions than I do the Liar in Chief's assurances to the American people, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. How can anyone with brain and a memory put any credence in what he says? Obama's six years in office are a monument to mendacity and incompetence both at home and abroad. Negotiating from a position a position of strength, really? He couldn't even get the American hostages being held in Iran freed.
And with Israel saying they are not bound by this agreement, is it hard to imagine Obama trying to stop them from protecting themselves from an Iran dedicated to their destruction? It is not for me imagine. And does anyone really believe that he has any influence left in Saudi Arabia? Remember they skipped his Persian Gulf Summit to attend a horse race in Britain if I remember correctly. correctly.
And with Israel saying they are not bound by this agreement, is it hard to imagine Obama trying to stop them from protecting themselves from an Iran dedicated to their destruction? It is not for me imagine. And does anyone really believe that he has any influence left in Saudi Arabia? Remember they skipped his Persian Gulf Summit to attend a horse race in Britain if I remember correctly. correctly.
7
The people chanting "Death to America" and people partying in the streets are not the same people, they are pretty much against each other. The ones burning flags are the same who beat people in the streets in Iran some years ago. They are paid stooges by the hardliners in Iran and they get more strength by isloating Iran.
People in Iran are not however interested in war. And you talking about Saudi Arabia as if you share their value? Beheading people? Funding Al qaida an now ISIS? Do you want to be their ally? Really?
People in Iran are not however interested in war. And you talking about Saudi Arabia as if you share their value? Beheading people? Funding Al qaida an now ISIS? Do you want to be their ally? Really?
You shoould watch the interview again.
1
You reference to "Liar in Chief" destroyed any credibility that your comment may have otherwise contained. Did you refer to G.W.Bush as the Liar in Chief" when he sold us his hogwash about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Look what that lie has wrought in terms of American blood and treasure as well as that of its allies.
5
Tom, you were wrong about the last two wars in the Mideast, and are wrong about this issue too. Look at all the competing nations and powers that came together to make this good peace for the region. Do you know better than they do?
This President has finally done what the World hoped for, when they cheered and celebrated the end of the long dark night of US reckless, thoughtless, and almost drunken agression. He has shown his promise and more than earned his Nobel Peace Prize.
The GOTP has hungered, even yearned for war with several major world powers, with Iran, a nation we have no legitimate war claim against - that would kill many thousands of Americans, and could sink ships and planes by the score - all for the benefit of Israel, who can't fight Iran all by itself. They wanted to "kick Russia's butt" - forgetting in their war fever that Russia is the other major nuclear super power!
A Republican in the White House today would almost certainly mean we would be up to our nevks in war right now. A GOTP win in 2016 would likely mean another major war in less than a year.
There is no real explanation for the treasonous damage that has fueled the death spiral of the GOP, nor their almost wild desire for confrontation with anyone, to prove our power and might. What's important is that we finslly step back and realize that GOTP policy is damaging for the nation and the world. Our basic survival may well depend on the Democrats holding the White House in 2016!
This President has finally done what the World hoped for, when they cheered and celebrated the end of the long dark night of US reckless, thoughtless, and almost drunken agression. He has shown his promise and more than earned his Nobel Peace Prize.
The GOTP has hungered, even yearned for war with several major world powers, with Iran, a nation we have no legitimate war claim against - that would kill many thousands of Americans, and could sink ships and planes by the score - all for the benefit of Israel, who can't fight Iran all by itself. They wanted to "kick Russia's butt" - forgetting in their war fever that Russia is the other major nuclear super power!
A Republican in the White House today would almost certainly mean we would be up to our nevks in war right now. A GOTP win in 2016 would likely mean another major war in less than a year.
There is no real explanation for the treasonous damage that has fueled the death spiral of the GOP, nor their almost wild desire for confrontation with anyone, to prove our power and might. What's important is that we finslly step back and realize that GOTP policy is damaging for the nation and the world. Our basic survival may well depend on the Democrats holding the White House in 2016!
8
Netanyahu's the ghost in the room,
How strongly doth his shadow loom,
How can we ignore
Awful advice before,
He's wrong again we should assume!
How strongly doth his shadow loom,
How can we ignore
Awful advice before,
He's wrong again we should assume!
19
And what of Repub nominees?
An O success makes their blood freeze,
Before reading a word
They call the Pact absurd,
On old worn out word bites they seize!
An O success makes their blood freeze,
Before reading a word
They call the Pact absurd,
On old worn out word bites they seize!
21
And what of John Boehner, that man,
Who daily takes tan after tan,
Prizes contradiction
His comments pure fiction,
Will bring O to ruin, if he can.
Who daily takes tan after tan,
Prizes contradiction
His comments pure fiction,
Will bring O to ruin, if he can.
15
Larry Eisenberg, your poetry is much better than your world's view.
Just to note that not all Israelis find total fault with the deal reached with Iran. It does open a new window to possible settlement of some to the ME problems .
7
Well I just wanted to say - this was an insightful interview. Not just in terms of what was said but what was implied.
1. Historic or Historic Mistake: Well time will tell. Somehow I suspect it will be the former. President Obama mentioned about Nixon and Reagan - which I suspect was on purpose - but he is right; we have dealt with the evil empire far worse than Iran and a hermit kingdom also far worse than Iran and in both cases we have come out ahead - both Russia and China are significantly reduced national security threats to USA and China is well on its way to be a significant economic power.
2. Republicans and Israelis - I sometimes wonder why our politicians cannot think beyond partisan politics? The first thing the Republicans did was to condemn the deal - not one republican said: "Well let me get back to you after I read the deal in detail and see if it benefits America". If Republicans really are worth their salt let them come out and defeat this deal AND offer an effective alternative. Well regarding Israel - what can I say other than they really need a strategy to determine how to get along with the Arabs.
3. War vs Diplomacy: Well I hope this and other instances in our past (War: Vietnam, Iraq vs Diplomacy: USSR and now Iraq) [Note: I did not mention Hitlers Germany as it is more complicated - we did not start this war etc]. But my conclusion is Diplomacy always wins (when backed by the forceful!)
Thanks President Obama & team
Ashok
1. Historic or Historic Mistake: Well time will tell. Somehow I suspect it will be the former. President Obama mentioned about Nixon and Reagan - which I suspect was on purpose - but he is right; we have dealt with the evil empire far worse than Iran and a hermit kingdom also far worse than Iran and in both cases we have come out ahead - both Russia and China are significantly reduced national security threats to USA and China is well on its way to be a significant economic power.
2. Republicans and Israelis - I sometimes wonder why our politicians cannot think beyond partisan politics? The first thing the Republicans did was to condemn the deal - not one republican said: "Well let me get back to you after I read the deal in detail and see if it benefits America". If Republicans really are worth their salt let them come out and defeat this deal AND offer an effective alternative. Well regarding Israel - what can I say other than they really need a strategy to determine how to get along with the Arabs.
3. War vs Diplomacy: Well I hope this and other instances in our past (War: Vietnam, Iraq vs Diplomacy: USSR and now Iraq) [Note: I did not mention Hitlers Germany as it is more complicated - we did not start this war etc]. But my conclusion is Diplomacy always wins (when backed by the forceful!)
Thanks President Obama & team
Ashok
25
Who was it who said "blessed are the peacemakers"? Obviously not a Republican. It seems that almost every week during these past few months the haters out there have lost one more round. The uninsured, gays, blacks, Mexican immigrants, now the Iranians. Who knows: If they don't remain especially vigilant they may soon find themselves with no one left to despise.
35
stu:
Give the republicans a break. As Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic pointed out it will be the republicans, should they regain the White House, who become that "snap back" if the Iranians don't comply. What will their recourse be then?
What is untrue now -- that there are no options but war -- might actually be true then. Of course, the republicans would be held responsible for that.
Give the republicans a break. As Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic pointed out it will be the republicans, should they regain the White House, who become that "snap back" if the Iranians don't comply. What will their recourse be then?
What is untrue now -- that there are no options but war -- might actually be true then. Of course, the republicans would be held responsible for that.
3
Why is it that religion is only invoked when it can be used as a cudgel against republicans?
"I asked the president, Why should the Iranians be afraid of us?
“'Because we could knock out their military in speed and dispatch if we chose to.'”
First, why do we want the Iranians to be afraid of us? Can we not treat them like intelligent people with important thoughts and economic activities to share?
Second, could we actually "knock out their military"? I hardly think so. We can't even beat a few guys hiding in caves, let alone one of the toughest forces in the world.
If Iraq has proven one thing, it is that trying to bomb a country back to a prehistoric time, which we delightfully call "shock and awe", is wholly ineffective. All it does is make a lot of the indigenous people angry, people we had no right to kill and oppress to begin with.
Anyone who believes that Iran won't be able to develop a nuclear bomb under this deal is a fool. The plans are available in any university physics book. Thus, it is clear that Obama is negotiating from weakness.
The good news is that this is not terminal. There is hope. We can have peace, and peace through strength. We just have to recognize that we obtain strength from peace. The war hawks chattering about bombing everything in sight simply don't understand what is important to men.
You give a man a warm house and a cold refrigerator, and you'll have a man who will have a difficult time finding a reason to fight. You blow up his house and kill his children, well then, you've got another thing to deal with.
“'Because we could knock out their military in speed and dispatch if we chose to.'”
First, why do we want the Iranians to be afraid of us? Can we not treat them like intelligent people with important thoughts and economic activities to share?
Second, could we actually "knock out their military"? I hardly think so. We can't even beat a few guys hiding in caves, let alone one of the toughest forces in the world.
If Iraq has proven one thing, it is that trying to bomb a country back to a prehistoric time, which we delightfully call "shock and awe", is wholly ineffective. All it does is make a lot of the indigenous people angry, people we had no right to kill and oppress to begin with.
Anyone who believes that Iran won't be able to develop a nuclear bomb under this deal is a fool. The plans are available in any university physics book. Thus, it is clear that Obama is negotiating from weakness.
The good news is that this is not terminal. There is hope. We can have peace, and peace through strength. We just have to recognize that we obtain strength from peace. The war hawks chattering about bombing everything in sight simply don't understand what is important to men.
You give a man a warm house and a cold refrigerator, and you'll have a man who will have a difficult time finding a reason to fight. You blow up his house and kill his children, well then, you've got another thing to deal with.
8
Just once I'd like to see republican opposition to an Obama policy or approach whether with regard to Iran's nuclear capabilities or america's healthcare offer something other than rote chanting of "derail" or "repeal." How about, as Friedman put it here, a credible alternative?
7
It's news that Obama now believes the Soviet Union was an "evil empire" "hellbent on our destruction." I wonder how many other left progressives would say that. It costs him nothing to say it now, but his ideological sisters and brothers were pretty hellbent on convincing the public that President Reagan was crazy for saying the same thing.
He makes a pretty good argument for the Iran deal, but it is trumped by the proliferation factor. This deal will, assuredly, put several of Iran's neighbors like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey in search of their own nuclear weapons. In the long run, stopping Iran through sanctions and the threat of military action was the better formula for lasting peace.
He makes a pretty good argument for the Iran deal, but it is trumped by the proliferation factor. This deal will, assuredly, put several of Iran's neighbors like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey in search of their own nuclear weapons. In the long run, stopping Iran through sanctions and the threat of military action was the better formula for lasting peace.
3
The sanctions already in place weren't going to last forever; they were already on the verge of unraveling, however much against our wishes. (Russia, China, etc., were hellbent on resuming trade with Iran.) Meanwhile, the tighter the sanctions, the greater Iran's unconstrained rush toward a bomb. That's the reality.
As for the threat of military action? Only if that military action were also to be a reality does the threat become credible. Either war is the alternative, or it isn't.
As for the threat of military action? Only if that military action were also to be a reality does the threat become credible. Either war is the alternative, or it isn't.
6
" In the long run, stopping Iran through sanctions and the threat of military action was the better formula for lasting peace."
That didn't work, plain and simple. During the 10 years of threats and sanctions, Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium increased fivefold. If Iran really wants to be a nuclear power, this deal won't stop them either. The only thing that might is a generation of younger Iranians with no prospects for the future. I think the clerics in charge there understand they have 10, maybe 15 years to build a strong economy and raise the standard of living or else. That's what actually brought them to the table.
That didn't work, plain and simple. During the 10 years of threats and sanctions, Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium increased fivefold. If Iran really wants to be a nuclear power, this deal won't stop them either. The only thing that might is a generation of younger Iranians with no prospects for the future. I think the clerics in charge there understand they have 10, maybe 15 years to build a strong economy and raise the standard of living or else. That's what actually brought them to the table.
http://news.yahoo.com/syrias-assad-congratulates-key-ally-iran-nuclear-d...
Syria's Assad praises Iran deal as 'great victory'
There's your first clue, this is not a good deal for the US. But Obama wants his "legacy."
Sad. His legacy will be one of failure. It already is.
Syria's Assad praises Iran deal as 'great victory'
There's your first clue, this is not a good deal for the US. But Obama wants his "legacy."
Sad. His legacy will be one of failure. It already is.
6
It's not a clue at all. Assad is fighting ISIS for control of his country. That's the same ISIS who are the arch enemy of the U.S. Iran is also an enemy of the Sunni dominated ISIS and has provided help to contain ISIS in Iraq.
Given this, why wouldn't Assad want diplomacy that aids Iran?
Given this, why wouldn't Assad want diplomacy that aids Iran?
Like others who question the multilateral accord with Iran on its nuclear program, Friedman fails to suggest even the outlines of an alternative approach. His July 1 column suggesting U.S. hadn't been convincing about its willingness to use force to block Iranian nuclear development lacks credibility. Iran, whose neighbor Iraq the U.S. has twice invaded and whose civilian airliner the USS Vincennes shot down in 1988 killing 290 people does not have to be reminded of U.S. power or its willingness to use it.
4
I think the Republican politicians would like the Bush approach: call Iran the "Axis of Evil" and start a war somewhere. It certainly solved the North Korean threat of developing a nuclear weapon - oh, wait it did not solve that problem. But it kept Iraq from developing a nuke. Here we are 12 years later and Iraq still does not have a nuke, just IEDs, suicide bombers and terrorists. Why didn't Obama think of that?
5
The GOP will most certainly vote - to every last member of both the House and Senate - against this deal. Knowing the President has and will exercise the veto, it's really not in any Republican's interest to support the deal or explain he or she believes it's actually good. And there's nothing to lose in rejecting it.
There may be one or two Republican members of Congress who (i) actually evaluate the substance of the deal; (ii) come to the conclusion it's beneficial to the US and it strategic interests; and (iii) vote his or her conscience. I can see (i) and (ii) for perhaps a few Republican Congresspeople, but (iii)? Nope - no GOP votes for Iranian non-proliferation.
And I'm sure there'll be a lot of drum-banging for more war.
There may be one or two Republican members of Congress who (i) actually evaluate the substance of the deal; (ii) come to the conclusion it's beneficial to the US and it strategic interests; and (iii) vote his or her conscience. I can see (i) and (ii) for perhaps a few Republican Congresspeople, but (iii)? Nope - no GOP votes for Iranian non-proliferation.
And I'm sure there'll be a lot of drum-banging for more war.
6
The democrats, on the other hand, cannot support something that has the potential to fall apart while they are still in office but after Obama has gone. They will actually have to vote for this deal as if their jobs depended on it being implemented.
4
The Iranian leadership are not nice people, and they are true believers. Until the 1979 revolutionaries die off (which will only take another 20-30 years), the Iranian government won't be run by very nice people. I see the lifting of sanctions going one of three ways:
1) They cheat and the extra money goes to their nuclear program,
2) They don't cheat, but the extra money buys advanced conventional weapons and funds terrorists,
3) They spend the extra money buying off/suppressing dissent, ensuring that democracy doesn't take root.
If you think there is some other way it will go, perhaps like Germany and Japan after WW II, remember that the US-friendly, democratic governments didn't arise until all the anti-US leadership had died off (with some help).
1) They cheat and the extra money goes to their nuclear program,
2) They don't cheat, but the extra money buys advanced conventional weapons and funds terrorists,
3) They spend the extra money buying off/suppressing dissent, ensuring that democracy doesn't take root.
If you think there is some other way it will go, perhaps like Germany and Japan after WW II, remember that the US-friendly, democratic governments didn't arise until all the anti-US leadership had died off (with some help).
5
That required WW2. Obama is trying to avoid that.
7
How plausible was Chamberlain's attempt to avoid WW II?
6
The 'other way it could go,' as the President pointed out, is that sanctions could end because our allies abandon them whether we like it or not. Then Iran has the cash you fear *and* nuclear capacity. Unless we bomb, bomb, bomb. This deal is worth it, and I'm glad we made it.
2
I really appreciate these interviews and reviews and comments.
As a partial aside, this article is about 5000 words, which at a normal speaking pace would be a bit over a half hour on TV without commercial breaks.
And how many Tweets does it take to send 24,000 characters?
It does appear that either of those levels are way too high for many to bother with ....
As a partial aside, this article is about 5000 words, which at a normal speaking pace would be a bit over a half hour on TV without commercial breaks.
And how many Tweets does it take to send 24,000 characters?
It does appear that either of those levels are way too high for many to bother with ....
4
Is there any possibility that Obama can do what Bloomberg did to get an extra term? If a referendum was held today, I think most Americans would reelect Obama. I hope Hillary wont backtrack on Obamas progress
15
Are you serious? Obama is busily rallying liberals and war opponents to try to fend off opposition. They and the Syrians are the only ones who fully support this deal.
7
And the rest of the P5 +1.
Iran really scares you, huh?
Iran really scares you, huh?
5
Lawyer/DJ:
Not scared. Just a realist about the likelihood that Obama has actually gotten a Middle Eastern country to comply with inspections. You know, because of all the success others have had in the Middle East.
Not scared. Just a realist about the likelihood that Obama has actually gotten a Middle Eastern country to comply with inspections. You know, because of all the success others have had in the Middle East.
6
This was a negotiation. That means there is more than one side to the discussion. Aside from the fact that Republicans were going to trash this deal whatever it was without even reading it in order to humiliate President Obama. the idea that Iran was going to be crushed and destroyed by the great big United States was never going to happen.
For one thing, although the sanctions were inconvenient, anyone traveling to Iran today knows that they have not been "crippling" except for those wealthy Iranians who had to forgo vacations on the French Riviera. Yes, unemployment is high. Yes, inflation is high. Yes, the currency is depressed. But Iran has developed a formidable economic infrastructure that could withstand anything thrown at it. GDP growth was 3% last year as measured by the World Bank and IMF. Iran is aspirational as a nation. The people want better lives, and the sanctions were a hindrance. Removing them does not provide a lifeline to the downtrodden; it opens doors to a better future.
The United States somehow created the fantasy that Iran was negotiating from a position of weakness. It never was. Iran never had a proven nuclear weapons program, and I believe sincerely that most of Washington knew this. But posturing and creating an Iranian bogeyman out of whole cloth was so deliciously easy as an exercise in demagoguery that few politicians could resist doing it. Once Iran had been demonized it was almost impossible to backtrack.
Bravo President Obama!
For one thing, although the sanctions were inconvenient, anyone traveling to Iran today knows that they have not been "crippling" except for those wealthy Iranians who had to forgo vacations on the French Riviera. Yes, unemployment is high. Yes, inflation is high. Yes, the currency is depressed. But Iran has developed a formidable economic infrastructure that could withstand anything thrown at it. GDP growth was 3% last year as measured by the World Bank and IMF. Iran is aspirational as a nation. The people want better lives, and the sanctions were a hindrance. Removing them does not provide a lifeline to the downtrodden; it opens doors to a better future.
The United States somehow created the fantasy that Iran was negotiating from a position of weakness. It never was. Iran never had a proven nuclear weapons program, and I believe sincerely that most of Washington knew this. But posturing and creating an Iranian bogeyman out of whole cloth was so deliciously easy as an exercise in demagoguery that few politicians could resist doing it. Once Iran had been demonized it was almost impossible to backtrack.
Bravo President Obama!
35
I've had my disappointments with President Obama, but I applaud him (and John Kerry) on his approach with Iran and the subsequent nuclear deal that was reached. He chose negotiations over bombing and thus the US regained much needed credibility around the world. I'm quite sure most people favored this option.
Highlighting Putin's contribution was also a good thing and hopefully it will engender something more beneficial than this looming new cold war.
It was a tough deal from without and certainly from within and credit is deserved.
Highlighting Putin's contribution was also a good thing and hopefully it will engender something more beneficial than this looming new cold war.
It was a tough deal from without and certainly from within and credit is deserved.
22
I am a lifelong Democrat. If the Democrats in the House and Senate do not give the president what he needs on this then I will never under any circumstances vote for another Democrat for the Senate or House. I will vote for Mrs. Clinton next year and in NJ elections for state office but never again under any circumstances will I vote for a Democrat standing for the U.S. Senate or House.
I have had it with the disloyalty of Democrats to this president who has had to put up with an ignorant, howling racist opposition for six years that: An opposition that without reading so much as a word, declared its virtual unanimous contempt for the agreement with Iran -- an agreement that except for the Republican Party, contemporary copper head Democrats and Benjamin NetanYahoo, has the support of virtually the entire world and certainly of all of the other most important nations in the world.
As Hillary Clinton said to Trump this week so I say to disloyal Democrats Basta, enough. Get on board with history or get lost in it for the losers you are.
I have had it with the disloyalty of Democrats to this president who has had to put up with an ignorant, howling racist opposition for six years that: An opposition that without reading so much as a word, declared its virtual unanimous contempt for the agreement with Iran -- an agreement that except for the Republican Party, contemporary copper head Democrats and Benjamin NetanYahoo, has the support of virtually the entire world and certainly of all of the other most important nations in the world.
As Hillary Clinton said to Trump this week so I say to disloyal Democrats Basta, enough. Get on board with history or get lost in it for the losers you are.
22
How can a half white man cause racism?
I no longer consider myself a Democrat. The Party has taken a wrong turn and veered right when the best thing for the nation would have been for them to be true to their ideals and be a loyal opposition to the Republican fear and war-mongering that has been their modus operandi for decades now. The stupidity of the Republican approach to international affairs has been exceeded by their support for "trickle-down" economics and total lack of trying to help the least fortunate among us. In case after case, the majority of the American people support traditional Democratic principles and approaches to solving the problems that face the country. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (as well as a few other stalwarts) in their staunch advocacy of these principles have demonstrated that they appeal to the public much more than the Republican negativity.
In regard to your point about disloyalty of certain Dems, I could not agree with you more. Senator Menendez has already lost my vote forever with his opposition to the Iran negotiations and his blind support of Netanyahu (not Israel). Senator Booker is well on his way to losing my vote as well for his catering to Wall Street and his somewhat less harsh rhetoric regarding the Iran negotiations. We must show the Democratic Party that we want them to be real Democrats and not DINOs. And that requires that they pay a price for their views.
In regard to your point about disloyalty of certain Dems, I could not agree with you more. Senator Menendez has already lost my vote forever with his opposition to the Iran negotiations and his blind support of Netanyahu (not Israel). Senator Booker is well on his way to losing my vote as well for his catering to Wall Street and his somewhat less harsh rhetoric regarding the Iran negotiations. We must show the Democratic Party that we want them to be real Democrats and not DINOs. And that requires that they pay a price for their views.
What a powerful and inspiring interview on this tremendous agreement!
Obama carefully and eloquently outlined the deal, managed expectations, and highlighted the interwoven complexities of the region.
At the bare minimum, this administration has stopped Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Time will tell if the Iranian leadership honors their agreement, but at least we undertook every diplomatic option to resolve this peacefully. My hope is that the world can build on this agreement and promote further dialogue between the regional players who are causing such pain and suffering throughout the Middle East.
"My fellow Americans, let us take that first step. Let us…step back from the shadows of war and seek out the way of peace. And if that journey is a thousand miles, or even more, let history record that we, in this land, at this time, took the first step" (JFK)
Obama carefully and eloquently outlined the deal, managed expectations, and highlighted the interwoven complexities of the region.
At the bare minimum, this administration has stopped Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Time will tell if the Iranian leadership honors their agreement, but at least we undertook every diplomatic option to resolve this peacefully. My hope is that the world can build on this agreement and promote further dialogue between the regional players who are causing such pain and suffering throughout the Middle East.
"My fellow Americans, let us take that first step. Let us…step back from the shadows of war and seek out the way of peace. And if that journey is a thousand miles, or even more, let history record that we, in this land, at this time, took the first step" (JFK)
17
Tell that quote to those jfk betrayed at the bay of pigs
Israel faces the greatest dangers from Iran. It is only Israel that Iran has threatened to destroy. The Hezbollah rockets, funded and paid for by Iran and many provided by Iran are facing Israel.
Bottom line: I don't think anybody here really believes that President Obama "has their back". Most people simply don't trust Mr. Obama. That may sound insulting, but then that is how it is perceived, correctly so in my view, as a matter of life or death.
10-15 years sounds like a lot. It is not. It is a speck in the dust of history. Iran will have nuclear weapons and a resuscitated economy. And Israel will become more jaded than it is now. Try selling any peace process to that Israeli public.
Bottom line: I don't think anybody here really believes that President Obama "has their back". Most people simply don't trust Mr. Obama. That may sound insulting, but then that is how it is perceived, correctly so in my view, as a matter of life or death.
10-15 years sounds like a lot. It is not. It is a speck in the dust of history. Iran will have nuclear weapons and a resuscitated economy. And Israel will become more jaded than it is now. Try selling any peace process to that Israeli public.
12
Who cares? You guys have nukes. Defend yourselves, and leave us out of it.
16
Israel needs to end its occupation. Nothing else can solve Israel's security problems. We are not going to destroy the entire world to accommodate Israel's greed for land without the people who were living on it before they showed up.
Here's something you may benefit from watching:
1913 Seeds of Conflict PBS
http://www.pbs.org/program/1913-seeds-conflict/
Here's something you may benefit from watching:
1913 Seeds of Conflict PBS
http://www.pbs.org/program/1913-seeds-conflict/
6
Or ... end the occupation, help create a palestinian state, take away the reason why Hezbollah claims to be fighting you, and improve your security.
Israel is unique among democracies in believing that being more aggressive will improve its security. Uptil 1973 israel was defending itself, now its chopping the branch it sits on.
Israel is unique among democracies in believing that being more aggressive will improve its security. Uptil 1973 israel was defending itself, now its chopping the branch it sits on.
1
If President Obama offered the American people an ice cream sundae , the following would happen: moderate democrats would ask, where's the maraschino cherry? Republicans would decry the sundae as a n undue burden on taxpayers and an unsafe choice by a dangerously risk-taking socialist peacenik, and the general public would be too busy taking selfies to respond to the sundae offer.
17
It would have turned out that the ice cream sundae was a single plain scoop all along. He just claimed it was a sundae to get people to support whatever it was he was selling.
People distrust this president for a reason.
People distrust this president for a reason.
5
He'd send people to the drug store for their sundae, where they'd be required to pay for it with insurance.
2
No, Mitchell -- first, they would have to buy a "sundae policy", and if they didn't, they'd have to pay a huge fine ("sundae mandate"). Then they'd get a subsidy to buy the sundae, but it would cost half their monthly income, and STILL require that they pay 60% of the cost of the sundae, after a $6300 deductible.
If they accidentally earn a few dollars too much this year (maybe some overtime), they will have to REPAY that "sundae subsidy" anyways.
And oh yeah -- Michelle Obama has ensured the sundaes are all made from fat-free soy milk, with artificial sweeteners -- only comes in one flavor that nobody likes -- is portion-controlled, so you get a half a scoop -- and no toppings or syrups, because "they're too fattening".
Good times!
If they accidentally earn a few dollars too much this year (maybe some overtime), they will have to REPAY that "sundae subsidy" anyways.
And oh yeah -- Michelle Obama has ensured the sundaes are all made from fat-free soy milk, with artificial sweeteners -- only comes in one flavor that nobody likes -- is portion-controlled, so you get a half a scoop -- and no toppings or syrups, because "they're too fattening".
Good times!
I think the Iranian deal is an extremely pragmatic and strategic policy decision made by the U.S. As long as we are engaged in Afghanistan, the U.S. needs to find other partners in the ME and other alternate strategic routes into Afghanistan and Central Asia and not rely solely on Pakistan and the tricky games that country plays. Perhaps if this deal works out Pakistan might have an incentive to wean itself from its current self-destructive behaviors in the future as the U.S. won't be so reliant on it. Although, on the issue of a dialogue between the Shia's and Sunni's I think its still somewhat wishful thinking on the President's part given their historic differences, I do wish it were true for real peace in the ME.
3
They will probably have an atomic bomb in a few years, but will screw up when they try to drop it on Israel. Great scientists and engineers they are not, and making even a simple U-235 bomb such as was used on Hiroshima is not that easy.
3
As it happens they have excellent scientists, many trained in the US and Europe, and money can buy what is lacking in terms of expertise.
You are correct, though, about the bomb.
You are correct, though, about the bomb.
1
If they dropped the bomb on Israel, it would render all of Palestine (and much of Jordan and Syria) a radioactive waste. What does Iran gain by that? Certainly not their stated objective of praying at al=Aqsa.
Their objective is to end the Zionist regime, not to kill Jews. Ironically, Sunni factions like ISIS and Hamas (which has had a falling-out with Iran) pose a greater danger of the latter.
Their objective is to end the Zionist regime, not to kill Jews. Ironically, Sunni factions like ISIS and Hamas (which has had a falling-out with Iran) pose a greater danger of the latter.
@Mitchell - A primitive U-235 bomb, such as Iran would build, would yield 20 or 30 kilotons. It would only damage a couple of dozen square miles. If the drop was inaccurate, they could easily hit empty desert.
As these events have unfolded, I cannot help but be thankful that the American people had the good judgement to elect Barack Obama to the Presidency in 2008, rather than John ("bomb, bomb, bomb Iran") McCain, along with his sidekick, Sarah Palin ("I can see Russia from my house"). Starting many months ago, the Obama administration was able to mobilize the major countries of the world in this group effort to achieve a verifiable nuclear agreement with Iran, which will hopefully result not only in reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation, but also in Iran becoming more integrated into the modern world community.
Congratulations to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry for their diligence, leadership, and hard work during this process, as well as to the diplomats of the five other countries involved and the Iranian delegation.
Congratulations to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry for their diligence, leadership, and hard work during this process, as well as to the diplomats of the five other countries involved and the Iranian delegation.
14
So many commenters are confused, and dangerously so. Yes, President Obama's is thoughtful and eloquent in his views. He has a professorial command of complex and nuanced issues. But he is not an effective leader. Professors rarely are.
Leaders have conviction and principles which define their actions, both for their allies and enemies. That is what made Reagan great, and why the deal with the Soviets was successful. Think carefully: is there ANY relationship the US has with either ally or foe that is better today than when President Obama took office? Israel, no; Iraq, no (don't forget, President Obama even admitted the surge was successful and when he abandoned Iraq, he described it as peaceful and stable); Russia, no. Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, ALL worse today than in 2008. China is extending their influence in the South China sea by building islands, readying the day to threaten shipping and existing claims by Japan and others. ISIS is still gaining more territory, and will threaten US interests. The only democracy in the Middle East is apoplectic about this deal, as is our long-standing ally in Saudi Arabia. Listen to them, and also listen to Iran.
Don't confuse eloquence and nuance for leadership and results.
Leaders have conviction and principles which define their actions, both for their allies and enemies. That is what made Reagan great, and why the deal with the Soviets was successful. Think carefully: is there ANY relationship the US has with either ally or foe that is better today than when President Obama took office? Israel, no; Iraq, no (don't forget, President Obama even admitted the surge was successful and when he abandoned Iraq, he described it as peaceful and stable); Russia, no. Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, ALL worse today than in 2008. China is extending their influence in the South China sea by building islands, readying the day to threaten shipping and existing claims by Japan and others. ISIS is still gaining more territory, and will threaten US interests. The only democracy in the Middle East is apoplectic about this deal, as is our long-standing ally in Saudi Arabia. Listen to them, and also listen to Iran.
Don't confuse eloquence and nuance for leadership and results.
2
The problem has never been his inability to control the narrative and dazzle with his intelligence. It has been his inability to deliver.
5
I guess I have to wonder why our enemies, the Ayatollahs in Iran, are celebrating and our friends in Israel and the mid-East are crestfallen. Obama must be the smartest guy in the room.
3
Our nation has been betrayed many times in the last 60 years by "the smartest guys in the room".
There are multiple kinds of intelligence, and not all of it is "book learning". Just reading the Bruni column bashing Scott Walker, because he is NOT an academic with a college degree -- lefty liberals adore Obama precisely because he IS that "egg head professor" from an Ivy League school -- but does that really make someone an effective negotiator? History says no.
There are multiple kinds of intelligence, and not all of it is "book learning". Just reading the Bruni column bashing Scott Walker, because he is NOT an academic with a college degree -- lefty liberals adore Obama precisely because he IS that "egg head professor" from an Ivy League school -- but does that really make someone an effective negotiator? History says no.
This agreement is a mixed bag. It probably decreases the odds that Iran will develop nuclear weapons in 10-15 years, but probably increases this risk after that. It may increase the likelihood that Iran will become more moderate and friendlier to the West, but that is uncertain. It certainly increases Iran’s resources to intervene in other nations and cause trouble for Israel. The most relevant question is whether there is a better alternative. Financial sanctions alone are unlikely to prevent nuclear weapon development; even impoverished North Korea was able to do that. In addition, could we continue to prevent several powerful nations from violating even the current sanctions, much less agree to increase them? Consequently, our only practical alternative would be an attack on Iran sufficient to destroy its nuclear facilities. This might be the best approach and could become necessary in the future, but it would be opposed by most of the world and by many Americans. It would have to be strong and long. It could easily backfire and cause more problems than it would solve, including major problems for the Arab nations and Israel. Thus, although the consequences of the agreement are frightening, our best alternative may be to strictly enforce it, plan a military option and be prepared to use it if Iran moves towards making operational nuclear weapons, and invest heavily in helping our allies defeat the likely aggressive moves that Iran’s increased resources will facilitate.
4
The comparison with Nixon on China and Reagan on arms control is a good one.
China did not give up communism. Even today as we trade with it on a huge scale, do business with it on a huge scale, it is controlled by its communist party. What we have is credit to Nixon. That China is still communist is not the test of our policy with China, not under Nixon, and not since.
The Soviets did not give up their world view or effects because of arms control with Reagan. They continued until the collapse of the USSR. The arms control agreements were a "success" anyway. They helped prevent nuclear war. They kept arms from controlling driving our problems to war, as for example the naval race did for Britain and Germany in WW1.
If Iran remains an Islamic Republic, that is no different than China after Nixon remaining communist. It isn't our choice, but it also isn't our big problem.
If Iran continues its world view in confrontation with Israel and/or Sunnis, that is no different from the USSR after Reagan's deals. It isn't our big problem.
Nixon and Reagan addressed the big problems *of the US* in those relationships, and that is what Obama has done here. The rest might be nice, but it isn't critical. It wasn't even the point.
Opponents didn't get that regarding China or the USSR, and they won't get it here. That is because they let their other peripheral interests obscure the core US national interests.
China did not give up communism. Even today as we trade with it on a huge scale, do business with it on a huge scale, it is controlled by its communist party. What we have is credit to Nixon. That China is still communist is not the test of our policy with China, not under Nixon, and not since.
The Soviets did not give up their world view or effects because of arms control with Reagan. They continued until the collapse of the USSR. The arms control agreements were a "success" anyway. They helped prevent nuclear war. They kept arms from controlling driving our problems to war, as for example the naval race did for Britain and Germany in WW1.
If Iran remains an Islamic Republic, that is no different than China after Nixon remaining communist. It isn't our choice, but it also isn't our big problem.
If Iran continues its world view in confrontation with Israel and/or Sunnis, that is no different from the USSR after Reagan's deals. It isn't our big problem.
Nixon and Reagan addressed the big problems *of the US* in those relationships, and that is what Obama has done here. The rest might be nice, but it isn't critical. It wasn't even the point.
Opponents didn't get that regarding China or the USSR, and they won't get it here. That is because they let their other peripheral interests obscure the core US national interests.
24
And yet Henry Kissinger opposes the Iran deal.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iran-deal-and-its-consequences-1428447582
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iran-deal-and-its-consequences-1428447582
1
Then again, Russia and China are embarked on expansionist course today, for al the good that Nixon and Reagan's approaches might have done in their day. Perhaps all we can do is buy time.
The arms control deals the US made with the USSR focused on reducing and/or controlling existing nuclear weapons stockpiles that the USSR already had.
The deal Obama made with Iran will ultimately let Iran develop a nuclear weapon free of all restrictions. In the meantime, the sanctions relief will provide hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran, getting it out of an economic mess and allowing it to continue and increase its funding for all sorts of activities in the Middle East that are hostile to US interests. So all this deal has done is strengthen an enemy of the US.
The deal Obama made with Iran will ultimately let Iran develop a nuclear weapon free of all restrictions. In the meantime, the sanctions relief will provide hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran, getting it out of an economic mess and allowing it to continue and increase its funding for all sorts of activities in the Middle East that are hostile to US interests. So all this deal has done is strengthen an enemy of the US.
George W. Bush believed he was going to disrupt the "status quo" in Iraq and "empower" its citizens too. Granted he went full blast into his version of change, but it's easy to believe one's efforts will be somehow be different from everyone else's and will miraculously change things for the better in the Middle East.
The president seems to believe he can change Iran. American hubris? Won't be the first time.
The president seems to believe he can change Iran. American hubris? Won't be the first time.
5
He says he'd like that, but he nowhere says he is counting on that. He says it is not the test of this deal. He does not seem to have the same illusions as drove Bush, nor that drive Republicans today.
7
No, did you even read or watch?
He pretty much said the opposite of what you say he believes - his singular point is that "whether we can change Iran" isn't really the proper measuring stick for whether this agreement is positive. So you're basically just misstating fact.
He pretty much said the opposite of what you say he believes - his singular point is that "whether we can change Iran" isn't really the proper measuring stick for whether this agreement is positive. So you're basically just misstating fact.
4
Obama says... Sorry, but what he says is one thing. He can sound extremely convincing. What happens is often another.
Predicting events in the Middle East is always risky. Predicting favorable outcomes is folly.
This is the same Middle East that skeptics have been claiming is completely beyond our control and that we should stay the heck out of. And, yet, now here is the president claiming that he's figured out a way to control Iran's nuclear activities.
Predicting events in the Middle East is always risky. Predicting favorable outcomes is folly.
This is the same Middle East that skeptics have been claiming is completely beyond our control and that we should stay the heck out of. And, yet, now here is the president claiming that he's figured out a way to control Iran's nuclear activities.
3
Iran is not Israel's problem, Bibi needed Iran as a boogeyman to gain support of US. Israel real problem is the Palestinian issue and come September Bibi is in for big trouble as the Palestinian will demand statehood recognition from the security council of the UN and for the first time there no guarantee that Obama will use the veto.
18
Maybe he will indeed use the veto. Behind all the sturm und drang, that might be the payoff Bibi's looking for.
do tell us, from your Atlanta living room, what our problems are.
I am a liberal atheist, I agree with Netanyahu on virtually nothing, other than this issue. Iran has no shared borders with Israel, no claim or stake in the land, other than the most dangerous of Islamist theories, and yet it is fighting a proxy war against us. Hezbollah's rockets are as close to my home as the neighborhood Wall-mart is to yours. belittling Israel's concerns, treating our trepidation regarding this deal as "boogeyman" stories is unbelievably arrogant, superficial and insulting.
I am a liberal atheist, I agree with Netanyahu on virtually nothing, other than this issue. Iran has no shared borders with Israel, no claim or stake in the land, other than the most dangerous of Islamist theories, and yet it is fighting a proxy war against us. Hezbollah's rockets are as close to my home as the neighborhood Wall-mart is to yours. belittling Israel's concerns, treating our trepidation regarding this deal as "boogeyman" stories is unbelievably arrogant, superficial and insulting.
1
A lot of the President's arguments make sense, but there seems to be a logical flaw in one of them.
He states that Iran was brought to the table by strong sanctions. This implies that sanctions were effective in amplifying American bargaining power.
But then he says that sanctions were really not sustainable, and may well have been dismantled regardless of this deal.
Those can't both be true.
The President tries to thread the needle by saying that our allies on the sanctions would only sustain them if we made good faith efforts in these negotiations. But if that is true then it remains indisputable that the sanctions WERE sustainable.
It may have been more accurate to say, "continuing sanctions while refusing to negotiate was unsustainable in the eyes of our allies"
He states that Iran was brought to the table by strong sanctions. This implies that sanctions were effective in amplifying American bargaining power.
But then he says that sanctions were really not sustainable, and may well have been dismantled regardless of this deal.
Those can't both be true.
The President tries to thread the needle by saying that our allies on the sanctions would only sustain them if we made good faith efforts in these negotiations. But if that is true then it remains indisputable that the sanctions WERE sustainable.
It may have been more accurate to say, "continuing sanctions while refusing to negotiate was unsustainable in the eyes of our allies"
2
Both are true because the sanctions are effective only because of the cooperation of others. You go too far in pursuing only your own interest with it and they back out.
2
They can both be true. We gained a passing advantage, and bargained during our time of maximum strength. That is good bargaining.
10
As Joker and MT both pointed out, your flaw is illusory. What's true at one point in time may not be the case at another; because facts change.
1
American ignorance of the interests and cultures of other nations is occasionally punctuated by brilliant insights on the part of its leaders, as for example with the Marshall Plan. I would place this agreement in that category, though maybe it only looks brilliant because the alternatives offered by the other side - continuation of the same old status quo or "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" - are so pathetic.
George Bush's invasion of Iraq was a disaster not least because he and his hawkish advisers did not understand the importance to Iraq's, and the region's, stability of the country's middle class, one of the most well-off and best educated in the middle east. The war and its aftermath destroyed all that and left the region far less stable than it was before. The legacy of a war with Iran could be even worse.
The Iranian middle class is as well off and educated as used to be the case in Iraq, and has similar aspirations to its counterparts elsewhere. Also
let's remember that following 9/11, Iranians took to the streets en masse to show their sympathy and solidarity with the US. The agreement is a no-brainer from a security standpoint. I believe that the cultural reasons are even more important, and the western negotiators must have understood that - something that is beyond the capability of the Tom Cottons of this world.
George Bush's invasion of Iraq was a disaster not least because he and his hawkish advisers did not understand the importance to Iraq's, and the region's, stability of the country's middle class, one of the most well-off and best educated in the middle east. The war and its aftermath destroyed all that and left the region far less stable than it was before. The legacy of a war with Iran could be even worse.
The Iranian middle class is as well off and educated as used to be the case in Iraq, and has similar aspirations to its counterparts elsewhere. Also
let's remember that following 9/11, Iranians took to the streets en masse to show their sympathy and solidarity with the US. The agreement is a no-brainer from a security standpoint. I believe that the cultural reasons are even more important, and the western negotiators must have understood that - something that is beyond the capability of the Tom Cottons of this world.
17
Bush and his administration did not understand the importance to the US of the US middle class, one of the most well-off and best educated in the world.
It was a systemic failure of understand. It was a failure of world view.
What he did to Iraq he did to everything he touched. It was who he was. Iraq was just one symptom of Bush, inflicted by the likes of Republican true believers like Paul Bremer, who supported the same privatized market based "reforms" that rejected government right here at home. What Bremer put in place in Iraq was a test case of Republican beliefs. Look at what they are.
It was a systemic failure of understand. It was a failure of world view.
What he did to Iraq he did to everything he touched. It was who he was. Iraq was just one symptom of Bush, inflicted by the likes of Republican true believers like Paul Bremer, who supported the same privatized market based "reforms" that rejected government right here at home. What Bremer put in place in Iraq was a test case of Republican beliefs. Look at what they are.
7
"But I suspect his legacy on this issue will ultimately be determined by whether the deal does, in the long run, help transform Iran, defuse the U.S.-Iran Cold War"
That is unreasonable. Those diverse issues nobody is ready to address.
The US supports Israel, and Iran opposes it. The US won't change that position, no matter what Israel does and no matter how much the US objects to what it does.
Iran opposes those things, and most of the world agrees they are right to oppose them. Certainly all of the Muslim world is agreed on that.
That is the driving force in the Cold War with Iran. The US has failed completely in all its efforts to address those issues on our own side. It cannot be blamed on this deal. It cannot be fixed by this deal. It has nothing to do with this deal.
"Transform Iran" is regime change talk again. Friedman after the Iraq fiasco and the Syrian nightmare and the Libyan nightmare cannot be heard to judge anything by the "success" of his regime change goals. That is certainly not one of Obama's goals, much as he'd like to see the Ayatollah just go away.
Those in the world who imposed sanctions at US urging did it to stop a nuclear weapons program. They did not do it for regime change. They did not do it to defend Israel from the whole range of the controversy with the Muslim world. They would not for ONE DAY maintain sanctions that we tried to twist to use for those ends. It is not an option in these negotiations, because of our side, not Iran.
That is unreasonable. Those diverse issues nobody is ready to address.
The US supports Israel, and Iran opposes it. The US won't change that position, no matter what Israel does and no matter how much the US objects to what it does.
Iran opposes those things, and most of the world agrees they are right to oppose them. Certainly all of the Muslim world is agreed on that.
That is the driving force in the Cold War with Iran. The US has failed completely in all its efforts to address those issues on our own side. It cannot be blamed on this deal. It cannot be fixed by this deal. It has nothing to do with this deal.
"Transform Iran" is regime change talk again. Friedman after the Iraq fiasco and the Syrian nightmare and the Libyan nightmare cannot be heard to judge anything by the "success" of his regime change goals. That is certainly not one of Obama's goals, much as he'd like to see the Ayatollah just go away.
Those in the world who imposed sanctions at US urging did it to stop a nuclear weapons program. They did not do it for regime change. They did not do it to defend Israel from the whole range of the controversy with the Muslim world. They would not for ONE DAY maintain sanctions that we tried to twist to use for those ends. It is not an option in these negotiations, because of our side, not Iran.
6
Someone should forward the above posting as a memo to Netanyahu.
1
Ronald Regan could have negotiated this treaty, but, because it'll have Obama's name on it, the GOP will fight with same misguided zeal as it did Obamacare.
16
The most thoughtful, objective president in my lifetime. Let's pray he's right.
38
On TV President Obama looks highly confident/trustworthy in announcing the Iranian nuclear deal agreement. GOP/Israel's lobbyists look meekly and unconvincing.
On the propaganda media war to win hearts and minds of American public opinion, President Obama is winning easily. It appears that American national interests are winning over Israel's national interests.
The so called 'unbreakable' US-Israel alliance --where Israel national interests determine American foreign policy in the Middle East -- is coming to an end. Now is time for Benyamin Netanyahu and Israel's political leadership to think.
On the propaganda media war to win hearts and minds of American public opinion, President Obama is winning easily. It appears that American national interests are winning over Israel's national interests.
The so called 'unbreakable' US-Israel alliance --where Israel national interests determine American foreign policy in the Middle East -- is coming to an end. Now is time for Benyamin Netanyahu and Israel's political leadership to think.
26
The best deals are when both sides are willing to give the other meaningful results. Iran has agreed to cut 98% of its nuclear stockpile and allowed inspectors access to nuclear sites. The 5+ are willing to end sanctions if Iran meets safeguard conditions. Any sign of Iran not meeting conditions of the agreement and sanctions return.
This sounds like Iran's current economic state required they reassess their position. Certainly, the Iranian people want to engage in dialect with the west.
From what I can see is this is a better deal than most expected. Of course BiBi and Republicans will never agree to it even if it were guaranteed no nuclear activity.
At least Iran is willing to negotiate a peace deal where Israel won't.
This sounds like Iran's current economic state required they reassess their position. Certainly, the Iranian people want to engage in dialect with the west.
From what I can see is this is a better deal than most expected. Of course BiBi and Republicans will never agree to it even if it were guaranteed no nuclear activity.
At least Iran is willing to negotiate a peace deal where Israel won't.
23
No matter what the deal turned out to be - even if Iran said, "come in and take away everything related to nuclear technology, as well as all of our nuclear scientists," Bibi and the GOP would be chanting "bad deal, bad deal, bad deal!" It's bad by virtue of who secured it, not by virtue of its substance.
1
So Obama has a deal that will potentially unlock the pent-up Iranian economy, which net effect will be a further glut in the oil market to drive price of oil down, thus alleviating pressue on the American consumer while putting the screws on countries like Russia and Venezuela who are heavily dependent on oil exports.
The deal involves verification, with the possibility of sanctions "snap back". Nevertheless, because there is no total recall of Iranian nuclear capability, the possibility still exists. Also, at some point sanctions on arms trading will be lifted. All this will make our allies nervous, and America will address that concern by selling them more of its top grade hardware. So american jobs, check.
Security wise, Iran is our tacit partner to crush IS and restore order in Iraq, query whether this deal will involve cutting Assad loose. Iranian adventurism will be held back as its economic interests due to sanctions lift.
Downside, many more sleepless nights for Israel worrying about Iran. Sorry about that, but we gotta put our interests first, and frankly we are tired of taking hits for you.
The deal involves verification, with the possibility of sanctions "snap back". Nevertheless, because there is no total recall of Iranian nuclear capability, the possibility still exists. Also, at some point sanctions on arms trading will be lifted. All this will make our allies nervous, and America will address that concern by selling them more of its top grade hardware. So american jobs, check.
Security wise, Iran is our tacit partner to crush IS and restore order in Iraq, query whether this deal will involve cutting Assad loose. Iranian adventurism will be held back as its economic interests due to sanctions lift.
Downside, many more sleepless nights for Israel worrying about Iran. Sorry about that, but we gotta put our interests first, and frankly we are tired of taking hits for you.
28
All true. My deepest fear is that the Likudniks are ready and willing to sacrifice the interests and well-being of American Jews.
Iran was forced to agree to a bad deal. The illegal and unjust sanctions against Iran should never have been imposed because the US, Israeli and the West's accusations about an Iranian nuclear weapons program were always based on falsehood and fabrication.
While the US and the west are providing the terrorist states of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Persian Gulf Arab states with the latest state of the art weapons to butcher innocent unarmed civilians in Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen, Iran is not allowed to purchase weapons in order to defend itself.
Finally, it will not be Iran that will renege on the deal, but it will be the US on the urging of Israel and pro-Israeli lawmakers, pro-Israeli lobbies, etc. to renege the deal on false accusations.
While the US and the west are providing the terrorist states of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Persian Gulf Arab states with the latest state of the art weapons to butcher innocent unarmed civilians in Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen, Iran is not allowed to purchase weapons in order to defend itself.
Finally, it will not be Iran that will renege on the deal, but it will be the US on the urging of Israel and pro-Israeli lawmakers, pro-Israeli lobbies, etc. to renege the deal on false accusations.
5
You apparently share Obama's world view.
1
I hope that's not an advance copy of Iranian war propaganda.
The entire deal is a series of fantasies that achieves nothing:
1) They can still offshore Nuclear development to a rogue state.
2) Who said the inspectors will find the suspicious site if they can't go anywhere?
3) Even if they find it and manage to "win" rights to inspect it- who says Iran can't structure it in a way to disassemble it in the 24 day grace period?
4) Even if they find it, inspect it, and find evidence whose to say Iran will not deny the evidence? Many nations will look the other way.
5) Even if they find a suspicious site, manage to inspect it before Iran removes every trace, and find incontrovertible evidence, who says the nations of the world will be able to "snap" (most blatant spin word I've ever heard) back the hard-won sanctions coalition?
6) At some point, when Iran is rich enough with the new flow of billions, they can just kick the inspectors out- as they have done before.
7) They can wait out the 15 years and go ahead legally.
Ultimately, the only thing really holding Iran back from going full nuclear is the exact same thing that was there before the deal— the threat of military strikes.
So we have gained nothing other than an illusion of security and perhaps making Iran's efforts a bit more circuitous, and in return we are giving the greatest worldwide sponsor of terror access to billions that it did not have before, and international legitimation at a time of severe regional turmoil that opens many opportunities for Iranian mayhem.
1) They can still offshore Nuclear development to a rogue state.
2) Who said the inspectors will find the suspicious site if they can't go anywhere?
3) Even if they find it and manage to "win" rights to inspect it- who says Iran can't structure it in a way to disassemble it in the 24 day grace period?
4) Even if they find it, inspect it, and find evidence whose to say Iran will not deny the evidence? Many nations will look the other way.
5) Even if they find a suspicious site, manage to inspect it before Iran removes every trace, and find incontrovertible evidence, who says the nations of the world will be able to "snap" (most blatant spin word I've ever heard) back the hard-won sanctions coalition?
6) At some point, when Iran is rich enough with the new flow of billions, they can just kick the inspectors out- as they have done before.
7) They can wait out the 15 years and go ahead legally.
Ultimately, the only thing really holding Iran back from going full nuclear is the exact same thing that was there before the deal— the threat of military strikes.
So we have gained nothing other than an illusion of security and perhaps making Iran's efforts a bit more circuitous, and in return we are giving the greatest worldwide sponsor of terror access to billions that it did not have before, and international legitimation at a time of severe regional turmoil that opens many opportunities for Iranian mayhem.
5
I'd be more concerned about Iran covertly sourcing nuclear or dual-use materials from Chinese brokers because China has done a lousy job of policing that activity.
2
China is a tightly controlled place. Nothing is more so than its nuclear programs.
If China did not stop that activity, that is because it wanted that activity. If it armed Pakistan, it wanted to arm Pakistan. It has certainly played both sides in N Korea.
China might help Iran's nuclear program, but only if the Chinese government decides that is in the best interests of China. That is where we must address that. Right now, that seems to be covered.
If China did not stop that activity, that is because it wanted that activity. If it armed Pakistan, it wanted to arm Pakistan. It has certainly played both sides in N Korea.
China might help Iran's nuclear program, but only if the Chinese government decides that is in the best interests of China. That is where we must address that. Right now, that seems to be covered.
2
"Offshore nuclear development to a rogue state?" What are you, an editor at the Weekly Standard? Good Lord. Sniffing a lot of FoxNews lately, are you?
1
Assume no deal, sanctions remain in place, but in a year or two Iran develops full nuclear capacity, what do the Republicans suggest we do then? I fear the answer. This deal offers sunlight while the Republicans chase darkness.
22
In 2012 the President said a nuclear Iran, "would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty."
He was right.
President Obama also said "Time and again, it (Iran) has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations."
He was right.
In 2013 the President said of Iran “They don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordow in order to have a peaceful nuclear program." He added “They certainly don’t need a heavy-water reactor at Arak in order to have a peaceful nuclear program.”
He was right.
And now he is tragically wrong.
He was right.
President Obama also said "Time and again, it (Iran) has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations."
He was right.
In 2013 the President said of Iran “They don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordow in order to have a peaceful nuclear program." He added “They certainly don’t need a heavy-water reactor at Arak in order to have a peaceful nuclear program.”
He was right.
And now he is tragically wrong.
2
This deal doesn't contradict anything he's said before.
12
Has there been any change in Iran's attitude toward Israel?
Is an Iran ascendant not going to continue their policies which have promoted instability in the region?
Will the regional actors such as Saudi Arabia be more or less likely to feel the need to develop a nuclear weapons program?
Is Iran going to change its established practice of cheating on international agreements?
Why did Iran feel the need to maintain the infrastructure for bomb development underground?
To say nothing in the deal contradicts the President's past statements is implausible.
Is an Iran ascendant not going to continue their policies which have promoted instability in the region?
Will the regional actors such as Saudi Arabia be more or less likely to feel the need to develop a nuclear weapons program?
Is Iran going to change its established practice of cheating on international agreements?
Why did Iran feel the need to maintain the infrastructure for bomb development underground?
To say nothing in the deal contradicts the President's past statements is implausible.
This is a great accomplishment. I think it's great that we negotiated a nuclear agreement, and I think we should also negotiate hostage ransom. We don't negotiate for hostages because it encourages further hostage taking and provides money to the bad guys. But nuclear negotiations are the same. They encourage further nuclear misconduct and, by lifting sanctions, they provide money for further wrongdoing. More important, though, both hostage negotiations and nuclear negotiations can produce favorable results without bad consequences. Neither should be categorically ruled out.
You need to take a lesson in basic logic.
I really like that Mr. Obama distinguishes between "anti-Israeli" and "anti-Semitic," as the two are NOT one and the same. That said, one need not be "anti-Israeli" to be critical of Israel's state policies, and indeed, one can even think that Israel's current leadership is often standing in the way of the Israeli people's best interests. But again, it's important that an American president is not buying the bogus right-wing rhetoric equating criticism of a state's policies with racism.
31
I think Obama is at his worst when selling stuff to the American right. Not sure how he can say "The Iranians are anti-Semitic", apart from being horrendous mangling of language (routinely done by westerners, who aren't shy about saying something like "Saddam Hussein is anti-Semitic", but please look up the dictionary meaning of "Semitic"), to equate a whole country where their diplomats just went toe to toe for a win-win with you for 2 years with broad broad racism is quite something. Did the guy Javad come across as "anti-Semitic" to Kerry & co? Or Rouhani was "anti-Semitic" in his dealings with Obama? Yes, The Iranians cross Israel, but the Israelis give it right back it is fair to say they are anti each other, so the anti-Israel part is correct. So, We know whose ally America is, but don't destroy language and meaning to placate your audience.
President Obama's foreign policy track record has been far from perfect, but this agreement shows what can happen when the interests of the world are placed ahead of the sole interests of the United States. Kudos to Secretary Kerry for spearheading this effort and maintaining the E3/EU+3's negotiating power.
Management of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East:
Obama: 1 Bush: 0
Management of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East:
Obama: 1 Bush: 0
24
What the President is saying to the no-nothing caucus and AIPAC is that if the United States Congress vetoes this deal, the previous sanctions regime will crumble, never to be restored. This deal represents our best play.
Moreover, it's either this deal or that mainstay of contemporary conservatism, the "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
If the next President were to bomb Iran, after the United States vetoed this agreement, then everyone responsible would deserve to be tried at The Hague for war crimes. We would have become an outlaw nation.
Under the Republicans, the United States enjoys the same moral standing as does "the Empire" in Star Wars. I'm only surprised that John McCain has yet to advocate for the building of a Death Star.
I'm still not cutting the President any slack for his refusal to afford labor a direct voice in the negotiation of the TPP - but I'm extremely happy that he spells his name OBAMA instead of OBOMBER.
Moreover, it's either this deal or that mainstay of contemporary conservatism, the "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
If the next President were to bomb Iran, after the United States vetoed this agreement, then everyone responsible would deserve to be tried at The Hague for war crimes. We would have become an outlaw nation.
Under the Republicans, the United States enjoys the same moral standing as does "the Empire" in Star Wars. I'm only surprised that John McCain has yet to advocate for the building of a Death Star.
I'm still not cutting the President any slack for his refusal to afford labor a direct voice in the negotiation of the TPP - but I'm extremely happy that he spells his name OBAMA instead of OBOMBER.
22
Skeptical Congress, namely the Republican representattives, have wanted Mr. Obama to fail since his election in November 2008. They have said things that were not true, invented facts that were false only to destroy the man. Now, he comes from almost nowhere and gives peace a chance. And again, the Republicans criticize Mr. Obama. The GOP is not fit to lead nor are they fit to be the moral compass of America. Congratulations Mr. Obama and History will reward you.
54
Please look at the thought process of Mr Obama. When Mr. Friedman asked him why six world powers could not arm-twist Iran to submission, he replied that nowhere was there an intent they cannot have a Peaceful Nuclear Program in perpetuity - just prove to us it is peaceful.
This is called a win-win solution - This is how you win friends. This is why I support President Obama. To our detractors - "The more we sweat in peace the less we bleed in war".
This is called a win-win solution - This is how you win friends. This is why I support President Obama. To our detractors - "The more we sweat in peace the less we bleed in war".
102
Republicans, obviously, don't believe it's really sweat until they see blood.
i can understand a couple of guys reflexively opposed to the president but to have sixteen guys with the exact same opinion?
16
Keep in mind these are independent thinkers with the intelligence and gravitas to run the country, so of course their opinion on foreign policy negotiations can't possibly be partisan.
7
What a pleasure to hear two intelligent knoledgeable men have a rationale conversation about an issue wrought with intricate complexities and nuances on a subject of immense importance.
I implore you you to find ANY example of this kind of intelligent communication taking place among the GOP doctrine babblers!
Generalities -inflamed and entrenched doctrine - short bursts of inane rhetoric are all they are capable of as they appeal to the worst instincts of their red state rabble.
A compound complex sentence from any of these GOP presidential candidates would be revelatory!
Unqualified to deal with complexity at any level and completely unqualified emotionally for the office they seek!
Truly pathetic!
I implore you you to find ANY example of this kind of intelligent communication taking place among the GOP doctrine babblers!
Generalities -inflamed and entrenched doctrine - short bursts of inane rhetoric are all they are capable of as they appeal to the worst instincts of their red state rabble.
A compound complex sentence from any of these GOP presidential candidates would be revelatory!
Unqualified to deal with complexity at any level and completely unqualified emotionally for the office they seek!
Truly pathetic!
35
This Iran idea will probably be shot-down by a no-nothing Congress, but I believe it will cement Obama's place in History. As well it should, with many other things he has done. A good day for America. A good day for Obama. We need many more like this........
36
How so? They will need to override Obama's veto, and thats gonna require Dem defections to hit the 66% mark.
In the argument of diplomacy versus war, here's some points:
Diplomacy didn't work with the Nazis - we went to war anyway, but:
Texas cowboy Pres Johnson opposed global communism with war - result? - a counterproductive catastrophe in Vietnam & Cambodia.
California cowboy Reagan opposed global communism primarily economically & diplomatically, with defense but no full scale war - result? - success - the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War & effectively the end of the spread of global communist tyranny.
Carter got Egypt & Israel together diplomatically - result? - decades of peace between them.
Texas cowboy G W Bush starts an unnecessary war in Iraq with an invasion - result? - an endless counterproductive catastrophe.
Obama deals with Iran diplomatically - well, we see - there is some precedent for hope.
Diplomacy didn't work with the Nazis - we went to war anyway, but:
Texas cowboy Pres Johnson opposed global communism with war - result? - a counterproductive catastrophe in Vietnam & Cambodia.
California cowboy Reagan opposed global communism primarily economically & diplomatically, with defense but no full scale war - result? - success - the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War & effectively the end of the spread of global communist tyranny.
Carter got Egypt & Israel together diplomatically - result? - decades of peace between them.
Texas cowboy G W Bush starts an unnecessary war in Iraq with an invasion - result? - an endless counterproductive catastrophe.
Obama deals with Iran diplomatically - well, we see - there is some precedent for hope.
37
Don't discount the willing partner in Gorbachev that Reagan had.
4
Such a brilliant man; it is moving to listen to what he has to say and he really is extraordinary.
49
Your expectations are not very high
1
Okay, the President has offered a fairly persuasive explanation in support of this agreement. But I'm waiting for the really trenchant analysis from Donald Trump.
44
Now THAT'S comedy.
6
Do you honestly believe that Trump understands the meaning of "trenchant"?
6
pichon: Have you considered the possibility that jgaughran and k pichon were, to use hipster terminology, 'being ironic' - or, as the non-posers among us like to express it, 'being sarcastic'?
1
Sorry - I don't see how giving someone the means to have nukes is preventing them from having nukes - maybe I just don't understand newspeak.
1
its not as easy as flipping a burger, there is more to manufacturing nukes and their delivery systems . we will always have superiority in those fields, we can/do have nuclear tipped weapon systems in the vicinity, in event of Iran ever trying, there will be adequate time for the us to mount a effective response.
1
Maybe it has somthing to do with missing the point that we just took away their ability to have nukes for at least ten years, and won the ability to be pretty darn sure of that.
4
"I don't see how giving someone the means to have nukes is preventing them from having nukes".....I completely don't understand your comment. Iran already has the means to have nukes. Right now they are less than 6 months away. What you get from the negotiations is a 10 year moratorium with backing from all five permanent members of the UN security council. Now, is a ten year moratorium better than in six months they have nukes? Read. Think. Understand.
7
I certainly find many things at fault with this presidency but to Obama and his team's credit I agree and support this deal and it's initiative. U.S. policy towards Iran has been an abject failure if it is measured on Iran's global behaviour or it's ability to effect regime change. It has tied America's hand to a band of corrupt leaders in the Middle East (Saudi, Egypt) which are much more damaging to America's interest than Republicans or Democrats give air to. If something doesn't work for decades chances are it's wrong. Same goes for Cuba policy, immigration, or the war on drugs. All of these things change slowly but it takes the occasional courage of an administration to be honest with it's citizens and explain the benefits of change.
177
Many things at fault?! I'm not seeing it. If you're a progressive, his presidency is shaping up to be one of the most substantial in history.
1
Without anywhere anytime inspections, the deal is not verifiable.
2
I'd mention that that's pretty much what we got, but I suspect that then you'd have another objection.
9
its not like pitching a folding chair on a beach. we have enough surveillance in place to prevent that. with normal relations the rest of the world can have real human spies keeping tabs on them on the ground
Try watching the interview instead spouting republican talking points. You would understand why you can't just get 24 day notice and have a Mr. Clean in and scrub the place like in movies.
1
In the world of diplomacy there is no such thing as "a sure thing." Those holding out for this fantasy will wait forever while the world turns. President Obama is neithet naive nor foolish. There are potential fissures in any agreement; one can't make a deal if one gets everything one wants: then it's not a deal, it's capitulation. Iran agreed to terms understanding that they live in isolation and their economy was flat-lining. President Obama and SecState John Kerry persevered and treated Irsn with respect, not deference. If their skills at negotiation softened Comrade Putin so that Russia was able to "compartmentalize," then we have the A-team. The Chicken Littles in the Republican Party need to look beyond their provincial boundaries and see a world that is neither black, white, or grey. It requires getting out of one's comfort zone whether it's Iran or Cuba. They need to grow up.
39
Pathetic comments here this evening with, of course, no historical context. When the inevitable blackmail of the Middle East by a nuclear armed Iran begins - the blood of those nations is on the hands of Obama.
2
Iran did not attack any country, it got attacked. Do you know or remember the context?
14
So are you and your loved ones signing up to go fight Iran?
Easy to armchair quarter back sitting in the comfort of Wellesley.
Easy to armchair quarter back sitting in the comfort of Wellesley.
23
i would take my chances with a real civilization over a collection of nomadic tribes and who by the way actively fund attacks of our homeland
7
Great job Obama and Kerry! I only hope that congress follows in your footsteps.
24
Anyone opposed to this has to belong to one of two groups (or both). They are either "Obama Haters" or part of the "Military-Industrial Complex."
23
There is third group - they will trade Israel for USA.
10
No one is trading Israel for anything. Such a hyperbolic response, just like Obamacare was going to ruin healthcare in America. Hyperbole is so caustic and unproductive.
5
This President, of course, could easily sell snow balls in hell. He is eloquent. He is persuasive. He is extraordinarily thoughtful. But, this agreement has significant merit. Diplomacy vs. war-mongering. His GOP critics have been quite predictable: If Obama proposes, we oppose. That is not a strategy. Not a viable option. Continued sanctions clearly not the answer. The President is on the verge of an historic agreement. Query: Does he ever tire of being the smartest person in the room?
108
Smart ain't nearly good enough; smartest has gotten us into some of the worst messes in our history. Smart, decent, and with a backbone, now...
Good man. Decent man, too.
1
Nice job Tom! Way to deliver the hard-hitting, "make 'em squirm" uncomfortable questions that only a New York Times reporter could hurl. I was surprised you didn't (at least on air) compliment his tie.
Perhaps rather than asking him why Iran was the only participant on their side of the table, you could have asked him why Israel, and other countries DIRECTLY EFFECTED by the threats of a nuclear Iran weren't there.
Remember the very successful (sarcasm font) North Korean nuclear negotiations Mr. Clinton began and Mr. Bush completed? You know... the one's where we contained NK's nuclear efforts then the got the bomb anyway? South Korea, the country North Korea vowed to "wipe off the face of the earth" was a negotiator in in that deal. So was Japan. Maybe you could have asked BHO why Israel wasn't in Vienna to face the country whose nuclear threat against them is the only reason we're there in the first place. Maybe you could have asked him how he can reconcile the very recent (last week?) "death to America" chants from the Supreme Ayatollah.
You were only slightly better last night lobbing softballs at the home-run derby at the MLB all-star game. But this was a good effort.
Perhaps rather than asking him why Iran was the only participant on their side of the table, you could have asked him why Israel, and other countries DIRECTLY EFFECTED by the threats of a nuclear Iran weren't there.
Remember the very successful (sarcasm font) North Korean nuclear negotiations Mr. Clinton began and Mr. Bush completed? You know... the one's where we contained NK's nuclear efforts then the got the bomb anyway? South Korea, the country North Korea vowed to "wipe off the face of the earth" was a negotiator in in that deal. So was Japan. Maybe you could have asked BHO why Israel wasn't in Vienna to face the country whose nuclear threat against them is the only reason we're there in the first place. Maybe you could have asked him how he can reconcile the very recent (last week?) "death to America" chants from the Supreme Ayatollah.
You were only slightly better last night lobbing softballs at the home-run derby at the MLB all-star game. But this was a good effort.
5
And the GOP alternative is? Zero, Zippo. Zilch. The fabled three Z's. Not a strategy. Not a viable option. The smartest man in the room has an agreeement that all Americans should support.
86
i could be wrong, but my understanding is that it was a deal reached by the uk / france / china / russia AND the us. not just the us. are these not the main members of the un security council?. if so , that could explain the un like timeline triggers.
8
As I read this, Obama had Israel's interest as well as the entire area's interest in mind. Such statements Re myopic and haven't really considered the information presented here. More anger than logic, but then, I understand from where this comes. In the end, your ideas will be proved wrong. But I will say this, the proof of this deal will be determined by the next president and how well he/she continues the focus on the fragmentation of the Middle East.
3
If the US Congress blocks or somehow tries to frustrate ratification of the international agreement with Iran, they (read: Republicans) are even more myopically self-destructive and stupid than they have already made themselves out to be. This is a treaty not just between Iran and the US but between Iran and much of the Western world. Many of us outside observers may have lost our enthusiasm for Obama a while back, but this is a critical treaty in which much of the world has a major stake. It is too important to be derailed by the continued irrational animosity that some Americans have for their leader. Republicans need to get on board or step aside.
29
Mr. Obama gives what seems to be a rational, thoughtful and perhaps even reasonable explanation of the agreement. It sounds good. However reality is another realm. Iran continues to spin its centrifuges and is building more. Iran continues to arm Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda and Syrian dictator Assad. Iran continues to collaborate with North Korea. Iran has sent men as well as arms. Iran has tried to ship missiles and often tries to run the blockade that Israel has imposed in Gaza. Iran continues to have people marching in the streets decrying America, the Great Satan, and it calls for the destruction of the United States and for the destruction of the State of Israel.
The worst that can happen is not that Iran itself will deploy and launch a nuclear warhead. The worst that can happen is that Iran will secret a nuclear warhead to a terrorist group that will strike at Europe, the Mid-East or the United States.
The mullahs of Iran are not backing down. They are not toning down their talk of death and destruction. The mullahs and the revolutionary guard of Iran will not give up their power and walk away. That is a fantasy.
Obama is correct; "They (Iran) are becoming more sophisticated." In the meantime our armed forces are being reduced in size and the ability to respond and defend America through budget restraints. Another 40,000 Army troops are scheduled to be cut this year. That will leave us with the smallest Army since before World War II. Time will tell.
The worst that can happen is not that Iran itself will deploy and launch a nuclear warhead. The worst that can happen is that Iran will secret a nuclear warhead to a terrorist group that will strike at Europe, the Mid-East or the United States.
The mullahs of Iran are not backing down. They are not toning down their talk of death and destruction. The mullahs and the revolutionary guard of Iran will not give up their power and walk away. That is a fantasy.
Obama is correct; "They (Iran) are becoming more sophisticated." In the meantime our armed forces are being reduced in size and the ability to respond and defend America through budget restraints. Another 40,000 Army troops are scheduled to be cut this year. That will leave us with the smallest Army since before World War II. Time will tell.
5
It is a different world now. We still spend more on the war machine than the rest of the world combined. What exactly is your metric of effectiveness? That the people of Iran take to the streets decrying the Great Satan sure as heck is nothing new, look at history! We installed the Shah, and we took out the Shah. Diplomacy is a worthy first option.
6
The negotiations and the sanctions never were about Iran's behavior, other than to prevent them from going nuclear. If you had been following foreign events for past tens years, you would already know this.
It's what Obama does. As a lawyer, he narrows the issues, he creates "straw-dogs" and he knocks them down, he ridicules his opposition, and then, he says that there's no alternative but his.
Ultimately, he says, this is what we are left with, a bad deal perhaps, but, a deal none-the-less, which is better than no deal.
I don't think so. Mere sophistry, a lawyer's trick.
Ultimately, he says, this is what we are left with, a bad deal perhaps, but, a deal none-the-less, which is better than no deal.
I don't think so. Mere sophistry, a lawyer's trick.
4
What? This is not even a step above unsubstantiated ad hominum attack. This is an *international effort* and it is a serious step toward a more stable world. Your parochial sniping suggests that this agreement is Obama's alone. It is most assuredly not.
34
Funny, what you did in this comment is exactly the same as what you claim the president did. Narrow down his supposed strategy, ridicule it and present it as a done deal. Masterly sophistry sir, congratulations .
Ps: I know full well I just did the same in this comment. At least I dare to own up.
Ps: I know full well I just did the same in this comment. At least I dare to own up.
11
Y, he does less ho-hum than the previous one. Guess who got Osama, not the one who jumped from the sky.
3
President Obama is drawing from the premise that one makes peace with enemies, not friends; one reaches accords with adversaries, not allies. But no one is locked into friction in perpetuity.
20
This is a huge diplomatic first step by the US to make Iran comply with requirements to avoid unwanted and extreme actions including warfare, and bring it back to the international community. The agreement is not perfect and the US can not satisfy fully every party interested on the subject. However, it contains provisions to take remedial action should Iran decide to disregard any or all the clauses and time tables of the agreement. For the benefit of our country, and regardless of political affiliations, Congress should approve the agreement. We are already involved in a ridiculous amount of bellicose confrontations.
27
Hey Obama: Would like to buy a bridge ?
You remind me of Jimmy Carter, and his dealing with Iran; for which we are still paying for these days, and Bill Clinton's dealing with Korea, who had very similar claims as today's Obama.
Obama's naiveness will cause us to pay dearly for decades to come.
You remind me of Jimmy Carter, and his dealing with Iran; for which we are still paying for these days, and Bill Clinton's dealing with Korea, who had very similar claims as today's Obama.
Obama's naiveness will cause us to pay dearly for decades to come.
9
Yours is a textbook example of willful cynicism versus intelligent skepticism. Did you even read the text of Friedman's interview and the extent of Obama's point-by-point case for this historic deal? Sure, given Iran's disgraceful recent history, there is good reason to doubt it's willingness--or even ability--to comply. But that's exactly why Obama is quoting GOP presidents on 'trust, but verify'--a wise move in a troubled world.
'Naiveness?'--I don't think so. Please donut confuse naiveté with skeptical, fact-based, hope.
'Naiveness?'--I don't think so. Please donut confuse naiveté with skeptical, fact-based, hope.
18
Yes Noah- Not like your hero Regan who sold arms to Iran illegally to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. Now there was a REAL leader!!!
24
Noahnoah,
I suggest you and your sons and daughters head on over on the first flight to Tehran to fight another war.
Ps. It's naïveté not naiveness.
I suggest you and your sons and daughters head on over on the first flight to Tehran to fight another war.
Ps. It's naïveté not naiveness.
6
What i keep looking for and not seeing or hearing is an articulation of what the alternative might be with the risks and tradeoffs. Critics insinuate that there is a clear and obvious easy alternative.
Well, what is it? What are the tradeoffs?
Well, what is it? What are the tradeoffs?
262
Tradeoff? Can we stop them or not? You and this feckless administration seem to think we can't.
1
Go git 'em, armchair chest-thumper.
4
You might put that question to Lindsay Graham and John McCain.
Can you guess their answer?
Can you guess their answer?
Friedman asks: is this deal better for "Israel and our Arab allies than any other alternative on the table?"
1) we always will and must protect Israel against existential threats of its hostile neighbors. So, Israel's safety is unaffected if not improved as Iran is forced into more inspection (no NPT signatory has been more thoroughly and frequently inspect than in Iran since 2009) still.
2) we have no Arab allies. Let's not delude ourselves. Saudi are a weapons market, not an ally. They gave us '98 bombings of our embassies in east Africa, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, 9/11, ISIS....They pay good dollars for our weapons. Our Arab so called allies run regimes far more oppressive than Iran with even fewer commonalities with us. Friendly leaders, hostile people -that is the Arabian peninsula.
Also, Israel has no leg to criticize this deal. If Israel wants to criticize NPT signatories on nuclear matters, it should sign the NPT itself, and not be in the same club as Pakistan, India and South Sudan.
I fully support an Israel that is heavily armed with conventional weapons, defending itself as it has before, and backed by unbreakable alliances like ours. But, for Israel to hold enough warheads to rank as number 3-5 in terms of nuke arsenal size, and stay out of the NPT itself, it has not leg to criticize any NPT member.
1) we always will and must protect Israel against existential threats of its hostile neighbors. So, Israel's safety is unaffected if not improved as Iran is forced into more inspection (no NPT signatory has been more thoroughly and frequently inspect than in Iran since 2009) still.
2) we have no Arab allies. Let's not delude ourselves. Saudi are a weapons market, not an ally. They gave us '98 bombings of our embassies in east Africa, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, 9/11, ISIS....They pay good dollars for our weapons. Our Arab so called allies run regimes far more oppressive than Iran with even fewer commonalities with us. Friendly leaders, hostile people -that is the Arabian peninsula.
Also, Israel has no leg to criticize this deal. If Israel wants to criticize NPT signatories on nuclear matters, it should sign the NPT itself, and not be in the same club as Pakistan, India and South Sudan.
I fully support an Israel that is heavily armed with conventional weapons, defending itself as it has before, and backed by unbreakable alliances like ours. But, for Israel to hold enough warheads to rank as number 3-5 in terms of nuke arsenal size, and stay out of the NPT itself, it has not leg to criticize any NPT member.
52
The difference between President Obama and his predecessor could not be more stark. Obama chooses to reduce the likelihood of using WMDs, while Bush lied about their threat. Obama believes in speaking scientifically, while Bush used a State of the Union address to falsify accounts of purchasing yellowcake uranium. Obama knows that war is the last option, while Bush made it the first. Obama involved other nations in the talks thoroughly, while Bush had a half-baked Coalition of the Willing. Obama looks forward, while Bush never let go of an old conflict. After Bush showed the worst, most cynical American elements, Obama shows the most pragmatic and progressive.
179
we have tried isolation with iran and ended up having no real spies inside that country. maybe if we can have open relations with them , we could have our CIA operate freely in that country keep tabs on them, there is an old saying, keep your friends close but keeps your enemies closer. there is some truth to that logic.
5
Obama shows a realistic grasp of the difficulties. The best arguments in favor of ending sanctions were that they would not be sustainable for our allies in India and elsewhere; and that since sanctions would not prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon, war would eventually have been necessary. But war would only strengthen the isolationist hardliners in Iran, consolidating their vision of a militant, uncompromising, extremist Iran. This in turn would become a greater danger to Israel, which would not be able to bomb every nuclear facility, or invade and occupy Iran.
On the other side, Obama appears realistic about the dangers a richer Iran would pose - more money to give to Hezbollah and its other proxies, more money for building weapons, including a secret nuclear program, more money to invest in terrorism. These argue strongly for continuing sanctions as long as possible, until a humbled Iran is ready to abandon nuclear power. But how long would that take?
The President appears to be gambling that money involves obligations, and that participation in the world economy will force Iran to surrender its dream of controlling the Middle East in favor of good relations with countries that buy its products.
Netanyahu thinks Iran will never change. He wants war, and forced regime change. Did he not see how that strategy worked in Iraq? He now faces a worse enemy there, the Islamic State. With reservations, I endorse Obama's deal.
On the other side, Obama appears realistic about the dangers a richer Iran would pose - more money to give to Hezbollah and its other proxies, more money for building weapons, including a secret nuclear program, more money to invest in terrorism. These argue strongly for continuing sanctions as long as possible, until a humbled Iran is ready to abandon nuclear power. But how long would that take?
The President appears to be gambling that money involves obligations, and that participation in the world economy will force Iran to surrender its dream of controlling the Middle East in favor of good relations with countries that buy its products.
Netanyahu thinks Iran will never change. He wants war, and forced regime change. Did he not see how that strategy worked in Iraq? He now faces a worse enemy there, the Islamic State. With reservations, I endorse Obama's deal.
256
"Netanyahu thinks Iran will never change. He wants war, and forced regime change. Did he not see how that strategy worked in Iraq? He now faces a worse enemy there, the Islamic State. With reservations, I endorse Obama's deal."
Netanyahu thinks Iraq worked out pretty well from Israeli point of view, and he doesn't care how poorly it worked out for us and everyone else in the world. He also likes how Syria has disintegrated. From his point of view, the busier they are killing each other, the less concerned they are with Israel. And if that means 10s of millions suffer physically in the region, and many more economically globally, so be it.
Netanyahu thinks Iraq worked out pretty well from Israeli point of view, and he doesn't care how poorly it worked out for us and everyone else in the world. He also likes how Syria has disintegrated. From his point of view, the busier they are killing each other, the less concerned they are with Israel. And if that means 10s of millions suffer physically in the region, and many more economically globally, so be it.
I am afraid I believe Mr. Netanyahu will have his war, one way or another. He's a right wing Republican, after all. As well, he has announced his intention to, Again, interfere with American Government activities.
Your logic and perspective are impeccable.
Wrong Mr. Obama, You did not close off Iran's path to Nuclear Weapons. You merely postponed it, at best...
... in addition you have agreed to rescind the parts embargo for their Ballistic Weapons and other weapons for about 5 to at most 8 Years...
... the result will be a much stronger Iran with probable Nuclear Weapons in the future...
... you have mortgaged the future for the present...
As Iran becomes stronger in years ahead, the result
will be a Destabilized Middle East with Nuclear proliferation which will endanger the entire World...
... and you will go down in History as having let it happen...
... in addition you have agreed to rescind the parts embargo for their Ballistic Weapons and other weapons for about 5 to at most 8 Years...
... the result will be a much stronger Iran with probable Nuclear Weapons in the future...
... you have mortgaged the future for the present...
As Iran becomes stronger in years ahead, the result
will be a Destabilized Middle East with Nuclear proliferation which will endanger the entire World...
... and you will go down in History as having let it happen...
4
Seriously, Henry? Perhaps Iran has a sovereign right to nuclear weapons just like all of the yahoos in this country declare they have a right to most any weapon that strikes their fancy. So, like in this country, we have to use diplomacy to attempt to reason with people who appear to have a bit too much paranoia, and we must attempt to maintain a dialogue. Higher order human communication . . . try it.
3
Let me try. Did you know that the negotiations included the five permanent members of the UN Security Council? That is why the sanctions were effective. It is not just the U.S. standing alone here as you seem to imply. You might want to consider that in all its future implications before you blithely blow off the agreement.
1
yes seriously... "Amskeptic" ... Iran which supports terrorists and threatens to wipe its neighbors off the map of the World does not deserve to have Nuclear Weapons ...
1
This is a deal that needs no selling. It was made possible by an aggressive sanction policy, to which the Iranians caved. Simply for ending the sanctions, Iran agrees to substantial concessions. We have gotten something for nothing. It's a deal that only a posturing Republican or a posturing Israeli leader can find fault with.
52
I read the text and listened to the clips and I thought President Obama sounded a little bit like a lawyer by insisting that the only focus for assessing where we are after this deal be a focus on its specific goal of keeping Iran from have a nuclear weapon. Even though sanctions were levied in order to bring Iran to the table over this issue, aren't we allowed to look at what happens on other, related issues once those sanctions are lifted on account of this deal? It does sound as though people in government are actually thinking about what will happen with an Iran with more money and with more access to conventional weapons, and how to anticipate what may happen, in order to try to shape how things play out, but I think it's a legitimate question whether the nuclear weapons piece in some ways has distracted us and the other countries from the apparent fact that the sanctions and constraints were keeping Iran from doing more undermining of stability in the region, whyever they were imposed to begin with. If the negotiating group of countries was not willing to work that issue into the negotiations, then I suppose what's left is for countries who do have these concerns to try to prevent the situation from devolving into one in which a battle was won but it distracted us from a whole other front of fighting.
3
I always enjoy your comments, Ms. Moses, but this time I have to disagree. If a comprehensive agreement was impossible, should the U.S. have abandoned the effort to achieve a limited accord on a crucial issue? In fact, the changes you mention would have required a transformation of the Iranian state, a goal that surely would have fractured the international coalition that secured this agreement. What we obtained may be less than half a loaf, but it is still a substantial piece.
We can't know for certain what Iran will do once the money comes pouring in but the fact remains that Russia and China were anxious to drop the sanctions and would likely have done so if no agreement had been reached. Also, absent an agreement Tehran would have had no reason to curtail their nuclear activities- to the contrary, they'd have had more of an incentive to militarize. Which is to say this is the best deal the U.S. and its allies were likely to get.
Obama makes very good sense. He articulates his views brilliantly. They deserve a reasoned response.
All too predictably, right out of the gate Republicans make crass and nonsensical comments that reveal profound ignorance and/or reckless stupidity. Rhetoric that makes no sense is nonsense and should be reported as such.
This agreement warrants a serious discussion based on its merits. Americans who are unwilling to engage in or at least listen to a rational substantive debate invite admonishment. It's clear that the vast majority of Americans want peace in the region and the world and support any agreement that moves toward eliminating nuclear proliferation. The verdict on those who insist on pounding the war drums will be decided in 2016. This agreement cannot wait until then. Wiser and more level headed debate is needed now!
Mr Friedman and other detractors should get a grip on reality. Quarterbacking from the armchair of the NYT doesn't really increase their credibility, nor add much value to the discussion. I'm interested in hearing from those who have been there and done that.
All too predictably, right out of the gate Republicans make crass and nonsensical comments that reveal profound ignorance and/or reckless stupidity. Rhetoric that makes no sense is nonsense and should be reported as such.
This agreement warrants a serious discussion based on its merits. Americans who are unwilling to engage in or at least listen to a rational substantive debate invite admonishment. It's clear that the vast majority of Americans want peace in the region and the world and support any agreement that moves toward eliminating nuclear proliferation. The verdict on those who insist on pounding the war drums will be decided in 2016. This agreement cannot wait until then. Wiser and more level headed debate is needed now!
Mr Friedman and other detractors should get a grip on reality. Quarterbacking from the armchair of the NYT doesn't really increase their credibility, nor add much value to the discussion. I'm interested in hearing from those who have been there and done that.
64
The Republicans may make no sense, but you make no point....except that you don't like them and apparently are pleased with president Obama.
"The agreement warrants a discussion"....exactly. Not the threat to veto any opposition before Congress, or most, including me and I strongly suspect you, read it.
As an aside, you might try to make a case for your opinion without sweeping insults. Should you make a point sometime, it will be more fairly considered.
"The agreement warrants a discussion"....exactly. Not the threat to veto any opposition before Congress, or most, including me and I strongly suspect you, read it.
As an aside, you might try to make a case for your opinion without sweeping insults. Should you make a point sometime, it will be more fairly considered.
2
Wait, did you mean discussion? With whom, who brought a foreign leader to denounce President? There should be no discussion with those who care more about Israel than about USA.
Besides, it has been already discussed by 5 powers, UN bodies. Now you try to throw it, you make USA irrelevant.
Besides, it has been already discussed by 5 powers, UN bodies. Now you try to throw it, you make USA irrelevant.
1
Another embarrassing moment yesterday when Scott Walker made the announcement on "his first day he would break the deal with Iran" and keep his word to make sure Mr. Netanyau is treated right and assured Israel is our top ally. (when he went to Israel on his Wisconsin governor's salary and time this spring).
This coming from a man who can hardly reign in some of his own Republican legislators speaking how he would do this on his first day. No where in his presidential announcement did he discuss working with Congress or anyone else, such as a Secretary of State or other negotiators, or give any background into any kind of understanding about Iran's history or recent discussions or negotiations.
John Kerry and President Obama must be shaking their heads.
Truth is, Walker is scary. To hear him speak so recklessly about Iran to gain points from people he thinks are gullible enough to see him as a leader is disheartening. While the president is speaking to historic opportunities, which this can be, Walker takes tutor tips from whoever and tries to run with them.. Sad to think some people might look at Walker's first day as something presidential. They must remember the closest Scott Walker has ever gotten to any serious foreign policy is.....well, there isn't any.
This coming from a man who can hardly reign in some of his own Republican legislators speaking how he would do this on his first day. No where in his presidential announcement did he discuss working with Congress or anyone else, such as a Secretary of State or other negotiators, or give any background into any kind of understanding about Iran's history or recent discussions or negotiations.
John Kerry and President Obama must be shaking their heads.
Truth is, Walker is scary. To hear him speak so recklessly about Iran to gain points from people he thinks are gullible enough to see him as a leader is disheartening. While the president is speaking to historic opportunities, which this can be, Walker takes tutor tips from whoever and tries to run with them.. Sad to think some people might look at Walker's first day as something presidential. They must remember the closest Scott Walker has ever gotten to any serious foreign policy is.....well, there isn't any.
159
Gawd, ya gotta love an intelligent POTUS. Such a departure from what the rebublicans have given us with GW, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. And their offering of 15 new dishes at the smorgasbord of better than ever leaves you with such a bad taste .......
99
In addition to an agreement which will be next to impossible to verify, the lifting of sanctions against arms, and ballistic missals were put on the table by Iran, and agreed to by Obama and the West. What did we leave the table with of any substance?
2
I'll read more but I'm afraid the answer, my fellow American, is good PR for the 2016 election, before the weaknesses in the agreement are exposed.
Uh, a level of ability to monitor that we've never had before, and...oh, never mind. You didn't read the interview, or the news reports, or the President's and kerry's statements, and there is no chance whatsoever that you ever, ever will, so, have a nice day.
4
Obama may well have signed the death warrant for the State f Israel. They have 15 years (YEARS) to get rid of 98% of their enriched nuclear stockpile? It takes only 15 milliseconds for Jerusalem to be wiped from the face of the earth. Remember, it is part of Iran's constitution that requires the extermination of the Jewish people.
Have American Jews simply given up on the Jewish state in the interest of supporting whichever Democrat is in the White House? When will you all WAKE UP?
Have American Jews simply given up on the Jewish state in the interest of supporting whichever Democrat is in the White House? When will you all WAKE UP?
6
Ridiculous hyperbol does the state of Israel no favors. All Americans support the right of Israel to be a free and safe country. Suggest you take some time to read history books about the Middle East. Look at war versus diplomacy for starters
19
What is hyperbol? No, YOU look at the history!
A similar concern was expressed during the Cold War. Remember kids practicing for attack by ducking under wooden school desks? As a Cold War submariner I prepared to defend the country from a Russian attack by spending months under water manning American nuclear missiles. A credible Israeli offensive weapon is enough to provide for their defense.
Wow! I thought the president's response to Friedman's somewhat leading and predictable query was brilliant. I then had a thought about the previous president trying to respond to the same query -- not only is his predecessor not even in the same class intellectually, he's not even in the same planet. We are lucky to have Obama in the WH.
374
GMR i was thinking the same exact thing....quite a smart fellow, our president!
I too have had that thought many times. President Obama speaks logically, and prudently and sees far down the road. President Bush spoke in slogans and had a narrow, reactive view of the world. President Obama is playing chess... others are playing checkers.
Any time I question President Obama, I think of the alternatives... Senator McCain and Governor Romney. Thank you, President Obama....the worst President ever according to Dick Cheney. That says it all.
Any time I question President Obama, I think of the alternatives... Senator McCain and Governor Romney. Thank you, President Obama....the worst President ever according to Dick Cheney. That says it all.
I too tried to imagine George Bush in an interview so important as this one. It would have been a real comedy!
Counting today there are 555 days left in the Obama Presidency. If the Republicans can keep him busy implementing the details of this odious agreement for a significant portion of this time, it will at least spare the country the pain of dealing with any additional "legacy achievements" he may wish to inflict on us.
G-d save the United States and our next President. The mess that President Obama is leaving behind is enormous.
G-d save the United States and our next President. The mess that President Obama is leaving behind is enormous.
4
"The mess that President Obama is leaving behind is enormous." Achieving a diplomatic break through to stop nuclear bomb development is a mess? Would you rather have war and destruction as well as more bleeding of the US treasury? Think about it!
45
For good or bad, they only have 60 days to review and would need 2/3 majority in both house and senate. So it's essentially a done deal.
5
Yeah, shame he didn't leave Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, Iraq's bomb program, the Russian invasion of Georgia, our infrastructure, health care, all neat and squeaky clean the was Bush did.
What is the matter with you people? disagreement is ine thing, but this stuff is nuts.
What is the matter with you people? disagreement is ine thing, but this stuff is nuts.
4
I am very glad this was made. I would warn the naysayers that this is not just a US with Iran deal. It is a six nations with Iran deal. It would be very dangerous and irresponsible for the Congress to try to kill this deal with such broad international agreement. They don't have to like it, just don't destroy our diplomatic capability with the rest of the world. Also, if the Congress kills the deal, other countries will break the sanctions so it won't matter what we do. Please explain that reality to Scott Walker.
459
And on a note of levity, please explain that reality to The Speaker of The House, John Boehner, or we may have another Government Shut-Down. Both these politicians appear to be tone-deaf.
" It is a six nations with Iran deal."
This is a key point that US media seems to be emphasizing less than international coverage. You see little mention of US allies in some of the other major print stories today compared to The Guardian for one example. We weren't lone wolfs in the sanctioning process, nor are we here with this agreement.
This is a key point that US media seems to be emphasizing less than international coverage. You see little mention of US allies in some of the other major print stories today compared to The Guardian for one example. We weren't lone wolfs in the sanctioning process, nor are we here with this agreement.
Please explain that reality and reality in general to Scott Walker.
I admire Obama's resolve and his clear command of the complex issues at stake. He makes a compelling case for the deal even in the face of Iranian leaders who have repeatedly shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Obama narrows the focus of the deal to the essential goal of reducing the risk of Iran procuring nuclear weapons, and he astutely connects the necessary shift in mindset on Iran to Nixon on China and Reagan on Russia. Regardless of the outcome of this deal in our dysfunctional Congress, I also admire Obama's leadership. He is acting presidential and showing that he is worthy of our trust in him as Commander in Chief.
133
And soon, he will be gone, and all will be reversed. Yeah!
1
The economic advantages of this deal are much more important than the limitation of Iran as a real player in the global economy. But opinions on this issue were divided, and now we must remember that hard work can go down the drain if at the right moment no one will have enough will, hard work and political commitment.
1
Somebody in the media needs to ask any one of the high profile Republican complainers how we would be safer if no deal had been made at all. Which seems to be what they want. Several candidates have already said they would start by nullify the deal with Iran, before moving on to the AFA Obama Care.
16
Many of President Obama's critics are not versed in US civics and presidential history, or they think all others are not. Remember President Nixon's overtures to that 'commie' China even as they were actively supporting Vietnam, that we were fighting?
7
That a nation with one of the largest oil reserves sees a need for nuclear centrifuges can but give one pause. Add the fact that Russia and China supported this deal and there are ample grounds for skepticism.
44
Why does Israel have nuclear weapons and refuses to allow the IAEA into Israel. England, France, Germany, were also in support of this deal.
America should be far more skeptical of an ally's extremist leader who tried to humiliate the leader of the free world, tried to enlist Republican opposition, and employed wealthy political donors and AIPAC to destroy American policy. If the major powers of the world support this deal, and the President supports this deal, does anyone really think we will support Netanyahu? Americans don't want to bomb Iran.
America should be far more skeptical of an ally's extremist leader who tried to humiliate the leader of the free world, tried to enlist Republican opposition, and employed wealthy political donors and AIPAC to destroy American policy. If the major powers of the world support this deal, and the President supports this deal, does anyone really think we will support Netanyahu? Americans don't want to bomb Iran.
2
Yes, they are still our enemy. Let's not oversimplify.
That's silly, the Ayatollah has a profound concern about global warming and wants to wean the world from oil so Iran does not have to drill baby drill.
On foreign policy Obama's doctrine is " avoids errors, You hit singles; you hit doubles. Every once in a while we may be able to hit a home run. But we steadily advance the interests of the American people and our partnership with folks around the world."
This is a grand slam MR. President
Thank you sir..
This is a grand slam MR. President
Thank you sir..
568
Lost Libya, lost Yemen, losing Iraq, losting Turkey, Losing Egypt.....all I see are outs.
You consider signing an agreement that destabilizes the Middle East even further and will likely start an arms race a "grand slam"? Because of this deal, tensions will rise even higher and because of Obama's incompetence one of the worst actors in the world will now have nukes! The Iranians must laugh themselves to sleep each night recognizing just how easy it was to get everything they wanted...probably should have asked Kerry for one of our aircraft carriers, I'm sure we would have agreed.
Okay, I know NYT is going to stifle this comment because it doesn't fall in line with the Editorial pablum dispensed here, and will create cognitive dissonance for its readers, but here goes:
If Abraham Lincoln had taken the same approach to military force adopted by Barack Obama, we would still have slavery in the US.
If Abraham Lincoln had taken the same approach to military force adopted by Barack Obama, we would still have slavery in the US.
Will someone who doesn't like this deal please say what alternative is better? Absent credible alternatives, the criticisms are just noise.
123
So your logic is a bad deal is better than no deal. That's the same philosophy that Neville chamberlain had when he negotiated a deal with hitler.
4
No one has quite demonstrated how this deal is worse in the long term than now, where Iran is in fact already enriching uranium as we speak. Though, if you believe Bibi, Iran has had enough enriched uranium for a bomb about two years ago (hey, what happened to those estimates?)
Let's face facts: the status quo without a deal leads to zero oversight while they accumulate material for a bomb in which case we fight Israel's proxy war, or you can hope the terms of the agreement work and there is no bomb.
But let's keep going around saying that this deal stinks based on the ridiculously vague and essentially grasping-at-straws assertion that to not have a deal of any sort is better than the current situation where we exchange wrecking the Iranian economy for their possession of a pile of uranium is totally working.
Hey guys, please demonstrate where we currently stop the bomb by sanctions alone. And if you can't, then please sign up for the inevitable conflagration that will make Vietnam look like the Granada invasion. Thanks.
Let's face facts: the status quo without a deal leads to zero oversight while they accumulate material for a bomb in which case we fight Israel's proxy war, or you can hope the terms of the agreement work and there is no bomb.
But let's keep going around saying that this deal stinks based on the ridiculously vague and essentially grasping-at-straws assertion that to not have a deal of any sort is better than the current situation where we exchange wrecking the Iranian economy for their possession of a pile of uranium is totally working.
Hey guys, please demonstrate where we currently stop the bomb by sanctions alone. And if you can't, then please sign up for the inevitable conflagration that will make Vietnam look like the Granada invasion. Thanks.
No, the logic is that without a deal Iran can literally do whatever they want with their nuclear program. They would still have sanctions, but if it comes to the safety of the middle east we really can't do worse than it already is today.
With the agreement, we'll know about any threat months in advance and as an international community will be able to act.
With the agreement, we'll know about any threat months in advance and as an international community will be able to act.
5
I wish President Obama sits every week with Tom Friedman to talk about world affairs. It is a free high level lesson that I listened too amazed at the smart questions and the quite impressive answers of a president not afraid to discuss his ideas. Please make the whole 45 minutes tape available; thank you.
137
Thus should be "required" watching in all colleges that teach international relations, foreign policy, diplomacy and international law! History is witness to these powerful events leading humanity towards peace, brotherhood, dignity and open communication. How could George Bush jr lie to the whole world in braid daylight and get away with it! Why aren't international war crimes tribunals summoning him?
3
It's hard for me to understand the republican opposition to diplomacy. Even Rand Paul is disagreeing with this deal. This is how you change things. You don't get anywhere legitimately through threats or conflict unless there is absolutely no other option. Obama has been hitting his stride lately.
39
The President's critics will summon their usual partisan, inflamed and sanctimonious criticisms, but this is a sophisticated and plausible explanation by the President of the complicated geopolitical dynamics in which this extremely consequential diplomatic wager has been made. Nothing can guarantee that the desired outcome will result, but this explanation puts to shame most of the partisan sniping and sound bite condemnations I have seen to date. As well as a lot of journalistic bombast. Let's hope this agreement works, for the sake of our country and this terribly troubled region.
33
I hope in my soul this Deal proves to be as solid as a rock, on both sides, in -let'say- a couple of years ahead. That nothing, no other nuclear or terrorist force could break it, in any way and by no means (not to mention the Deal signers, of course!) Peace in the World, even if I look childish! We've had enough yet... not everyone could purchase a one-way ticket to Mars right now; furthermore, it would be too late.
2
Friedman's concerns are a bit self centered, not unlike Netanyahu.
Obama's explanation is hard to refute if we want a future that takes out of our cycle of perpetual war. I'm impressed that he took the long view and applaud him if the 'verification' is as he says.
Obama's explanation is hard to refute if we want a future that takes out of our cycle of perpetual war. I'm impressed that he took the long view and applaud him if the 'verification' is as he says.
25
Of course the Republicans are against it. They just obstruct and block. They are just negative all the time. it is getting tiresome.
They even admit they are bound to a policy of obstruction.
Despicable.
They even admit they are bound to a policy of obstruction.
Despicable.
52
It appears there are a number of democrats who oppose it. We sent a bunch of feather weights to negotiate with a bunch of heavy weights. Kerry is a legend in his own mind.
3
Republicans are bound to a policy of obstruction. Where are your facts to back it up? Did they prevent Obama from passing a budge for 4 years? Stimulus? Auto bailout? Extending unemployment benefits. Repeated continued of funding due to lack of a budget, Cash for Clunkers, shall I go on? It was the Democrats who blocked his Dream Act and it was the Democrats who blocked his proposed jobs bill.
And correct me if I am wrong but didn't Senate Democrats block every judicial appointment by Bush from 2006-2008?
Didn't Democrats block Bush's attempt to privatize part of Social Security?
Didn't Democrats block 30 jobs bills passed by the House, including one called "Putting our Vets back to work?"
By the wall....the word ALL is an absolute you cannot prove and your whole comment is pure hyperbole and nothing more/
And correct me if I am wrong but didn't Senate Democrats block every judicial appointment by Bush from 2006-2008?
Didn't Democrats block Bush's attempt to privatize part of Social Security?
Didn't Democrats block 30 jobs bills passed by the House, including one called "Putting our Vets back to work?"
By the wall....the word ALL is an absolute you cannot prove and your whole comment is pure hyperbole and nothing more/
2
Remember the deal Jimmy Carter worked out with North Korea. Last time I looked they had nuclear weapons. I think Mr. Obama should have given the Iranians and Saudi Arabia a nuclear weapon and avoided all the wasted diplomacy. All Mr. Obama did is kick the can down the road for the next president in order to cement his personal legacy.
2
If Bibi thinks this deal is bad and poses a great threat to Israel's existence, he, and Israel, can declare war on Iran and defend his country. Israel has that right; but WITHOUT using the U.S. military as proxy. The one thing that Netanyahu's indignation, his hubris at addressing OUR congress and berating OUR President, has revealed is that this country has been Israel's patsy. Israel is not the 51st state of the union. We send our troops and treasure to fight THEIR wars and Bibi laughs at our stupidity. Iran is a huge country. The possibility of better relations will open business opportunities that can only help our economy. Improving relations with Cuba and Iran is quite an accomplishment. No matter how Fox News and Republicans spin it, Obama is going to be recognized as one of the greats in our country's history. Simply because he knows that it does no good to live in the past, which is exactly the Republican mantra.
353
So very true!
5
@judgeroybean Israel has never used the US military or anyone else as a proxy. The issue is and always has been that those who have declared war on Israel and continue to openly threaten Israel are supported by the US, China, Russia and others. Therefore we, the US, play both sides of the fence. We support and arm Israel's enemies and arm Israel too. It is a total win for the US military industry.
4
Amen. The problem is that many powerful and wealthy Jewish Americans and Christian zionists pretend that Israel is attached to the U.S. At the hip. Having faced persecution and hostility during Hitler regime, Jews encountered first hand how world sentiments towards an ethnic group could quickly turn sour, so they are zealously over protective towards homeland Israel which Jews share with Christians and Muslims alike. So it is a misperception that Muslims have joined Christians (previously) in an anti Jewish bashing. Because it is a misconception and fabrication, it can be dismantled peacefully. For which it needs sage like handlers, mr Obama and John Kerry are the best people in these times.
2
The world is not flat. It is complex with emerging powers and economies that that are frenemies at best. Russia is the US’s partner on this, but not in the Ukraine. China is a US partner on this but not in South China sea. Saudi Arabia, not exactly a democracy, is a key US ally. The EU too has a role to play. And Israel (whose security is guaranteed by the US) and Gulf allies are getting upgrades in security.
I will take diplomatic approach led by the US and involving the major global powers as a sign of US strength over the skepticism of a someone who thought in 2003, that the Iraq war is “the most important liberal, revolutionary U.S. democracy-building project since the Marshall Plan.”
I will take diplomatic approach led by the US and involving the major global powers as a sign of US strength over the skepticism of a someone who thought in 2003, that the Iraq war is “the most important liberal, revolutionary U.S. democracy-building project since the Marshall Plan.”
74
Wow. I had to look up the quote, and was amazed to find that it was -- Friedman himself! Thanks for pointing this out.
One can only wonder how long these negotiations would have taken if the same pressure was being put on Israel to give up it's nuclear arsenal.
32
Why should it? Israel doesn't call for any country -- not even Iran -- to be wiped off the map. Israel has shown nuclear restraint even under attack, in 1973. Israel has no motive to give nuclear arms to terrorist groups, and every motive to safeguard its stockpile. Israel's government is much more accountable than Iran's. There is no comparison between Israel and Iran on the nuclear weapons issue.
5
You miss the point entirely! If, as you say, Israel is so responsible, why does it even need nuclear weapons. And just the fact that Israel has them and has shown total disregard for "world opinion", the United Nations, etc, is little comfort to the other nations in the region. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, has never admitted to having nuclear weapons, and has never disavowed first use.
10
Every time I hear President Obama talk with Mr. Friedman, I am impressed with the thoughtfulness, intelligence, and conviction of a president doing what he thinks is best for our country. I wish they would do these more often!
236
Good for the president to take his advocacy to a wide range of outlets. Over the past few years he's seemed to favor gimmicky outlets like BuzzFeed instead of reputable ones like the Times. He knows that he has to get the truth about this deal out to as many people as possible (especially after his TPP secrecy debacle). His opponents will be out in full force and he can't sit back.
4
I continue to be impressed with President Obama's strong and wise leadership in these dynamic times.
293
Nuclear risk reduction is an initiative Dr. William Perry and team started working with world bodies @ Stanford.
We need to get IRAN into world community so we can reduce nuclear proliferation.
Additionally, all these rules should apply to India, Pakistan and Israel as well.
In the mean time, Netanyahu need to be patient. Remember we need Iran and Israel to co-exist.
Be a GANDHI once to get along.
We need to get IRAN into world community so we can reduce nuclear proliferation.
Additionally, all these rules should apply to India, Pakistan and Israel as well.
In the mean time, Netanyahu need to be patient. Remember we need Iran and Israel to co-exist.
Be a GANDHI once to get along.
18
Beginning today Tuesday, July 14, 2015 is the day where to agree to disagree should be revered and held up to much scrutiny unless talks of war materializes.
While President Obama is touting the Iranian Nuclear Deal, was there any substantive discussion on the four or more Americans presently being held hostage by Iran?
2
"While President Obama is touting the Iranian Nuclear Deal, was there any substantive discussion on the four or more Americans presently being held hostage by Iran?"
In the time it took you to write that comment, several people died of preventable causes (such as hunger). Sorry for those hostages, but were we to split hairs over every detail we wouldn't accomplish important deals such as these. In the long term, a less hostile Iran might be more inclined to hand them over to us.
In the time it took you to write that comment, several people died of preventable causes (such as hunger). Sorry for those hostages, but were we to split hairs over every detail we wouldn't accomplish important deals such as these. In the long term, a less hostile Iran might be more inclined to hand them over to us.
11
There's a time for everything. Given the difficulties in negotiating an agreement with Iran, your comment reminds me of the black-humor question: "Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
If you're not familiar with Chapter 3 of Ecclesiastes, I urge you to read it. If you don't like the Authorized Version referenced in the following URL, you are free to choose from among many other translations.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+3&version=...
If you're not familiar with Chapter 3 of Ecclesiastes, I urge you to read it. If you don't like the Authorized Version referenced in the following URL, you are free to choose from among many other translations.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+3&version=...
7
Why not also ask for free Wi Fi also? This a deal to stop a bomb not a deal to solve all the ills of the world. Lets get the deal in the draw before we go after other things. If those guys stay in prison and we avoid a war which one should we pick. Really not rocket science!
2
Thank you, Mr. Friedman, for this interview. I, too, have great hopes for the fulfillment of the Iranian public's that spirations of the Iranian people of integration with the west. I hope that you asked president Obama whether there are Iranian back channels talks on partnering to ouster Assad and bring about a diplomatic resolution of the war in Syria.
8
When president talks about `eliminating every pathway to develop nuclear bomb`, does he consider here also importing technology, parts, etc. from outside (mainly China)?
This deal will definitely change current situations in both regional and global dimension. However, I believe that, it has greater risk of bringing another new World disORDER.
This deal will definitely change current situations in both regional and global dimension. However, I believe that, it has greater risk of bringing another new World disORDER.
1
After 20 months of negotiations, the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China have finalized an agreement with Iran. Those opposed to the deal say that the alternative is to ratchet up sanctions against Iran. Is there any reason to believe that Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China would continue their participation in sanctions? Why would they renege on the deal just because we reject it?
Prior to the negotiations, the discussions centered around who would bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran; Israel or the U.S.? Does the rejection of the deal put us back on a war footing?
Why are Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, the major world powers, supporting a bad deal? Russia and China are not joining us in this endeavor because we are such great allies.
Prior to the negotiations, the discussions centered around who would bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran; Israel or the U.S.? Does the rejection of the deal put us back on a war footing?
Why are Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, the major world powers, supporting a bad deal? Russia and China are not joining us in this endeavor because we are such great allies.
99
When a nation is forced into poverty, the reaction could be very dangerous. Nazi Germany is a good example. The Treaty of Versailles after the WWI left Germany into economic ruins because of the sanctions that it imposed. The result was the birth of the Nazi Party and Hitler. Thanks to President Obama's pragmatism that we may learn to negotiate and threaten other nations with cowboy attitude. President Bush sort out alliance by demanding that 'are you with us or against us'. The result of that policy is the present disaster.
14
I think; if the IRAN pact will convert many middle-east nations nuclear; the middle east nations' nuclear power plants and nuke bombs will many times more scary to the existence of Israel rather than any other nation including Iran. Because; Israel was the scary tiger for all these nation with her nuke bombs. Now, at least Israel has to understand the strength of her nations, and without further delay accept the Palestine with due respect to at least safe guard her existence.
1
Does Tom really think that the American public and the world are waiting with baited breath for his oppion ? Some american Jews are waiting for Jeffrey Goldberg [ who's oppion was that war was likely ] to give his oppion. America will not go to war with Iran nor will it support those who do.
8
President Obama is acting like a world leader, working towards peaceful solutions of world tensions. Not like his immediate predecessor who was the puppet of a cadre of bellicose primitives who escalated conflict at great cost of life and treasure.
Also, much of the credit must go to John Kerry! If it weren’t for his persistent faith in diplomatic negotiation and its relentless pursuit, the deal with its almost insurmountable difficulties — and the blind opposition of republicans and many democrats in Congress — would have collapsed a long time ago.
With this accomplishment, Barack Obama may belatedly but justifiably lay claim to his Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 — which at the time was premature.
Also, much of the credit must go to John Kerry! If it weren’t for his persistent faith in diplomatic negotiation and its relentless pursuit, the deal with its almost insurmountable difficulties — and the blind opposition of republicans and many democrats in Congress — would have collapsed a long time ago.
With this accomplishment, Barack Obama may belatedly but justifiably lay claim to his Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 — which at the time was premature.
380
Yes, and thanks to Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton for her hard work to bring this agreement about.
He should be awarded a second one.
2
Sec. John Kerry deserves much praise for his determination and brains in seeing this through, as does the entire group of negotiators. Like Pres. Obama, John Kerry often does not get the respect he deserves, but he carries on for the good of his country and the world, ego in check.
2
This is a very bad deal , Iran gets all the sanctions lifted immediately according to the President of Iran which contradicts both Obama and Hillary, inspectors must get permission with a 14 day notice to inspect, this does not include military bases, this deal does not include ballistic missiles, does not include recognition of Israel. does not include the release of the 5 American hostages including our marine. The bottom line is that Iran will be financially stable, continue to spread its influence throughout the Middle East and beyond and will have nukes almost immediately. This is a very bad deal that has put every single person around the world in a more dangerous place.
5
Congratulations to President Obama and Secretary Kerry and those who helped get this agreement. The only alternative to diplomacy is war. Thankfully this administration tried diplomacy first.
333
I agree. Contrast this response given by Obama to what W would have said (even if W had agreed with the approach). The level of this president's understanding and communication, as well as the goal, is so high. You may not agree with the guy, but he is so smart and so able to comprehend all of the issues and concerns that it is impossible to dismiss him. When I disagree with him, and I do, I never think the guy is anything but a true American, working for our side, working hard.
205
what a stark contrast between the president and the sixteen wannabes plus the one is Israel. when the future generations study the history of this era it will be akin to mozart and his peers
5
Yes, and thanks to Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton for her brilliant efforts to help bring this agreement about.
1
If Netanyahu believes the Iran nuclear deal will guarantee Iran will emerge as a nuclear weapon armed power, then Netanyahu and Israel can easily prove this assertion - by agreeing to submit to the same regime as Iran is agreeing to submit to.
150
There is something sad about arguing moral equivalence between democratic Israel and theocratic Iran. Israel has never threatened to destroy a recognized nation. Iran does so routinely. Moreover, if Israel were toasted to submit to the same regime as Iran is agreeing to, why would that make Iran's promises any more credible?
3
Absurd.
Iran faces no threat to its very existence if a terrorist state like Iran gets the bomb.
Iran faces no threat to its very existence if a terrorist state like Iran gets the bomb.
1
Iran has said that Israel will be destroyed if they attack first; it has never threatened to attack first. Israel, for the past 50 years, has brought up the "Samson Option" which is a threat to destroy the entire world if it feels it will go under. I am not sure exactly what will cause them to implement it. Will they destroy the world if the only option to a nuclear war is for Israel to become a democratic, constitutional state where Jews are in the minority?
7
I just wonder if the international, capitalistic thinking short-term goals really provide enough leverage against regional, religious thinking long-term goals. I prefer diplomacy to any other option, but I'm doubtful that we're not passing on a more dangerous future to our children.
3
What is a better alternative in this case?
8
That's a good question. And, I suppose the only alternatives I can think to want for us all would be considered, unfortunately, radical. They'd be an international commitment to renewable, clean energy sources and reduction (elimination) of nuclear arms around the world.
2
Renee - how about continuing sanctions until the Iranians get with the program. The only reason they are negotiating is because sanctions are working and hurting them.
Remember that Friedman was a real ring leader leading us to a war in Iraq. What he says has to be viewed through his cloudy lenses.