How naive your thinking is to believe Iran will be truthful with this nuclear deal . Why should we believe anything Iran says. There is nothing about what Iran says that makes me believe one word that they will abide by this agreement. I am so disappointed that President Obama and Secretary Kerry are blinded by the reality staring right at their faces. Only time will tell - but we are not a nation dealing from a position of leadership or strength.
11
Whatever the Court Politicians and Opinion Writers may say, a deal with a regime of medieval Islamic mentality cannot be taken seriously by the Occident, that is the target of obliteration. The door to a nuclear Armageddon is now opened a notch wider.
7
Let's take a close look at whom we have made a "historic" deal:
1) Iran advocates destruction of Israel (in violation the UN Charter)
2) Is funding 3 proxy wars in the ME
3) Has blood of US citizens on its hands (through Hezbollah)
4) Human rights terror vs gays, non-Musims, political opposition
5) Was shown to be expanding nuclear efforts while negotiating
The list goes on. War is not a desirable option, but how do you know that war has been truly avoided? The bitter fruit we are harvesting was sown 35 years ago during the Carter administration. Weakness begat our current dilema. We project weakness and the Iranians negotiated from that position.
Mr. Obama's legacy isn't worth much to 200,000 dead Syrians.
1) Iran advocates destruction of Israel (in violation the UN Charter)
2) Is funding 3 proxy wars in the ME
3) Has blood of US citizens on its hands (through Hezbollah)
4) Human rights terror vs gays, non-Musims, political opposition
5) Was shown to be expanding nuclear efforts while negotiating
The list goes on. War is not a desirable option, but how do you know that war has been truly avoided? The bitter fruit we are harvesting was sown 35 years ago during the Carter administration. Weakness begat our current dilema. We project weakness and the Iranians negotiated from that position.
Mr. Obama's legacy isn't worth much to 200,000 dead Syrians.
12
I completely support this agreement but do wonder why Iran with all its oil wants nuclear power?
3
This deal should be promoted as a humanitarian effort. Lifting the sanctions on the people of Iran is the right thing to do. Just because their leaders were radicalized by decades of U.S. backed dictatorship is no reason to blame the victims, the Iranian people.
The better we form diplomatic relationships and form human relationships with people around the world the less likely we are to have wars and conflicts. This can be the first step forward towards developing those relationships.
The better we form diplomatic relationships and form human relationships with people around the world the less likely we are to have wars and conflicts. This can be the first step forward towards developing those relationships.
7
Israel, which has created millions of Palestinian refugees and taken their homes and lands, now seeks to nullify a nuclear agreement with Iran that effectively controls Iran's nuclear development while freeing the people of Iran from the crippling sanctions that Israel has helped impose on it. Israel is a dismal failure under an extremist orthodox government rather than a Jewish sanctuary homeland. If the United States wants to promote peace in the Middle East, there is no reason for the United States to continue kowtowing to the extremists in Israel rather than dealing fairly with all parties in the Middle East.
10
In 2013, Kerry declared of the Iranians, “There is no right to enrich.” Two years later? The final agreement allows Iran to keep 5,000 centrifuges, 2,000 more than Pakistan had when it secretly built a nuclear arsenal.
In 2013, Kerry told Congress the “whole point of the [sanctions] regime” was to force Iran to “dismantle its nuclear program.” But the deal to which Kerry agreed lets Iran keep everything in place.
“anytime, anywhere” inspections? Again, the administration backtracked. First, they qualified by saying they’d be the most intrusive inspections on any country “not defeated in war.”
Then, Kerry backed down on demands that inspectors be able to conduct snap inspections on military sites. Those inspections are necessary because this is where, according to the IAEA, Iran worked on everything from components for a warhead to detonators.
Finally, he allowed Iran essentially to pre-approve any inspection. That’s the equivalent of having a criminal pre-approve a search warrant.
Iran can use its $100 billion signing bonus (equivalent to 15 times the annual budget of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) to buy weapons.
It also means Iran can export them to terrorist groups across the region.
Joke of the day: The White House insists that Iran will use that money for good
this is extracted from Michael Rubin a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute - "Obama and Kerry crossed every one of their own red lines"
In 2013, Kerry told Congress the “whole point of the [sanctions] regime” was to force Iran to “dismantle its nuclear program.” But the deal to which Kerry agreed lets Iran keep everything in place.
“anytime, anywhere” inspections? Again, the administration backtracked. First, they qualified by saying they’d be the most intrusive inspections on any country “not defeated in war.”
Then, Kerry backed down on demands that inspectors be able to conduct snap inspections on military sites. Those inspections are necessary because this is where, according to the IAEA, Iran worked on everything from components for a warhead to detonators.
Finally, he allowed Iran essentially to pre-approve any inspection. That’s the equivalent of having a criminal pre-approve a search warrant.
Iran can use its $100 billion signing bonus (equivalent to 15 times the annual budget of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) to buy weapons.
It also means Iran can export them to terrorist groups across the region.
Joke of the day: The White House insists that Iran will use that money for good
this is extracted from Michael Rubin a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute - "Obama and Kerry crossed every one of their own red lines"
11
Here's what I find deplorable about Obama...
First, he ignores Congress in entering negotiations with Iran, doesn't seek their opinion, and presents the negotiations as only directed toward an executive agreement in order to sidestep the need for senate approval of a treaty.
Then he negotiates a deal that does nothing for the US except provide hope (slim) that the deal will somehow convert Iran from a rogue terrorist state to a well socialized member of the international community.
Now that the deal has been signed, and Republicans in the house and senate are telling the truth of the matter, the deal stinks, he has the gall to ask them what better ideas they might have. Then says he hasn't heard any suggestions from them.
You can't have it both ways. You can't ignore the senate, negotiate your own deal without any consultation with the senate then chastise them for not presenting a better idea.
First, he ignores Congress in entering negotiations with Iran, doesn't seek their opinion, and presents the negotiations as only directed toward an executive agreement in order to sidestep the need for senate approval of a treaty.
Then he negotiates a deal that does nothing for the US except provide hope (slim) that the deal will somehow convert Iran from a rogue terrorist state to a well socialized member of the international community.
Now that the deal has been signed, and Republicans in the house and senate are telling the truth of the matter, the deal stinks, he has the gall to ask them what better ideas they might have. Then says he hasn't heard any suggestions from them.
You can't have it both ways. You can't ignore the senate, negotiate your own deal without any consultation with the senate then chastise them for not presenting a better idea.
7
I question the assumption that Iran's nuclear program, with or without this deal, represents an existential threat to Israel. It is impossible for any of the ME nations to use nuclear weapons on their neighbors without unacceptable consequences to themselves.
One of the most valuable consequences of this agreement is that it reduces the probability of other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, pursuing nuclear programs of their own.
Israel opposes the agreement because US rapprochement with Iran has the potential to reduce their political influence in the U.S. which, in turn, will make it harder for them to resist international pressure to make an acceptable settlement with the Palestinians,
One of the most valuable consequences of this agreement is that it reduces the probability of other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, pursuing nuclear programs of their own.
Israel opposes the agreement because US rapprochement with Iran has the potential to reduce their political influence in the U.S. which, in turn, will make it harder for them to resist international pressure to make an acceptable settlement with the Palestinians,
9
Absolutely correct, and I do not know why more analysts (particularly talking head on TV) do not speak to this. If Iran lobbed a nuclear warhead over Israel, given the prevailing winds, the fallout would contaminate the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Iraq and most likely, Iran itself. The radioactivity does not know to stop and human-made national boundaries.
Also, unless the Iranian gov't has a death wish, they know that if they dropped their one nuclear bomb on Israel, Israel would retaliate with dozens of nuclear warheads in response; Iran would cease to exist.
I think the more likely scenario here is that Iran is not interested in Israel at all, but rather in exerting its power both on the Sunni/Arab world to the west, and protecting itself against the anarchy it finds to its east in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Also, unless the Iranian gov't has a death wish, they know that if they dropped their one nuclear bomb on Israel, Israel would retaliate with dozens of nuclear warheads in response; Iran would cease to exist.
I think the more likely scenario here is that Iran is not interested in Israel at all, but rather in exerting its power both on the Sunni/Arab world to the west, and protecting itself against the anarchy it finds to its east in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
9
Given the universal distrust of promises by Iraq, we haven't avoided a war at all, just shifted the burden of hair-trigger alertness to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and maybe Egypt. And aren't they more like to launch a preemptive strike that ignites a regional war earlier than the US would do, with so many more options at its disposal?
2
Perhaps conservative opposition is related to the oil that may soon flood the market and drive prices down? Just a thought.
7
We would do well to remember our past experience with international agreements of this kind, and learn from the hard lessons endured, as follows:
"Before giving a verdict upon this arrangement, we should do well to avoid describing it as a personal or a national triumph for anyone. The real triumph is that it has shown that representatives of four great Powers can find it possible to agree on a way of carrying out a difficult and delicate operation by discussion instead of by force of arms, and thereby they have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilisation as we have known it. The relief that our escape from this great peril of war has, I think, everywhere been mingled in this country with a profound feeling of sympathy."
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain - comments upon returning from the Munich Conference - October 1938
"Before giving a verdict upon this arrangement, we should do well to avoid describing it as a personal or a national triumph for anyone. The real triumph is that it has shown that representatives of four great Powers can find it possible to agree on a way of carrying out a difficult and delicate operation by discussion instead of by force of arms, and thereby they have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilisation as we have known it. The relief that our escape from this great peril of war has, I think, everywhere been mingled in this country with a profound feeling of sympathy."
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain - comments upon returning from the Munich Conference - October 1938
5
It is also worth noting that one of Iran's most dangerous enemies is the same as ours - ISIS.
6
This whole argument seems more than a little silly, as politics often is. If Iran were to continue to pursue bomb-making capability how would that deter the U.S and allies from using military force to intervene? As leverge goes that seems to be the biggest lever around. What is the haste to lay waste? Doesn't Pakistan have a bomb? China? Russia? Staunch friends all! Iran merely represents another Hallibuton moment.
5
What ashamed that once upon a time the Republicans were viewed as the party with the ability to negotiate international deals. My they've changed so much and are so short sighted. Nixon and Reagan must be rolling in their graves.
Good for Obama and team Kerry for acting in the best interest of America and showing that we can once again rise to diplomacy first rather then bringing out our guns.
Let's hope the Republican vindictiveness doesn't rue the day.
Good for Obama and team Kerry for acting in the best interest of America and showing that we can once again rise to diplomacy first rather then bringing out our guns.
Let's hope the Republican vindictiveness doesn't rue the day.
13
People like Prime Minister Netanyahu and Senator Cotton repeatedly warn that this is a bad deal and it will fail. I disagree. But that's fine. I respect opposite opinions and sincerely hope they are wrong. To that end, despite our disagreement over whether the deal will work, we all should at least agree on this simple proposition:
The world will be a better place, and Americans, Israelis, Iranians, Saudis, Republicans and Democrats alike will benefit if (and yes, it is a big "if") the deal works, and Iran does in fact give up pursuit of nuclear weapons and reenters the world community.
I find it hard to imagine that anyone would disagree with such a hypothetical. Yet, I continue to wonder. If given some sort of magical truth serum, how would PM Netanyahu or Senator Cotton answer this question? Or, as I fear, will they be disappointed if peace actually works? Perhaps we need to ask the question.
The world will be a better place, and Americans, Israelis, Iranians, Saudis, Republicans and Democrats alike will benefit if (and yes, it is a big "if") the deal works, and Iran does in fact give up pursuit of nuclear weapons and reenters the world community.
I find it hard to imagine that anyone would disagree with such a hypothetical. Yet, I continue to wonder. If given some sort of magical truth serum, how would PM Netanyahu or Senator Cotton answer this question? Or, as I fear, will they be disappointed if peace actually works? Perhaps we need to ask the question.
7
I do not support the Iran nuclear deal for one reason: it does not provide "anytime, anywhere" inspections - including all military facilities - to verify Iranian compliance.
Inspectors must be permitted unimpeded access to suspect sites.
How can the NY Times Editorial Board proclaim that the deal "puts strong, verifiable limits on Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon" when 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.
Sorry, you can't have the fox control the henhouse. This deal lets Iran do just that. And the Editorial Board misses that point - completely.
Inspectors must be permitted unimpeded access to suspect sites.
How can the NY Times Editorial Board proclaim that the deal "puts strong, verifiable limits on Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon" when 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.
Sorry, you can't have the fox control the henhouse. This deal lets Iran do just that. And the Editorial Board misses that point - completely.
5
Whether the US signed on to the nuclear agreement the E3/EU+3 Iran Agreement (i.e., P5+1) came to or not, the Russians and Europeans would have gone ahead with the agreement and would have began trade with Iran. The Koreans and the Chinese are trading with Iran in spite of the sanctions.
3
Most Americans support a deal with Iran. It is far preferable to another war in the Middle East. When the deal is worked out by all the major world powers working in concert, then the Republicans trying to destroy it in the U.S. just relegates America to a side role in international affairs. No sanctions will work if the U.S. is the only nation using them. Other countries are already working out business deals with Iran.
Are Republicans really that stupid now? Or so owned by AIPAC, Adelson, et al? This is a deal by the U.S., Iran, the UK, France, China, Russia and Germany, with verification aspects worked out by various nuclear and financial experts.
The U.S. Conference of Bishops urges Congress to support it. “The United States and its international partners have taken a remarkable step with Iran in reaching this agreement,” wrote Bishop Cantú on behalf of the committee. “We encourage Congress to support these efforts to build bridges that foster peace and greater understanding. In the words of Pope Francis, may the negotiated framework ‘be a definitive step toward a more security and fraternal world,’ a goal we all share.”
Are Republicans really that stupid now? Or so owned by AIPAC, Adelson, et al? This is a deal by the U.S., Iran, the UK, France, China, Russia and Germany, with verification aspects worked out by various nuclear and financial experts.
The U.S. Conference of Bishops urges Congress to support it. “The United States and its international partners have taken a remarkable step with Iran in reaching this agreement,” wrote Bishop Cantú on behalf of the committee. “We encourage Congress to support these efforts to build bridges that foster peace and greater understanding. In the words of Pope Francis, may the negotiated framework ‘be a definitive step toward a more security and fraternal world,’ a goal we all share.”
8
'Peace in our times'. It seems we've heard that song before. President's who don't learn from history just may repeat it. Iran has something they do really well- hate and remember why they hate. My advise is 'Speak softly but carry a big stick' and actually use it when it's needed.
3
I don't know enough about this deal to comment on it.
So let's let the 2013 Secretary Kerry analyze this deal.
In 2013 he said that Iran has no right to enrich nuclear material.
And he also said that the whole point of the sanctions was to force Iran to dismantle its nuclear program including Fordo.
But the 2015 Secretary Kerry agreed to a deal which has neither of these provisions.
I'll bet the 2013 Secretary Kerry thinks the 2105 Secretary Kerry has a lot of explaining to do.
And if Iran can pre-approve inspections, which it seems to have the right to do, what would the 2013 Secretary Kerry say about that?
So let's let the 2013 Secretary Kerry analyze this deal.
In 2013 he said that Iran has no right to enrich nuclear material.
And he also said that the whole point of the sanctions was to force Iran to dismantle its nuclear program including Fordo.
But the 2015 Secretary Kerry agreed to a deal which has neither of these provisions.
I'll bet the 2013 Secretary Kerry thinks the 2105 Secretary Kerry has a lot of explaining to do.
And if Iran can pre-approve inspections, which it seems to have the right to do, what would the 2013 Secretary Kerry say about that?
2
The entire Middle East is raging under the governance of oppressive, regressive right wing political doctrine. The only hope over the long term is that the humanity of left wing progressive politics helps to moderate the self serving regression and oppression that allows the current concentration of minority players to act out the policies of greed, fear, and bigotry that currently serve only an elite few.
1
Just watched the President's press conference on this deal.
Which Republican candidate(s) would have entered into and pursued these negotiations, and could explain them in complete sentences?
Which Republican candidate(s) would have entered into and pursued these negotiations, and could explain them in complete sentences?
6
Powerful forces like Netanyahu have vowed to defeat our Iran Deal. Really ?? He is not our President, a Senator or a member of the House. In fact he is a FOREIGNER, an interfering foreigner telling us what to do in our own house. Who is he to dictate to us about the deals we make with other countries? He nonchalantly snubs our President, raves and rants in our Senate and then expects to be rewarded for his bad behavior. All these Senators and Congressmen who are blind in their support for Netanyahu should surrender their American passports and leave for Israel. We have elected them to serve us, Americans not Israelis. Hope President Obama wields his veto power. It is way past time this warmonger and his cronies in our Congess and Senate are stopped dead in their tracks. If war is what Israel wants then let them - on their own!
19
Perhaps more than anything else, the Republicans are afraid that President Obama will receive the credit he deserves for helping the world move towards peace. Much of what they have done since his election was in furtherance of the immediate promises of Boehner and McConnell to do whatever they could to prevent his reelection, promises that were made without regard to whether their own actions would be for the benefit of the citizenry. This is just more of the same. The Republicans are afraid that Obama's successes - if given the credit due - will make it impossible for them to regain the White House and endanger their ability to retain either house of Congress. Let's hope EVERY Democrat in Congress supports President Obama and gives strong voice to their support.
15
And for the shocker (not) the Stock Market, DOW NASDAQ and S&P 500, all up with the news...Big business is salivating to get into first Cuba and now Iran. Think of all those jobs Big Business will provide now that they have 2 new markets to peddle their wares...and all the money they will make for their shareholders. Bibi is not relevant if he sits on the world stage all alone. War is still not the answer.
6
"An Iran deal the reduces the chance for war".
Reduces the chance? Is that anything like "jobs saved"?
Reduces the chance? Is that anything like "jobs saved"?
2
This opens the floodgates to trade which may be the single greatest ensurer of peace.
10
You people are living in La La land. It's a start? Towards our destruction maybe. Don't compare the Soviet Union to these terrorists. That was a Cold War. This is real war...Do we forget 9/11 so quickly? Comparing China, and the Soviet Union to Iran and terrorists is an insult to my intelligence. The threat of a nuclear bomb is ridiculous anyway...would they actually use one so close to them...we would annihilate them in 1 hour, there would be nothing left of them if they did such an act..we flinched and they won. Nice job Obama...Our president an incompetent community builder. So sad. Country is eroding into the ocean.
4
OMG!!!!!!
Iran had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Tell us why Iran - nothing to do with 9/11 - should be an enemy while Saudi Arabia - gave rise to the terrorists and funded their movement - should be an ally.
Stop watching fox news.
Iran had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Tell us why Iran - nothing to do with 9/11 - should be an enemy while Saudi Arabia - gave rise to the terrorists and funded their movement - should be an ally.
Stop watching fox news.
8
What this deal has going for this is there are not just two countries involved: It is not just the US and Iran. It is six other nations,who will have a part in the verifiability.
The Republicans oppose this for one reason: It's what Barack Obama favors and their outright hate for him becomes more apparent every day. Oh they can say 'I like the man,' but that is just talk.
The Republicans oppose this for one reason: It's what Barack Obama favors and their outright hate for him becomes more apparent every day. Oh they can say 'I like the man,' but that is just talk.
9
Many countries have nuclear weapons. Iran wanting to have them? Well, why not? I mean, if I was leading a country today that was besieged by others that had them, then why shouldn't we have them? So, this agreement kind of shows that Iran is willing to bend on the subject. Good for them (I detest Iran's religious leaders). I think they have shown good faith. Now we have to let them back into the world economy. Think about what their oil reserves and capacity will do to it. Much more than having a bomb. They seem to understand that it is money that talks, not nuclear bombs.
4
"As described by Mr. Obama and other officials, the deal seems sound and clearly in the interest of the United States, the other nations that drafted it and the state of Israel."
Thankfully, someone on the NYT editorial board has seen fit to admit that the deal is clearly in the interest of the state of Israel.
This should have been the title of the editorial.
Thankfully, someone on the NYT editorial board has seen fit to admit that the deal is clearly in the interest of the state of Israel.
This should have been the title of the editorial.
5
Really?!
I guess your omission of the Saudis, no friends of Israel or the Jews, the Egyptians, Jordanians and the Gulf States was done to blame Israel and Bibi as the sole source of opposition to this catastrophe.
You want to live in a fantasy land be my guest, but leave the Jewish/Israeli conspiracy and your not too subtle antisemitism out of the calculus behind the opposition to this agreement. We have as much to lose as the Sunni Arabs and Israel.
Lastly, the editorial undermines it's premise when it notes at the outset that "vague threats" from the U.S. really POTUS now in office, have not dissuaded Iran from its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Obama is this century's Neville Chamberlain and never gave Iran any cause to back down. His lack of a spine to stand up to Iran, Putin, et al is astounding.
I guess your omission of the Saudis, no friends of Israel or the Jews, the Egyptians, Jordanians and the Gulf States was done to blame Israel and Bibi as the sole source of opposition to this catastrophe.
You want to live in a fantasy land be my guest, but leave the Jewish/Israeli conspiracy and your not too subtle antisemitism out of the calculus behind the opposition to this agreement. We have as much to lose as the Sunni Arabs and Israel.
Lastly, the editorial undermines it's premise when it notes at the outset that "vague threats" from the U.S. really POTUS now in office, have not dissuaded Iran from its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Obama is this century's Neville Chamberlain and never gave Iran any cause to back down. His lack of a spine to stand up to Iran, Putin, et al is astounding.
2
Why are you writing from the safety of MD? Shouldn't you be stationed on the frontlines fighting ISIS.
Chickenhawk much?
Chickenhawk much?
1
Why pretend that Israel prefers military action to a better deal? Surely some in the editorial staff read the editorials from two online English language, but Israeli, media. When sanctions were imposed on Iran they worked; tightening them more would have worked even better. It would have reduced the maneuverability of the oh-so-clever Iranian negotiating team and likely resulted in better terms, for America and Israel. That is what Israel, the Arab states, and Europe all prefer. Now we have a situation where the Arab countries want a quick countdown to nukes themselves. Wonderful!
4
This is an excellent accomplishment and all I want to say is that I congratulate the president and John Kerry for this historic deal.
Great job!
Great job!
13
Come on!
We will have to wait 15 years to see if it is a good deal.
We will have to wait 15 years to see if it is a good deal.
3
There is no negotiating with an enemy that is willing to commit any act, no matter how atrocious, including giving up their own lives, in their efforts to destroy you. What does it take to understand this?
The answer to Iran's nuclear ambitions is simple. Tell them to stop or we will destroy their nuclear facilities.
Then, it they don't stop, we destroy their nuclear facilities.
Problem solved.
A lot of screaming and yelling by the hopelessly naive goody two shoes out there but at least we can be reasonably assured that atom bombs will not come raining down on our heads or sailing into our harbors.
And if you think Russia or China is going to come to their defense you're mistaken.
The answer to Iran's nuclear ambitions is simple. Tell them to stop or we will destroy their nuclear facilities.
Then, it they don't stop, we destroy their nuclear facilities.
Problem solved.
A lot of screaming and yelling by the hopelessly naive goody two shoes out there but at least we can be reasonably assured that atom bombs will not come raining down on our heads or sailing into our harbors.
And if you think Russia or China is going to come to their defense you're mistaken.
3
"Tell them to stop or we will destroy their nuclear facilities.
Then, it they don't stop, we destroy their nuclear facilities."
Then if they don't stop we nuke the whole country back into the stone age.
Then, it they don't stop, we destroy their nuclear facilities."
Then if they don't stop we nuke the whole country back into the stone age.
2
Excuse me? How much terrorism has been directly linked to Iran that has been directed to destruction of the USA?
On the other hand, the US has overthrown an democratic government (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-irania... in Iran. The US also supported Iraq during the Iraq war of aggression with massive Iranian casulties as a result. All this because (from an outside observers point of view) the US intelligence community blunders (the perceived stability of the Shah regime, 1979) and the humiliation in the embassy hostage crisis (no hostage was harmed)
On the other hand, the US has overthrown an democratic government (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-irania... in Iran. The US also supported Iraq during the Iraq war of aggression with massive Iranian casulties as a result. All this because (from an outside observers point of view) the US intelligence community blunders (the perceived stability of the Shah regime, 1979) and the humiliation in the embassy hostage crisis (no hostage was harmed)
It's a start. Without a start there is no progress-witness the last at least 3 decades. And why should Iran trust us when a significant part of our governing body thinks the president is a traitor for daring to indulge in even talking with Iran. We should wait until they bomb us? They and Netanyahu seem to actually WANT war.
4
With sanctions lifted, Iran will no longer be able to blame the US for all of its problems. They will certainly try but the government's arguments will become even more transparent.
1
Despite the time and resources for this nuclear deal, nuclear weapons (NW) remain useless as attacking weapons in war: never used again since August 1945 when only one national political leader controlled it. He actually used it mercilessly twice within 3 days.
However, now with multiple nations possession, any use of these uncontrollably destructive weapons would provoke massive retaliation from others -to destroy the first user.
No political leader ever wishes to die in any war. Only this self-preservation instinct of ALL nuclear weapons' 'national political leaders' account for NW absence in war -unlike conventional weapons.
In only x3 rare scenarios may NW's be used in war:
1. Controlled by a terminally ill or mentally deranged national leader, especially of a reclusive autocratic regime, who decides on mass destruction at his/her own suicide. This remains the most likely.
2. Transfer to terrorist leaders with no fixed address -unlikely since the transferring country/national leader would be easily detected and destroyed;
3. Accidental use: unlikely with the rigorous command chain before use.
And only x3 clear motives for their possession by national leaders:
-Defensive weapons: others would hardly attack any nation with nuclear weapons;
-Undue boldness internationally: often beyond national capabilities.
-National pride: membership of a special international 'power' league.
Preventing conventional weapons use need this attention: not nuclear weapons.
However, now with multiple nations possession, any use of these uncontrollably destructive weapons would provoke massive retaliation from others -to destroy the first user.
No political leader ever wishes to die in any war. Only this self-preservation instinct of ALL nuclear weapons' 'national political leaders' account for NW absence in war -unlike conventional weapons.
In only x3 rare scenarios may NW's be used in war:
1. Controlled by a terminally ill or mentally deranged national leader, especially of a reclusive autocratic regime, who decides on mass destruction at his/her own suicide. This remains the most likely.
2. Transfer to terrorist leaders with no fixed address -unlikely since the transferring country/national leader would be easily detected and destroyed;
3. Accidental use: unlikely with the rigorous command chain before use.
And only x3 clear motives for their possession by national leaders:
-Defensive weapons: others would hardly attack any nation with nuclear weapons;
-Undue boldness internationally: often beyond national capabilities.
-National pride: membership of a special international 'power' league.
Preventing conventional weapons use need this attention: not nuclear weapons.
2
The approach is admirable, the deal is terrible. Fifteen years is an absolute joke, these people have a much longer view of time.
3
Irresponsible is now the definition of the GOP and the current iteration of conservatism. They have nothing to offer but denials, denunciations, defiance deflection, and deference to Israel. The fact that Netanhayu has condemned the agreement is all I need to know in order to support it, as whatever Bibi supports is bad for the US, and whatever he opposes benefits this country.
The republicans are addicted to AIPAC donations and fear AIPAC wrath. Republicans are dependent on evangelical support, and dare not provoke them, and the evangelicals will support Israel over their own country every time. Republicans have only one policy agenda - to oppose President Obama in all things, in all ways, at all times. They offer nothing. Since he supports this agreement, it is, by definition, satanically inspired. But they propose no other solution to this problem other than yet another ruinous military adventure.
This deal is the very best that can be gotten at this point in time. It is supported by arms control experts, the international community, and the majority of those who are currently imposing sanctions. Opposing the agreement are Israel ans the Republican party.
Sorry, but I'll listen to the experts, who say this is a good deal. I'll listen to the international community, who support this. And I will hold in disdain those who oppose it out of political expediency.
Sic Transit gloria Stultiatem.
The republicans are addicted to AIPAC donations and fear AIPAC wrath. Republicans are dependent on evangelical support, and dare not provoke them, and the evangelicals will support Israel over their own country every time. Republicans have only one policy agenda - to oppose President Obama in all things, in all ways, at all times. They offer nothing. Since he supports this agreement, it is, by definition, satanically inspired. But they propose no other solution to this problem other than yet another ruinous military adventure.
This deal is the very best that can be gotten at this point in time. It is supported by arms control experts, the international community, and the majority of those who are currently imposing sanctions. Opposing the agreement are Israel ans the Republican party.
Sorry, but I'll listen to the experts, who say this is a good deal. I'll listen to the international community, who support this. And I will hold in disdain those who oppose it out of political expediency.
Sic Transit gloria Stultiatem.
11
This deal greatly increases the chance for war. We had leverage with the sanctions, now we have given up that leverage and got nothing in return. And we gave them an extra bonus for free, lifting the arms embargo. The chairman of the joint chiefs just said lifting the arms embargo is the worst thing we could do, so of course, Obama did it. Why does he never listen to his own advisers?
6
Because you know sanctions can't be re-instated right? Once we remove them they are gone forever? The arms embargo is lifted in 5 years for conventional weapons, 8 years for missiles. In that time frame we would clearly be able to see if they are continuing their nuclear weapons program (due to the inspections we now are able to do that we weren't able to before) and respond in whatever way we deem necessary, whether that is with a military option or sanctions.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
5
How, exactly, will pieces of paper, change religious convictions? The Iranians have a religious belief that they are justified in using any means to destroy us? The money will flow, the bomb building will continue, and this treaty will not be worth the paper it is printed on when the Iranians detonate their first atomic bomb.
4
The choices that would be in the best interest of Israel are the following, neither of which is realistic:
(1) Continue (and strengthen) sanctions indefinitely. In Israel's thinking perhaps, this would minimize Iran's economic ability to subsidize terrorism and continued economic hardship for the Iranian people perhaps would lead to regime change. 2 problems: The rest of our negotiating partners, particularly, Russia and China, would not continue the sanctions if there was no deal. Further, if there was no deal, Iran would cut off talks, and accelerate its military nuclear program, which leads to the second choice..
(2) War. While Israeli air strikes could damage Iran's nuclear capability, U.S. involvement and invasion would be necessary to eliminate that capability and to do that, necessarily the Iranian regime, if that is even possible. This would not cheap in American treasure and lives.
The third option is get the best deal we can and this looks like it. Even if this is not the best possible deal, now that it is struck, we are not going to get Iran back to the table to try to do better (Russia and China wouldn't stand with us). It may be wishful thinking, but perhaps doing business with Iran will affect its behavior.
This assumes Israel cares about Iran's nuclear ambitions, because Israel does have mutually assured destruction (and the Muslim population within its geographic footprint) as an impediment to Iran ever using nuclear weapons against it.
(1) Continue (and strengthen) sanctions indefinitely. In Israel's thinking perhaps, this would minimize Iran's economic ability to subsidize terrorism and continued economic hardship for the Iranian people perhaps would lead to regime change. 2 problems: The rest of our negotiating partners, particularly, Russia and China, would not continue the sanctions if there was no deal. Further, if there was no deal, Iran would cut off talks, and accelerate its military nuclear program, which leads to the second choice..
(2) War. While Israeli air strikes could damage Iran's nuclear capability, U.S. involvement and invasion would be necessary to eliminate that capability and to do that, necessarily the Iranian regime, if that is even possible. This would not cheap in American treasure and lives.
The third option is get the best deal we can and this looks like it. Even if this is not the best possible deal, now that it is struck, we are not going to get Iran back to the table to try to do better (Russia and China wouldn't stand with us). It may be wishful thinking, but perhaps doing business with Iran will affect its behavior.
This assumes Israel cares about Iran's nuclear ambitions, because Israel does have mutually assured destruction (and the Muslim population within its geographic footprint) as an impediment to Iran ever using nuclear weapons against it.
4
"(2) War. While Israeli air strikes could damage Iran's nuclear capability, U.S. involvement and invasion would be necessary to eliminate that capability and to do that, necessarily the Iranian regime, if that is even possible. This would not cheap in American treasure and lives."
If Israel went nuclear they could not only destroy Iran's nuclear capability but most of the country as well. The figures that I have seen indicate that due to high Iranian population density it would only take 12 to 14 W88 warheads to completely destroy Iran.
If Israel went nuclear they could not only destroy Iran's nuclear capability but most of the country as well. The figures that I have seen indicate that due to high Iranian population density it would only take 12 to 14 W88 warheads to completely destroy Iran.
1
The GOP and Israeli hardliners are furious precisely because this reduces the chances of war. For the GOP, war is now an economic as well as ideological necessity.
War transfers tax funds to GOP clients, defers labor crises, reasserts social dominance, centralizes power, and increases the national debt, thereby increasing the state claims of the private financial industry.
Finance capitalism cannot sustain itself for long without war and the reinvention of the existential enemy, now known as "terror." And this is the crucial role of our biblical "ally" Israel. To provide us with a constant supply of mutual enemies.
War transfers tax funds to GOP clients, defers labor crises, reasserts social dominance, centralizes power, and increases the national debt, thereby increasing the state claims of the private financial industry.
Finance capitalism cannot sustain itself for long without war and the reinvention of the existential enemy, now known as "terror." And this is the crucial role of our biblical "ally" Israel. To provide us with a constant supply of mutual enemies.
11
I can't believe a paper with the status of the NYT's would print such a low content comment.
There is not one thought in the comments that has any attachment to reality.
There is not one thought in the comments that has any attachment to reality.
Why continuing to pretend that Israel is our closest ally when Natanyahu has tried everything to bring war upon us ?
5
Now that the US and all global powers have concluded that Iran deserves a place at the table, and may in the long run reduce region-wide Sunni/Shiite violence and ease Israeli fears, the US and China can address their interests in Asia, and the people of the planet can get on with addressing the issues that threaten civilization itself--our atmosphere, our oceans, our forests, our water, and our air, all of which will take everyone defending the human rights of each and every one of us.
5
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.
4
Wrong, wrong and wrong again. This one sided capitulation to Iran gives them everything they could have hoped for. In ten short years they will be on their way to full nuclear weaponization. Hundreds of billions in Iranian assets will be released, allowing them to reinforce their status as the leader of state sponsored terrorism. Obama has failed the American people he swore to protect as president. Shame on him, and shame on us for electing him.
5
"This one sided capitulation to Iran gives them everything they could have hoped for." I guess this is why the hard liners in Iran are so opposed to it.
3
This agreement does not reduce the chance of war.
Iran may never build a bomb but that is not the only threat they pose.
With the lifting of international sanctions Iran will have the resources to fund
all kind of terrorist groups in the world.
They already support terrorist groups fighting Israel.
This is why Israel is scared of Iran.
Not because of some speech but because of the actions they have taken. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11515603/Iran-...
With the funding of these terrorist groups all kind of conflicts will arise
with the loss of lives by many Muslims and other people.
Iran may never build a bomb but that is not the only threat they pose.
With the lifting of international sanctions Iran will have the resources to fund
all kind of terrorist groups in the world.
They already support terrorist groups fighting Israel.
This is why Israel is scared of Iran.
Not because of some speech but because of the actions they have taken. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11515603/Iran-...
With the funding of these terrorist groups all kind of conflicts will arise
with the loss of lives by many Muslims and other people.
2
Much like the ACA, the opposition will attempt to defeat something (the arms deal) with nothing. The GOP still acts like the minority party despite controlling both Houses of Congress. They criticize and complain about policies and legislation, but offer no alternative in their stead. Whatever short term political points they may score with their base, ultimately they will grudgingly, reluctantly, capitulate and approve the deal. Because you can't replace something with nothing, and that is what the GOP has to offer when it comes to the ACA, and what it has to offer here.
3
The American War Machine needs a bogey man to slake its trillion dollar thirst. North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Granada, Panama....It's Iran's turn to go a few rounds in the cage. Next week Greenland might tick off the trigger finger itch. That's just the way it goes when a super power becomes a super bully.
1
This deal is giving diplomacy a chance as opposed to call for war. The Republican congress or Mr. Netanyahu may not support this because of the political straight jacket they have wrapped themselves in, but let us hope that with constant vigilance of the world community over Iran, time will render their opposition irrelevant.
3
Sure it does, because Iran gets everything they want and we have a President that is afraid to use this country's strength. But the real merit of the deal should be judged by Iran's neigbors' reaction. And this is not positive because it is a bad deal for the world.
This has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with a country that is a major supporter of terrorism that will not be literally free to pursue these actions under the guise of US approval. It will still be "Death to America".
Better still, answer the question about what the US gets from this deal? There is no long term benefit to the Middle East as we now have started an arms race.
And if you want to see how Obama diplomacy works out, just look at the Russian reset. A horrible failure. Talk doesn't change long standing ambitions or change bad behavior.
This has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with a country that is a major supporter of terrorism that will not be literally free to pursue these actions under the guise of US approval. It will still be "Death to America".
Better still, answer the question about what the US gets from this deal? There is no long term benefit to the Middle East as we now have started an arms race.
And if you want to see how Obama diplomacy works out, just look at the Russian reset. A horrible failure. Talk doesn't change long standing ambitions or change bad behavior.
2
Much like the ACA, the opposition will attempt to defeat something (the arms deal) with nothing. The GOP still acts like the minority party despite controlling both Houses of Congress. They criticize and complain about policies and legislation, but offer no alternative in their stead. Whatever short term political points they may score with their base, ultimately they will grudgingly, reluctantly, capitulate and approve the deal. Because you can't replace something with nothing, and that is what the GOP has to offer when it comes to the ACA, and what it has to offer here.
2
Three perceptual problems that are already getting in the way of this:
1. Outside the small circles that embrace the thinking shown here, President Obama is perceived as having consistently caused the USA to punch below its weight in foreign affairs. So even if the president is doing the right thing, anything less than a clear win will allow those suspicions to linger and will cast doubt on transactions (and this is a business deal in the end) such as the Iranian nuclear trade.
2. As for John Kerry: if he offered to negotiate a new contract for you with your employer or to close your purchase of a house, would you let him?
3. Not that the USA should consider Israel its foreign-policy advisor, but Israel is literally closer to the situation than are we, and if their more hands-on approach (that occasionally demeans itself into a ham-fisted approach) to their neighbors makes them displeased, we should carefully examine why--and whether, at least this time, they just might have a point.
1. Outside the small circles that embrace the thinking shown here, President Obama is perceived as having consistently caused the USA to punch below its weight in foreign affairs. So even if the president is doing the right thing, anything less than a clear win will allow those suspicions to linger and will cast doubt on transactions (and this is a business deal in the end) such as the Iranian nuclear trade.
2. As for John Kerry: if he offered to negotiate a new contract for you with your employer or to close your purchase of a house, would you let him?
3. Not that the USA should consider Israel its foreign-policy advisor, but Israel is literally closer to the situation than are we, and if their more hands-on approach (that occasionally demeans itself into a ham-fisted approach) to their neighbors makes them displeased, we should carefully examine why--and whether, at least this time, they just might have a point.
1
Once again republicans offer nothing but resistance and threats. What is wrong with the republican party? They continue to obstruct and prevent forward movement on every issue of importance to the American public. They really do not know how to govern, how to compromise, how to negotiate in good faith.
And these repub clowns want us to put them in charge? How many wars and confrontations would they start if we did?
Thank you, President Obama, for being an adult and for being a great leader.
And these repub clowns want us to put them in charge? How many wars and confrontations would they start if we did?
Thank you, President Obama, for being an adult and for being a great leader.
3
Republicans realize this deal relies on the other 7 "partners" all agreeing to reimpose sanctions after Iran violates this agreement, as they have every other nuclear agreement. There are multiple steps in between that would take months to go through before the Europeans or Chinese or Russians could refuse to reimpose sanctions because they can now trade with the Iranians. It lifts missle restrictions after 8 years even while Obama's own JCOS chairman says we should "never" do.
I am not saying that this is a bad deal since no opinion can be formed until the details of the agreement are disclosed, however, any deal which leaves oil-rich Iran and its illegitimate, unelected religious-fanatic rulers in place, with any nuke capability whatsoever is per se a bad deal.
Kudos to the Times for its courage in writing a cogent, balanced analysis. Now, would it be too much to ask that its reporters bring the same balance to its portrayal of Iran in news reporting? To portray Iran as the "major source of instability in the Middle East," or "implacably opposed to American interests" is to completely mislead the Times' readers. How great a service they would render if Times reporters could remind its readers that by far the most odious, murderous, retrograde actors in the Middle East are the product of Saudi fundamentalism. Is it not time to publicly acknowledge that Saudi Arabia is not the ally we say it is?
3
The art and science of negotiations requires putting oneself in others shoes, understanding the effective limits to demands and striving for a semblance of win:win. The benchmark is what would the world look like without the deal and not the original negotiating position and desired ends of disputants.
Republicans who criticize without reading, ignore the other parties to the deal and are governed by a desire for unattainable ends while offering no alternatives other than the exercise of measures inadequate to gain those ends are not credible, have not gone beyond posturing.
The real test of the deal is its implementation and that is where Republicans and Democrats should focus their attention. Breaches must be addressed forcefully and there needs to be a consensus of the parties to do this that overrides narrow commercial or vested interests.
For now congratulations are in order--for the US and its negotiating partners and technical team, and for Iran.
Republicans who criticize without reading, ignore the other parties to the deal and are governed by a desire for unattainable ends while offering no alternatives other than the exercise of measures inadequate to gain those ends are not credible, have not gone beyond posturing.
The real test of the deal is its implementation and that is where Republicans and Democrats should focus their attention. Breaches must be addressed forcefully and there needs to be a consensus of the parties to do this that overrides narrow commercial or vested interests.
For now congratulations are in order--for the US and its negotiating partners and technical team, and for Iran.
3
Not for the first time, it seems to me that the GOP is opposed to the treaty more because of who achieved it rather than what it contains. Had a Republican administration accomplished what this administration has, they'd be tripping over themselves to claim credit.
3
The NYT is simply wrong. Iran is already involved in multiple proxy wars across the middle east and this deal enables the Persian war machine to grab $200 billion once the sanctions are lifted. Even if Iran were to have a couple of nukes, they would have not been able to use them for fear of overwhelming retaliation. But lifting the sanctions and allowing Persia to further destabilize the Middle East is a serious mistake. Any politician that votes for this deal in Congress is no friend of Israel and deserves to lose their seat in the next election for endorsing this betrayal.
4
This is going to do more to bring about regime change in Iran than any war ever could. Kudos to the Obama administration for having the vision to sense which way the wind was blowing. We need to now beware of Netanyahu ordering a bombing raid on Natanz or some other belligerent act intended to derail this agreement.
2
Nice summary of a delicate and strenuous and long diplomatic feat, to control any machinations to build nuclear weapons (even though strenuously denied by Iran). The alternative, war, would be a terrible mistake, as it should always be a weapon of last recourse. One would be 'looney' to oppose this deal, just because Obama is one of the architects (John Kerry's efforts notwithstanding) , leaving the republicans on the wrong side of history. There should be no room left fro 'politicking', when statesmen are running the ship.
3
Iran probably never wanted nuclear weapons more than it wanted normal international trade, for just the probability of the costs of military intervention was enough for both sides to want a negotiated agreement for Iran to give up what it never wanted in the first place. Yet two large elephants hide in plain sight amid the Obama administration euphoria. As your editorial points out, "no one can erase the knowledge Iranian scientists have acquired" to produce nukes, yet Iran's breakout time to produce a single bomb has been retarded by a year. But one elephant is that Iran has the skill to deploy a nuke, if it already had or could easily buy one. The second elephant is that it doesn't take a year or a month to make a point of sale transaction of a deployable nuke from a dependable source. And no one knows how to find all of North Korea's or Pakistan's foreign retail network for bomb sales. No doubt the dealers are privately owned franchises. We need the Iranians to help us find them.
I strongly concur with the opinion that this deal reduces the chance of war. We should also recall that we helped overthrow the elected government in Iran decades ago and replaced it with the Shah. This action is what led to the Hostage crisis and current autocratic government. Per reported polls the American public are solidly behind (75%) this deal instead of another war. Clearly, the Iranian public is also supportive of the deal and we can look forward to better relations. Israel, with about 250 bombs, is worried that Iran will "upset the balance" when and if they acquire one such weapon. Our unflinching support of all of Israel's needs does effect our national security especially related to the Palestinian problem and settlements. A more even balance will be good for peace in the Middle East especially for Israel.
3
What this deal does is create the impression that war is avoided in our time -- and I use those words knowing full well what history they conjure.
Iran came to the table not that long ago because sanctions were destroying them economically at a time when they had rising internal and external challenges. It WAS the time to begin talks that resulted in better keeping the regional threat they represented safely behind their borders. They threw a Hail Mary pass, probably not expecting it to be caught by President Obama; but, like Syria just before it, it WAS caught; and they ran with it. Right into our End-zone.
You can't keep a very populous nation (almost 80 million), now to be enriched yet again with unsanctioned petroleum sales, and with decided hegemonic regional interests, from acting to secure those interests by trusting them not to; or by basing your strategy for containment on an assumption that you can detect what they're doing within over 636,000 square miles of land area. Instead, you cut a better deal for lifting sanctions that are destroying them by interdicting ANY way they can develop that bomb, and make clear that evidence of one will bring more than economic destruction on them.
Instead, we assume they're going to build a bomb anyway and remove the sanctions that were preventing them from doing it quickly. The world will pay a heavy price for this Hail Mary pass unwisely caught.
Iran came to the table not that long ago because sanctions were destroying them economically at a time when they had rising internal and external challenges. It WAS the time to begin talks that resulted in better keeping the regional threat they represented safely behind their borders. They threw a Hail Mary pass, probably not expecting it to be caught by President Obama; but, like Syria just before it, it WAS caught; and they ran with it. Right into our End-zone.
You can't keep a very populous nation (almost 80 million), now to be enriched yet again with unsanctioned petroleum sales, and with decided hegemonic regional interests, from acting to secure those interests by trusting them not to; or by basing your strategy for containment on an assumption that you can detect what they're doing within over 636,000 square miles of land area. Instead, you cut a better deal for lifting sanctions that are destroying them by interdicting ANY way they can develop that bomb, and make clear that evidence of one will bring more than economic destruction on them.
Instead, we assume they're going to build a bomb anyway and remove the sanctions that were preventing them from doing it quickly. The world will pay a heavy price for this Hail Mary pass unwisely caught.
1
What is not to like, if one can resolve this issue, however momentary and incomplete, instead of an all out war that would destroy any chance for monitoring and preventing Iran from building nuclear arms? This, in addition to a worsening of the crisis in the entire Middle East, muddled as it is already (in part due to a stupid invasion of Irak, for no reason whatsoever). Diplomacy in the making is far preferable; opposing it now by the G.O.P., even before having read the document, is pure spite, a reflection of a mean spirit against the well-being and interests of the country
1
First of all, it is a known fact that Netanyahu of Israel and Tom Cotton of the US Congress have both gone on record that they oppose any negotiations with Iran. They want to double down on sanctions for Iran. If that doesn't work they would rather bomb Iran than negotiate.
We see how doubling down on sanctions in North Korea was ineffective in preventing them from achieving nuclear weapons. Additional sanctions simply didn't deter them from building nuclear weapons. Netanyahu and Tom Cotton want to do the same thing with Iran.
The only viable plan they have at the moment is to kill the negotiated agreement, implement more sanctions on Iran, and bomb their facilities if sanctions don't slow down Iran's nuclear efforts.
In the meantime, Israel has over 100 plus nuclear missiles in its arsenal and refuses to sign on to the nuclear proliferation treaty like Russia and the US. It seems like Iran and the six nations who negotiated the agreement are trying to establish peace in the Middle East. The only war monger is Netanyahu who has the only nuclear weapons in the Middle East and is threatening to use military force against Iran. He is a dangerous man.
We see how doubling down on sanctions in North Korea was ineffective in preventing them from achieving nuclear weapons. Additional sanctions simply didn't deter them from building nuclear weapons. Netanyahu and Tom Cotton want to do the same thing with Iran.
The only viable plan they have at the moment is to kill the negotiated agreement, implement more sanctions on Iran, and bomb their facilities if sanctions don't slow down Iran's nuclear efforts.
In the meantime, Israel has over 100 plus nuclear missiles in its arsenal and refuses to sign on to the nuclear proliferation treaty like Russia and the US. It seems like Iran and the six nations who negotiated the agreement are trying to establish peace in the Middle East. The only war monger is Netanyahu who has the only nuclear weapons in the Middle East and is threatening to use military force against Iran. He is a dangerous man.
2
Israel hasn't come to accept the fundamental military challenge of the modern world: you can't just wipe people off the map anymore. And if you try to oppress them instead, they are a thorn in your side, forever.
Wishing and hoping you could still wipe people off the map is pointless. When you attempt pre-emptive war, or endless occupation, all you get is a mess. Slow, painful negotiation is the new reality. Otherwise you end up with never-ending war.
Wishing and hoping you could still wipe people off the map is pointless. When you attempt pre-emptive war, or endless occupation, all you get is a mess. Slow, painful negotiation is the new reality. Otherwise you end up with never-ending war.
2
Much like the ACA, the opposition will attempt to defeat something (the arms deal) with nothing.
The GOP still acts like the minority party despite controlling both Houses of Congress. They criticize and complain about policies and legislation, but offer no alternative in their stead. Whatever short term political points they may score with their base, ultimately they will grudgingly, reluctantly, capitulate and approve the deal.
Because you can't replace something with nothing, and that is what the GOP has to offer when it comes to the ACA, and what it has to offer here.
The GOP still acts like the minority party despite controlling both Houses of Congress. They criticize and complain about policies and legislation, but offer no alternative in their stead. Whatever short term political points they may score with their base, ultimately they will grudgingly, reluctantly, capitulate and approve the deal.
Because you can't replace something with nothing, and that is what the GOP has to offer when it comes to the ACA, and what it has to offer here.
Nobody on either side of this deal is certain that they will benefit from this deal but it really is better than the preexisting status quo where nobody was able to discuss anything. The opponents of the deal do not think that communicating except with the non-verbal language of intimidation is possible. Netanyahu and the Republicans think that they can control other nations with the threat of military forces alone, that they can protect their countries only by instilling fear in their adversaries alone. It is because at the heart of their souls they cannot trust human beings with who they do not agree can act reasonably and peacefully, that their malevolence is what they really are rather than people like themselves with all kinds of needs and motives. Their fear is deep and it prevents them from seeing the humanity in their enemies as well as their allies. It makes them inflexible and incapable of addressing uncertainty with calm minds.
2
The United States has proven beyond all doubt that it has no idea of how to create a meaningful strategy for the middle east. Our penchant for war has destabilized the region, laying the ground work for the birth of ISIS. Now we think we are still smarter than everyone else, including our only true ally in the middle east Israel.
This agreement gives Iran, the most prolific terrorist regime in the world, the right to import weapons in 5 years and ballistic missiles in 8 years. Not to mention the snubbing of Israel, in the entire negotiating process, whose fate may be sealed by this agreement.
I have no words.
This agreement gives Iran, the most prolific terrorist regime in the world, the right to import weapons in 5 years and ballistic missiles in 8 years. Not to mention the snubbing of Israel, in the entire negotiating process, whose fate may be sealed by this agreement.
I have no words.
4
"[this deal] does what no amount of political posturing and vague threats of military action had managed to do before. It puts strong, verifiable limits on Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years and is potentially one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history, with the ability not just to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but also to reshape Middle East politics."
No. Deals don't do anything. Power does things. Deals are how the dynamics of power relationships are formally resolved. So a deal does not have the ability to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It only represents the dynamics of the relationship between Iran and the deal partners--that they have the power to inflict pain on Iran if it makes a nuclear weapon--and provides a plan for how that power might be exercised.
But plans are only, as my CO in the Army used to say, a common basis for deviation. If the power dynamics between Iran and the world substantially change, this deal will be a nullity.
In the meantime, the US continues to pour blood and treasure into fighting Iran's battle against ISIS. If the US were to emerge victorious, it would only cement Iran's expanded hegemony in the Levant, almost clear to the Mediterranean. We fought both Gulf Wars and now ISIS to, in effect, give Iran two client states in Iraq and Syria. But I'm sure we were much smarter diplomats in crafting this deal.
No. Deals don't do anything. Power does things. Deals are how the dynamics of power relationships are formally resolved. So a deal does not have the ability to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It only represents the dynamics of the relationship between Iran and the deal partners--that they have the power to inflict pain on Iran if it makes a nuclear weapon--and provides a plan for how that power might be exercised.
But plans are only, as my CO in the Army used to say, a common basis for deviation. If the power dynamics between Iran and the world substantially change, this deal will be a nullity.
In the meantime, the US continues to pour blood and treasure into fighting Iran's battle against ISIS. If the US were to emerge victorious, it would only cement Iran's expanded hegemony in the Levant, almost clear to the Mediterranean. We fought both Gulf Wars and now ISIS to, in effect, give Iran two client states in Iraq and Syria. But I'm sure we were much smarter diplomats in crafting this deal.
It is hard to begin the process of reconciliation with a longtime enemy, but if we continue to focus on past grievances (on both sides), we will never be able to move forward. Countries change. Reagan realized that Gorbachev was not Khrushchev or Brezhnev, just as Obama is not Bush or Clinton, and Rouhani is not Ahmadinejad or Khamenei.
Assuming both sides fulfill their obligations as per the treaty, we will have many more opportunities to tone down the mutual animosity between our nations, develop the potential for mutually beneficial cooperation, and hopefully begin the long process of dispelling sectarian tension in the Middle East region.
Assuming both sides fulfill their obligations as per the treaty, we will have many more opportunities to tone down the mutual animosity between our nations, develop the potential for mutually beneficial cooperation, and hopefully begin the long process of dispelling sectarian tension in the Middle East region.
The one and only flaw in the Iran deal is that for many people (and world leaders) the goal of the sanctions was regime change, rather than curbing nuclear development. This view has usually been unspoken or muddled, but it's very strong. For people who hold this view, nuclear issues were just an excuse to punish Iran by any means possible. They will never be happy with any negotiated deal. War (or revolution) are the only options that would make them really happy, but short of that they'd settle for continued sanctions. And there are a great many of them.
1
The Republican vitriol for this deal is a sad reflection of the US right wing, and Israeli lobby in America. Iran is and always will be a powerful Middle Eastern influence. We need to find common ground with them. We deposed Mossadeh, for god's sake - if China had used it's spy agency to depose an elected US leader, we wouldn't ever like China. Suck it up America - Iran dislikes us culturally out of the fear of CIA manipulation. This deal is better than another stupid middle eastern war. Bush II wasted $1 trillion. Lets not have another middle eastern conflict. Now, lets ask Israel to abandon nuclear weapons - and force them to admit they they have them.
I wonder what's to stop Iran, after they get their money back, from continued development of nuclear weapons in the wilderness of some of their allies? Why shouldn't we think that Syria. Russia, Lebanon, Venezuela will assist in such development? I think the US may be demonstrating its apparent naivete in such matters. I think we admire our own view of ourselves, much more than does anyone else. I'll wait and see, while holding my breath. This worries me.
2
Nonsense.
CNN broke the news yesterday that Russia will be completing a massive arms deals with Iran and they are not waiting for the 5 years according to the "deal."
Once the sanctions are removed, nothing is going to make them "snap back" as deals worth multi-billions will be made in the interim.
CNN broke the news yesterday that Russia will be completing a massive arms deals with Iran and they are not waiting for the 5 years according to the "deal."
Once the sanctions are removed, nothing is going to make them "snap back" as deals worth multi-billions will be made in the interim.
2
Not only has the chance of war not been reduced---it has actually been increased a thousandfold. First, even though the option of a U.S. military action in Iran, and a subsequent all-out war, has indeed been deferred, that deferment is of Chamberlain's "peace for now" kind.
Second, the deal releases a humongous amount of money into the Iranian economy. It should not come as a surprise when a large portion of that money appears in Syria and Lebanon in the form of massive "boots on the ground." Syria under Assad and Lebanon under Hizbullah will be secured as Iranian satelite states, and America will show further gratitude to Iran for relieving her from her moral obligation to fight ISIL. As in satelites, the Iranian presence in Syria and Lebanon will in the long run not be limited to boots. Israel will, rightly, not tolerate this worse-than-nuclear threat on her northern border. War is thus assured.
Second, the deal releases a humongous amount of money into the Iranian economy. It should not come as a surprise when a large portion of that money appears in Syria and Lebanon in the form of massive "boots on the ground." Syria under Assad and Lebanon under Hizbullah will be secured as Iranian satelite states, and America will show further gratitude to Iran for relieving her from her moral obligation to fight ISIL. As in satelites, the Iranian presence in Syria and Lebanon will in the long run not be limited to boots. Israel will, rightly, not tolerate this worse-than-nuclear threat on her northern border. War is thus assured.
2
What would Nixon and Reagan do with Iran? Trust, verify, negotiate, visit, promote trade, capitalism, and cultural exchanges... and slowly turn a dangerous adversary into a cordial partner.
Today's Republicans should learn from their more imaginative predecessors.
Today's Republicans should learn from their more imaginative predecessors.
1. The Iranians can't be trusted--a given
2. Will they eventually have a nuclear weapon (or perhaps do they have one already)--probably.
3. Will they ever be our friends (short of a successful Green revolution)--probably not.
4. Should we go to war because Israel and the Saudis are upset: ABSOLUTELY NOT!
5. Will the R's and Bibi shamelessly exploit the issue to the max, particularly with a looming election: you can count on it.
2. Will they eventually have a nuclear weapon (or perhaps do they have one already)--probably.
3. Will they ever be our friends (short of a successful Green revolution)--probably not.
4. Should we go to war because Israel and the Saudis are upset: ABSOLUTELY NOT!
5. Will the R's and Bibi shamelessly exploit the issue to the max, particularly with a looming election: you can count on it.
1
On page 1 of the NYT the headline proclaims that this is faith-based initiative by Mr. Obama. The editorial commentary suggests that this nuclear deal reduces the chances of nuclear war. The times cannot have it both ways. For weeks now the Times suggests that there are great flaws in the agreement and then suggests remedies including walking away from the table and maintaining sanctions in place. On the other hand the Times embraces the same arrogant, hubris of the President and suggests that a faith based initiative is best path for peace and mutual cooperation between the United States and Iran. Shortly after or just before statements of approval the Times reports how Arab nations are deeply concerned, especially Saudi Arabia and, also, Israel, a staunch American ally is not only fearful, but as stated yesterday by Netanyahu, not bound by this agreement. Finally, the Times also reports of the deep opposition by Republicans and not to forget the signed letter by both former military, administrative and other government officials who expressed their deep concern and misgivings.
After all that the Times issues an opinion expressing hope.
I believe, and so do many others that it is false hope and false security. Iran, as the Times has written often and strongly, is not to be trusted.
It appears that the Times has abandoned principles and thrown aside common sense and good judgement to support a leftwing president not out of conviction but from faith based hubris.
After all that the Times issues an opinion expressing hope.
I believe, and so do many others that it is false hope and false security. Iran, as the Times has written often and strongly, is not to be trusted.
It appears that the Times has abandoned principles and thrown aside common sense and good judgement to support a leftwing president not out of conviction but from faith based hubris.
2
In your own words, NYT, herein lies the problem: no one should have any illusions about Iran, which considers Israel a sworn enemy; often condemns the United States; supports Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations; and aspires to greater influence in the region. Once sanctions are lifted, it stands to gain access to billions of dollars from accounts in international banks that have been frozen and from new oil exports and other business deals.
Please refrain from sounding the trumpets. They are dancing in the streets of Tehran. We will not know the efficacy of this deal for years to come.
Please refrain from sounding the trumpets. They are dancing in the streets of Tehran. We will not know the efficacy of this deal for years to come.
2
"strong verifiable limits" but the fine print shows that Iran has weeks to prepare for an inspection.....
1
" strong, verifiable limits"
No. They don't exist here. Iran can violate the agreement at new sites and the inspections of those sites - if we know about them - can only happen after permission is asked. Iran can delay giving permission up to 24 days.
In other words, Iran can do whatever it wants to violate the agreement, and still have plenty of time to cover up any violation before inspectors see the site.
No. They don't exist here. Iran can violate the agreement at new sites and the inspections of those sites - if we know about them - can only happen after permission is asked. Iran can delay giving permission up to 24 days.
In other words, Iran can do whatever it wants to violate the agreement, and still have plenty of time to cover up any violation before inspectors see the site.
2
No doubt that Josh Earnest had a hand in writing this. More shallow, legacy building and ego preening from this lousy president. The world will regret this Iranian executive order and so will the NYTimes in time.
1
The republicans and the right are doing what they have always done when President Obama achieves anything; denounce it and vow to repeal it. The republicans and the right have not produced anything that aids humanity in any way, and clearly they never will. So, let's get past all the anger promoting, self promoting politicians, and look at the facts and the issues, and come to the realization that this is a good thing.
1
This is an excellent interview carried out expertly by Friedman who knew how to hold his tongue and let the President make his outstanding explanation of the issues and of the achievements with a strong description of the "achievable". The interview effectively brought out the background of the situation in which we have found ourselves, including our conspiracy to remove a freely-elected Iranian government in the fifties. Friedman brought out an important point to which the President responded namely the need for a diplomatic effort bringing Saud Arabia (and other Gulf States) and Iran to resolve outstanding Issues; as the President said :"Yes, but Kerry needs to rest first".
1
For the lay person to praise or excoriate a deal with such specificity which has not even been read by members of Congress let alone gained input from the country's nuclear "arm" of military experts is purely ideological.
4
The big crybaby , sniveling in front of our Congress for help. The man has some 125 armed nuclear warheads at his disposal. Iran has none.
Netanyahu could obliterate Iran with a phone call , but is afraid to take the responsibility for his own convictions. He comes crawling to a seditious GOP caucus for approval and a GOP, far more eager to undermine Obama's international agreement than to protect America , supports this warmonger.
Like all bullies , Netenyahu has an ample yellow streak of spinelessness. He is, simply put, a whining coward looking for company to share his misery with. He needs no help in erasing his declared enemy , but he is fearful of political condemnation.
A gullible and venal republican party has risen to the bait offered by a foreign leader that has done everything in his power to resist any agreement with the Palestinians , ousted and displaced from their homes in 1948 , and the subject of reconciliation efforts ever since.
Republican politicians , despite their alleged hatred of our government , are paid by that very institution that they deplore.
In a word, these people are traitors who have made their allegiance to such as the Brothers Koch crystal clear. Money is more important to these republican swine than anything else resulting in common sense, pragmatism , patriotism , and equal treatment under the law , being thrown down the toilet. It is beyond shameful.
Netanyahu could obliterate Iran with a phone call , but is afraid to take the responsibility for his own convictions. He comes crawling to a seditious GOP caucus for approval and a GOP, far more eager to undermine Obama's international agreement than to protect America , supports this warmonger.
Like all bullies , Netenyahu has an ample yellow streak of spinelessness. He is, simply put, a whining coward looking for company to share his misery with. He needs no help in erasing his declared enemy , but he is fearful of political condemnation.
A gullible and venal republican party has risen to the bait offered by a foreign leader that has done everything in his power to resist any agreement with the Palestinians , ousted and displaced from their homes in 1948 , and the subject of reconciliation efforts ever since.
Republican politicians , despite their alleged hatred of our government , are paid by that very institution that they deplore.
In a word, these people are traitors who have made their allegiance to such as the Brothers Koch crystal clear. Money is more important to these republican swine than anything else resulting in common sense, pragmatism , patriotism , and equal treatment under the law , being thrown down the toilet. It is beyond shameful.
5
The GOP critics very conveniently forget that prior to their "regime change" policies their was no Iranian nuclear threat. But once Bush abrogated the ABM treaty and announced "preemptive war" as official US policy, countries like Iran began to take steps to protect themselves.
Iraq, the nation to Iran's south and one that they share a lengthy boarder with has been destroyed as a nation state by our successive wars in the region. Syria is in turmoil, Libiya has been destroyed and is now a terrorist staging ground and like it or not, a stable Iran with whom we re-establish diplomatic ties with is our best option for the region.
Rather than offer a new policy or even to admit the failures of the old we get more saber rattling and threats.
The American people by overwhelming margins do not want to engage in or pay for any more middle east wars. Maybe that sentiment has to be expressed at the ballot box in order for these candidates to get it.
Iraq, the nation to Iran's south and one that they share a lengthy boarder with has been destroyed as a nation state by our successive wars in the region. Syria is in turmoil, Libiya has been destroyed and is now a terrorist staging ground and like it or not, a stable Iran with whom we re-establish diplomatic ties with is our best option for the region.
Rather than offer a new policy or even to admit the failures of the old we get more saber rattling and threats.
The American people by overwhelming margins do not want to engage in or pay for any more middle east wars. Maybe that sentiment has to be expressed at the ballot box in order for these candidates to get it.
1
A great settlement that will hopefully usher in peaceful negotiations between this country and Iran and bring peace to the Middle East.
To the obstructionists Republicans and others in Congress and the demagogic oratory coming from Mr. Netanyahu, who would have us go to war on this issue, I say: Give it and peace a chance.
To the obstructionists Republicans and others in Congress and the demagogic oratory coming from Mr. Netanyahu, who would have us go to war on this issue, I say: Give it and peace a chance.
The US developed an atomic bomb in 1945.
That was SEVENTY YEARS AGO.
In this day and age of high technology, does anyone honestly believe that Iran could not produce a nuclear weapon?
Or, does anyone think that Iran is considerably behind Pakistan in overall development?
And, why is it our job to "prevent" them from producing a bomb anyway?
That was SEVENTY YEARS AGO.
In this day and age of high technology, does anyone honestly believe that Iran could not produce a nuclear weapon?
Or, does anyone think that Iran is considerably behind Pakistan in overall development?
And, why is it our job to "prevent" them from producing a bomb anyway?
1
It reduces the chance short term, and increase the chance and severity long term, but Kerry and Obama will be out of office then.
Limiting nuclear weapons deployment should be the goal of everyone. There is no question a deal that does that is in the best interest of everyone including the Iranian people.
In my life, dating back to the 50's the US and the world has been in almost constant war footing even with huge stockpiles of unused nuclear weapons. Call me a cynic but the real culprit in war is our human nature backed up by large stockpiles of conventional weapons primarily supplied by the US, Russia, China and the developed nations of the West.
Economic engagement is likely to mean more conventional weapons in the hands of Iran and their proxies. I don't see that reducing the chance of war. I do see it allowing us to sell weapons, train and attempt to deploy Iranian military assets for US geopolitical goals.
The 5 plus 1 and Iran are not nations built on pacifism and enlightenment. There will be blood and lots of it. Lets be thankful that there will be one less country with nuclear capability for a few years and not forget who we are and who they are. Peace is a state of mind that doesn't exist with either side of this negotiation.
In my life, dating back to the 50's the US and the world has been in almost constant war footing even with huge stockpiles of unused nuclear weapons. Call me a cynic but the real culprit in war is our human nature backed up by large stockpiles of conventional weapons primarily supplied by the US, Russia, China and the developed nations of the West.
Economic engagement is likely to mean more conventional weapons in the hands of Iran and their proxies. I don't see that reducing the chance of war. I do see it allowing us to sell weapons, train and attempt to deploy Iranian military assets for US geopolitical goals.
The 5 plus 1 and Iran are not nations built on pacifism and enlightenment. There will be blood and lots of it. Lets be thankful that there will be one less country with nuclear capability for a few years and not forget who we are and who they are. Peace is a state of mind that doesn't exist with either side of this negotiation.
Even if the deal got rid of all centrifuges and all nuclear material and the deal was for 100 years the republicans would be against it. Their argument: what happens 100 years from now ? Talk about being unpatriotic !!
3
America cannot keep Iran bottled up forever. The only alternative to this deal is war. That is what Senator Cotton doesn't say. His only plan leads to war. Netanyahu's plan seems to be directing our Air Force in the opening phases of a bombing campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure. His only plan leads to war. I think Netanyahu's job depends on war. Senator McConnell's only plan was to get President Obama unelected, so this old fool just reacts like a dog to a bone. Our silly Speaker of the House in name only is coordinating with his boss: Netanyahu. Their only plan leads to war. To that I say this. Iraq, a much smaller country with a fraction of the population of Iran, nearly defeated us with improvised explosives triggered by garage door openers. All the B52's, smart bombs, drones, F22's, B1's, Apache Gun Ships and aircraft carriers couldn't do a thing to protect our troops when they had to get out and just drive around. They were being blown up outside the gates of their base. But now these disgusting war mongers within the Republican Party are trying to rewrite history by saying we were winning when George left office. Really? Winning? It is enough to make a citizen who cares about America sick and fearful of the future.
3
And as always, our Republican Congress vows to stop this agreement, whether they understand what they're voting against or not. All that matters, from his first inauguration until today, is that if Obama is for it, they're against it. Meanwhile, the GOP concentrates on a heavily-doctored conversation with a Planned Parenthood official that was not about selling fetal body parts, and the paranoid fantasy of Obama's "invasion of Texas." The sheer impotence of today's GOP leaders is a direct result of their gullibility and refusal to face reality.
1
The Iranians can't be trusted, say Republicans? Well, certainly when the United States is bellicose with Iran, their leaders have all they need to foment distrust among their citizens. A treaty disarms the weapon of belligerent rhetoric as well. But belligerent rhetoric in the US is a Republican stock in trade, isn't it, just like with the Imams? Republicans are opposed to peace in the first place; we already have a bloody and needless war in Iraq to prove that. How glaring does the bad example need to be? I don't believe for one minute that any Republican knows more about this treaty than the top international negotiators of six nations who have worked on this for years. Republicans apparently they feel they have gigantic brains from outer space that know better than anyone about everything all the time. Review the still-smoldering saga of America's Republican administration of 2001-2008 for a fact check on that idea.
In 1953 the US and Britain engineered the overthrow of the only duly elected Shiite Government in Iran and We Installed the Shah of Iran. In the 1970s there were some 30,000 Americans living in Iran. The Greed for Oil for the Company that is NOW British Petroleum started this fight. They got John Foster Dulles and his Brother Allen (head of the CIA) to convince IKE this was an easy way to manipulate World Power.. It was much Cheaper than War.. and we were just settling for a Draw in the Shooting War in Korea.. In retrospect the Shiite Revolution in 1979 (taking back a government wrongly taken from them) in Iran is similar to the Castro Takeover in Cuba.. Castro tried to Right the Wrongs done by the US after the Spanish American War.. Will the US learn that unless there it total War as we waged in Germany and Japan in WWII (some 50 million Dead in Europe alone), the price of peace is constant Diplomacy.. but effective, eyes wide open diplomacy. Not the kind of Diplomacy practiced in Versailles in 1919 where the colonialism had not died. There Britain and France carved up the Middle East into these unnatural countries and interjected the Palestine Protectorate... These leading Countries (the US didn't want any part of the Middle East problems) ignored the Agreement between Fisal (King of Syria and Iraq) and Weizmann (head of the Zionists). Get a Grip. Diplomacy is a temporary Fix.. it evolves.
Obama has shown that diplomacy works. The Republicans and Netanyahu are all eager for war or simply reflexively oppose anything the President does, even if it's for the good of the country. And will those who are claiming that Iran plans to bomb Israel please look at a map? Israel is tiny in area. Obliterating Israel means also obliterating Palestinians and causing serious damage in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan. The prevailing westerly winds means that the fallout plume will come back to Iran.
1
This nuclear deal violates the Republican prime directive in place since 2009 which is stop anything that would enhance Obama’s reputation and approval, regardless of the cost to the nation. All they have is distrust but no alternative except war and hostility. No doubt there is a secret plan, which is top secret but will be a bonanza for the arms industry. There is a difference between a discussion on the actual merits in which the public’s choice has an input and the politics of destruction which risks being seen by the public as bordering on total recklessness.
There are those who will say "No" just because President Obama is a protagonist.
For those who have an open mind, one should remember that one keeps a close eye on one's opponents. That is what having this agreement allows, as opposed to having no way to obseve what the Iranians might be doing if the agreement were not in place.
The choice is pretty simple. Watch the Iranians, or let them do whatever with no oversight at all.
For those who have an open mind, one should remember that one keeps a close eye on one's opponents. That is what having this agreement allows, as opposed to having no way to obseve what the Iranians might be doing if the agreement were not in place.
The choice is pretty simple. Watch the Iranians, or let them do whatever with no oversight at all.
This is a solid editorial on this complex and important issue. What occurs to me is that all of the assumptions about Iran include that they would, given no restraint, both build a nuclear bomb AND use it. I fail to see them as a suicidal nation, as they would surely face massive retaliation in such a case. Further, why does it seem taboo to mention the very many nuclear bombs that Israel possesses, as this is an obvious motivation by any other nation in the region to reach parity. Now that Iran is under clear restrictions on development of enriched uranium, why don't we address how it's time to make the middle east a nuclear-free zone. That effort needs to start, at the least, with a recognition that Israel is a nuclear power.
2
But if most Democrats support the plan, why force President Obama to use his veto of a Republican majority's vote to reject it. Why not just filibuster any Republican measure and wrap it all up with no action forthcoming from the Congress?
I feel so proud that this deal has been signed despite Netanyahu and Republicans' efforts to derail it. The only thing I regret is that no Republican was held accountable for signing the Open Letter to Iran back in March. What they did is the very definition of treason.
3
Since the deal reduces the chances of war, it was perfectly understandable to read the headline elsewhere in the paper today that "Republicans vow fight to derail Iran deal."
Who wants peace, when you can send other people's children to fight needless wars and make millions for yourself in the process?
GOP 2016 - War, war, war.
Who wants peace, when you can send other people's children to fight needless wars and make millions for yourself in the process?
GOP 2016 - War, war, war.
2
It is time for the people and countries of the world to make friends. The future is not in war but in economic vitality and innovation. The old fears that your son may fall in love and marry someone of another faith or ethnic group or visa versa should be old fashioned by now. It is my feeling that this fear was at the root of broader hostilities.
The hawks have had to retract their talons for the time being. The sane world echos with unified sigh of relief. Our president has forestalled yet another senseless was. Welcome to the era of Pax Obama.
1
Logically and with a dose of faith that Iran will comply, the deal seems the only way to prevent a Nuclear Arms race in the Middle East. But at what cost?... alienating two historically dependable allies, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Perhaps the time is now for the United States to change the map of the Middle East as the British did over a century ago. Yet, the difference is we are doing so out of weakness not strength. Making a deal with a country ruled by Religious authorities is like making a deal with the tooth fairy. President Obama's head, heart and a bit of ego may be in the right place, but it won't work. Israel has some blame for this. Its refusal to budge on its shameful land grab and killing of innocent civilians in doing so, badly damaged its relationship with Europe and the United States. Iran saw its moment.
Let's see, the opponents of this deal are the Republicans and Netanyahu. These were the same people who assured us that the end of civilization was upon us, if we didn't invade Iraq and destroy all those (non-existent) WMDs. Now some four thousand plus dead Americans, god only knows how many dead Iraqis, and trillions of wasted dollars, later, these same people are asserting what a bad deal the Iran accord is. I'm really impressed, not by what they say, but by the fact that with such a track record, they even say anything at all.
4
Give peace a chance.
1
Much like the ACA, the opposition will attempt to defeat something (the arms deal) with nothing. The GOP still acts like the minority party despite controlling both Houses of Congress. They criticize and complain about policies and legislation, but offer no alternative in their stead. Whatever short term political points they may score with their base, ultimately they will grudgingly, reluctantly, capitulate and approve the deal. Because you can't replace something with nothing, and that is what the GOP has to offer when it comes to the ACA, and what it has to offer here.
1
"Iran Nuclear deal reduces the Chance of war". Don't you believe it. This deal is a delay that will give not only the Nukes to Iran but the extra money to enhance their programs of bomb making and bomb delivery. When they are finished they will do their damage to the middle east and require that the US respond with nukes after Israel is destroyed. Of course President Obama will be finished with his post Presidency speaking tours and be as wealthy as the Clintons by the time the results of his Iran deal destroys half the world. He will blame Bush of course and go on to live with SS protection in seclusion.
1
One should at least mention the completely unmonitored Israeli nuclear arms industry and inventory when speculating on the longer term outcome of the Iran deal.
2
The agreement looks as if it lowers risk of nuclear war, according to its US promoters. Unfortunately, neither is an old hand at disarmament or diplomacy. Indeed, they have no such experience.
1
This treaty granting Iran approval to manufacture nuclear weapons in the future is not in the best interest of the USA!
Or world peace!
Or world peace!
2
If the economic sanctions against Iran are lifted, then Iran will be enriched by foreign trade and will have more financial resources as required to accelerate their development and acquisition of nuclear weapons!
The Europeans who sold Iran their equipment for enriching uranium will be able to sell Iran more and more of this equipment and these sales will economically benefit those European nations!
The Europeans who sold Iran their equipment for enriching uranium will be able to sell Iran more and more of this equipment and these sales will economically benefit those European nations!
2
the comments by lindsay graham and other GOPer pols attacking Obama as unknowing defy credulity. Graham couldn't carry Obamas brief case at Harvard where he was President of the Harvard Law Review, the most coveted role in the College world.
Lindsay, like most pols, is a prisoner of those in control of his State Party. Tells us a lot. Reminds us that European History books explain, unlike ours, that many new Americans were expelled from Europe as Religious wackos- or worse. Their descendants are, unfortunately imprinted by the early extremists.
Lindsay, like most pols, is a prisoner of those in control of his State Party. Tells us a lot. Reminds us that European History books explain, unlike ours, that many new Americans were expelled from Europe as Religious wackos- or worse. Their descendants are, unfortunately imprinted by the early extremists.
1
To all the wealthy pro-war Republicans who want the U.S. to defeat Iran militarily, may I ask who you plan to send to fight this war? Your people don't join the military. And who is going to pay for it? Your people don't want to pay taxes.
2
Israel and Saudi Arabia are yelling bloody murder from the rooftops not because of concerns that their existence and survival are now under threat. It's because they risk losing influence in their neck of the woods as a result of a three-way balance of power. At the end of the day, what this deal may achieve is a strong balance of power in the Middle East. No more bullying of Lebanon by Israel. No more indoctrination of susceptible youngsters by Saudi radical interpretations of Islam.
Saudi Arabia's anxious that its hegemony and influence through Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban will now be countered by Iranian influence. It is worried that Iranian influence will embolden many Shia's who are second class citizens in their own countries to stand up for their rights and democracy.
The Israelis are worried that their arms advantage over the oppressed Palestinians will erode through rising Iranian influence. No more illegal settlements for the Israelis! In addition there's one more legitimate and powerful voice to speak up in the UN against Israel. They are also vested to keep the Muslims divided so that they have leverage in the region and any future rapproachement between the Saudis and Iran (and the US could play a constructive role in this) will weaken the Israeli position.
At the end of the day, I think this is brilliant strategic move on Obama's part to allow a three-way balance of power to gain stability in the Middle East. Equally matched powers rarely go to war.
Saudi Arabia's anxious that its hegemony and influence through Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban will now be countered by Iranian influence. It is worried that Iranian influence will embolden many Shia's who are second class citizens in their own countries to stand up for their rights and democracy.
The Israelis are worried that their arms advantage over the oppressed Palestinians will erode through rising Iranian influence. No more illegal settlements for the Israelis! In addition there's one more legitimate and powerful voice to speak up in the UN against Israel. They are also vested to keep the Muslims divided so that they have leverage in the region and any future rapproachement between the Saudis and Iran (and the US could play a constructive role in this) will weaken the Israeli position.
At the end of the day, I think this is brilliant strategic move on Obama's part to allow a three-way balance of power to gain stability in the Middle East. Equally matched powers rarely go to war.
2
Prime Minister Netanyahu wants the United States and Iran have been at odds, the United States to fight for Israel, instead of Israel against Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, but perhaps it is really time to say "no".
1
If Bibi and the chicken hawks oppose his deal so badly, they can organize militias composed of their own sons and daughters to fight the Iranians after Bibi bombs their nuclear facilities, releasing massive nuclear fallout and starting WWIII. Leave ordinary Americans and their children in peace to prosper.
2
It will be interesting to see how the Democratic blind supporters of the only nuclear terrorist state, Israel, line up on this agreement.
The problem here is that President Obama and the Iranian regime share a common lack of trust by people of the world. Deals can be made and should be made but even the smallest one depends on the integrity of the signatories. When those signatories have a shortage of credibility, the deal is hardly worth the paper it's printed on.
3
"NYT Pick" with zero "Readers' Picks". This must be a new record in discord!
I am deeply disturbed by the Immediate position taken by the Republican leadership, candidates & members! It appears, once again, that they will not even look at the deal objectively, before making a decision on its validity.
This does not sound like any logical & reasonable action that I expect from the leadership. In addition: they have no alternative to offer.
As an independent voter, this surely makes me question voting for any gop candidate.
This does not sound like any logical & reasonable action that I expect from the leadership. In addition: they have no alternative to offer.
As an independent voter, this surely makes me question voting for any gop candidate.
The Republicans who vehemently oppose the nuclear deal with Iran, a deal that is an alternative to possible war, are many of the the same politicians who blindly and unquestioningly supported Bush's war in Iraq. That war led to the death and maiming of thousands of American servicemen and women and the untold death of thousands of innocent Iraqis. What's more, Bush's war was based on lies concerning so-called weapons of mass destruction. It was a war of deceit. The latest Republican opposition to a deal with Iran indicates again the outrageous and failed policies of the Republican party.
1
I'm very proud of John Kerry. With regard to having "illusions" about Iran, I don't think any of the negotiators had any illusions that Iran was self-interested. But what country isn't, and what nation doesn't want to expand its sphere of influence, particularly when it's parked in a sea of instability??
Netanyahu has displayed his enmity - furious at a peaceful resolution - but thankfully has been thwarted in his attempt to become master of the Middle East through violence, perpetual chaos and at America's expense. If Israel does attempt to bomb Iran - which must be considered in that Netanyahu can be rash - I expect our nation to react accordingly, and defend both the hard fought resolution and Iran's sovereignty through sanctions, asset freezing and the withholding of aid.
Netanyahu has displayed his enmity - furious at a peaceful resolution - but thankfully has been thwarted in his attempt to become master of the Middle East through violence, perpetual chaos and at America's expense. If Israel does attempt to bomb Iran - which must be considered in that Netanyahu can be rash - I expect our nation to react accordingly, and defend both the hard fought resolution and Iran's sovereignty through sanctions, asset freezing and the withholding of aid.
4
Thank you NYT for a sober, well-reasoned and clearly articulated assessment of a landmark achievement by Secretary John Kerry and President Obama. We must all brace ourselves for the onslaught of the Radical Republicans in Congress and of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. War will always remain the first choice for them.
2
What is the alternative to a deal? To slip into war with Iran? Look at our terrible record with wars of folly since the Vietnam War and look how since 9/11 such wars have transformed us into an increasingly authoritarian state at home. Warmongers who would cut social services, are always prepared to spend $trillions more on war.
4
No matter the conditions, is there any reason to trust Iran?
This Australian would like to thank the Obama administration for having the courage to lead this diplomacy. This is not America's achievement alone, but without Barack Obama's vision and persistence, and John Kerry's skillful persuasion, there would be no deal. I am appalled to think that Republicans may now seek to derail the agreement. For what end, other than to spike the legacy of Barack Obama? We citizens of the world surely deserve better than to be hostage to petty internal politicking.
3
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!!
8
Within several hours of the announcement that the nuclear deal had been reached, Benjamin Netanyahu, Republican leaders in Congress, and most of the Republican presidential candidates expressed objections to the agreement. I would like to know on what these people based their objections. I understand that the document is at least 100 pages and contains many details. So I doubt very seriously that these critics actually read it. I think that the Republicans and Mr. Netanyahu were going to oppose the deal no matter what the terms, no matter how important it is to avoid nuclear proliferation. They merely acted reflexively, and, as such, their credibility about the risks of this deal is seriously in question.
4
On a more positive note, my hope is that when the sanctions are lifted, the citizens of Iran will have the opportunity to live in a country where they will be able to prosper and make good lives for themselves. Perhaps a new founded stability will eventually give Iranians the impetus and freedom to become actively involved in their government and begin to turn it towards a country that wants to live in peace and be a positive presence in the world.
1
There is probably no other country whose interests are better served by preventing a nuclear Iran, than Israel - but considering Iran's past indiscretions, and the vague, terminable nature of this deal, it's easy to understand Israel's opposition. What's difficult to understand is the opposition to Israel's opposition.
Iran's government indoctrinates their people with anti-Semitism, using Israel as a boogieman to keep Iranians focused on external threats - lest they recognize that their joblessness, oppression, and misery come from within. To that end, Iran funds, arms, and encourages groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to keep the cycle of violence going, thereby scuttling any possibility of peace, and leaving Palestinians as perennial refugees.
Iran also denies the mass extermination of six million Jews in Europe while threatening on a daily basis to exterminate six million more in Israel.
Is it really so difficult to comprehend Israel's reluctance to trust them?
This editorial vilifies Israel and portrays them as the obstacle to peace, but Israel has never done anything to Iran. And the dire warning in the last paragraph, about shadowy "powerful forces, like Mr. Netanyahu" who wield power over America perpetuates typical, and vile, anti-Semitic lore.
Everyone, especially Israel, wants peace with Iran, but this is not a peace agreement. It's a quick payday, in exchange for easily evaded inspections that will leave Iran with nuclear weapons capability a decade from now.
Iran's government indoctrinates their people with anti-Semitism, using Israel as a boogieman to keep Iranians focused on external threats - lest they recognize that their joblessness, oppression, and misery come from within. To that end, Iran funds, arms, and encourages groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to keep the cycle of violence going, thereby scuttling any possibility of peace, and leaving Palestinians as perennial refugees.
Iran also denies the mass extermination of six million Jews in Europe while threatening on a daily basis to exterminate six million more in Israel.
Is it really so difficult to comprehend Israel's reluctance to trust them?
This editorial vilifies Israel and portrays them as the obstacle to peace, but Israel has never done anything to Iran. And the dire warning in the last paragraph, about shadowy "powerful forces, like Mr. Netanyahu" who wield power over America perpetuates typical, and vile, anti-Semitic lore.
Everyone, especially Israel, wants peace with Iran, but this is not a peace agreement. It's a quick payday, in exchange for easily evaded inspections that will leave Iran with nuclear weapons capability a decade from now.
4
Mr. Netanyahu would love to bomb Iran with either the help or protection of the United States.
This is totally logical. It is the surest way to remove the threat to his country... A very real threat by a very real enemy.
Why are we surprised that he would vehemently oppose moves that would reduce his options?
He is not crazy. He is lobbying on behalf of his perceived best interest.
This is totally logical. It is the surest way to remove the threat to his country... A very real threat by a very real enemy.
Why are we surprised that he would vehemently oppose moves that would reduce his options?
He is not crazy. He is lobbying on behalf of his perceived best interest.
3
Negotiations are better than bombs. The GOP says the Iranians can't be trusted, well, can they?
I've read that some hawkish types are ready to bomb Iran. Really, more destabilization in the Middle East is what we do not need. For once, The United States and Iran are on the same side in the fight against ISIS, why can't we work together to rid the Middle East of that sick, sick organization.
Does anyone remember reading On the Beach by Neville Shute? It might just be a good read for some. Times are different, bombs are different but the results could be the same. I don't want that for my children and grandchildren.
I've read that some hawkish types are ready to bomb Iran. Really, more destabilization in the Middle East is what we do not need. For once, The United States and Iran are on the same side in the fight against ISIS, why can't we work together to rid the Middle East of that sick, sick organization.
Does anyone remember reading On the Beach by Neville Shute? It might just be a good read for some. Times are different, bombs are different but the results could be the same. I don't want that for my children and grandchildren.
3
Negotiations that allow Iran to have nuclear bombs in the future are not better than bombs.
Forget about what Mr. Obama or any politician says, what does the agreement actually say?
Thanks to the Washington Post, we can see what it says:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-n...
About access, see pages 42 and 43.
"If Iran’s explanations do not resolve the IAEA’s concerns, the Agency may request access to such locations for the sole reason to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at such locations."
'''
" Iran may propose to the IAEA alternative means of resolving the IAEA’s concerns that enable the IAEA to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the location in question, which should be given due and prompt consideration."
It then goes on to outline a bureaucratic international process that needs to be followed before access has to be granted. You can read it for yourself, but it sounds as if there is a lot of room for manipulating the intent of the agreement.
Thanks to the Washington Post, we can see what it says:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-n...
About access, see pages 42 and 43.
"If Iran’s explanations do not resolve the IAEA’s concerns, the Agency may request access to such locations for the sole reason to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at such locations."
'''
" Iran may propose to the IAEA alternative means of resolving the IAEA’s concerns that enable the IAEA to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the location in question, which should be given due and prompt consideration."
It then goes on to outline a bureaucratic international process that needs to be followed before access has to be granted. You can read it for yourself, but it sounds as if there is a lot of room for manipulating the intent of the agreement.
1
In addition to be a sensible approach, finally, to dealing with the rest of the world, the Iran deal will seal the Legacy of Obama in the history books. The biggest part of the whole deal which I have yet to begin to understand is the fact that every last one of the Republicans have vowed to fight the treaty without ever having read it. How do they do that? And Why?
3
Can you imagine the administration of Scott Walker or Ted Cruz or Donald Trump or any of the other occupants of the clown car concluding an agreement like this? Thought not. Hillary Clinton on the other hand? No problem. Indeed the Republicans do have a deep bench, if we are talking about Little League.
3
A strong and powerful Iran means that a free Palestinian State will become a reality. Iran is the natural leader of the region and Pres Obama is using Iran to do the heavy lifting in creating a free Palestine.
1
Fewer the war, and other other conflict, the better this world will be.
1
Perhaps someone can explain to me how this agreement is in "the interest of Israel" - since the Times raised the point. It could ultimately allow Iran to be within less than a year of breakout to the bomb - and that is if they dont cheat. It allows Iran to continue enriching uranium and
keep most of its facilites intact. As far as I know, it does not allow for inspection of military facilities where work may be done secretly. And -
it provides 150 billion dollars in sanctions relief -
if even a small fraction of this money gets to Hezbollah in Lebanon - they can add to their 100,000 missiles - some of which can reach every area in Israel
keep most of its facilites intact. As far as I know, it does not allow for inspection of military facilities where work may be done secretly. And -
it provides 150 billion dollars in sanctions relief -
if even a small fraction of this money gets to Hezbollah in Lebanon - they can add to their 100,000 missiles - some of which can reach every area in Israel
1
Netanyahu says this is an "historic mistake", which is also what he said in 2013 about the earlier nuclear anti-proliferation agreement. That earlier statement has now proven to be itself historically mistaken, and now the six world powers signing this agreement have agreed that he was mistaken then. So of course he repeats his earlier assertion, only this time he stands alone and refuted by his peers. His credibility on "historic mistakes" has been weighed in the balance of history itself, and found wanting.
2
I fear we are negotiating with ourselves.
2
Everyone should listen to Mr. Friedman's interview with the president. It's well worth the 45 minute investment. We also need to pick up the phone and call our representatives, and email them too.
The views of Americans need to be crystal clear to Congress. We cannot let the extremist voices carry the day.
The views of Americans need to be crystal clear to Congress. We cannot let the extremist voices carry the day.
2
We aren't the only signatories to this agreement. All of our allies had to sign on, with many just as concerned about WMD's getting into the hands of one of the worlds biggest supporter of terrorist groups and I include the Assad gang with Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, Houthis, etc. If these countries approve the deal and will take action if this deal is abrogated that's a better guarantee of it than than anything the current leadership in Iran can show. It's almost certain Iran's hardliners will try to cheat on the treaty as they have with every other obligation to nonproliferation that they've made. So the key is rigorous inspection. This inspection regimen has been shown to have worked perfectly well in Iraq despite the fear mongering of Bush 43's war campaign. So I'm satisfied with the result of the negotiations and I hope the GOP and their antipathy for anything Obama won't get in the way of a path to peace for both countries.
3
I fail to understand the Republican objections...are they that eager to engage in another Middle East conflict? Netanyahu seems to be rallying them to exactly that goal. If Iran fails to follow through on it's part of the bargain we can always backtrack, but it is so much in our interest, as well as the interest of stability in the region to make this deal. The alternative would yield nothing positive. And there is nothing necessarily stopping other countries (China/India for instance) from making their own deal with Iran.
2
Our lesson from the Branch Davidian siege near Waco, Texas taught us that isolating and threatening a fanatical religious sect is counterproductive. The results are predictable and horrific.
The Iranian government is theocratic and dogmatic, while most ordinary Iranians are modern, online, and well-educated. The popular Iranian protests of 2011 showed a society that may outgrow the bellicose Iranian authorities.
Many peaceful people in Iran are celebrating this deal in the streets. I believe the world can competently monitor the agreement.
The Iranian government is theocratic and dogmatic, while most ordinary Iranians are modern, online, and well-educated. The popular Iranian protests of 2011 showed a society that may outgrow the bellicose Iranian authorities.
Many peaceful people in Iran are celebrating this deal in the streets. I believe the world can competently monitor the agreement.
2
Here, diplomacy and conversation won over threat and coercion. The terrible repercussions of the tactless invasion of Iraq still hold, and the rhetoric some congress members are spewing forth does nothing but deteriorate peace and security in the Middle East and the entire world. So the last sentence of the contributor is the best indication of Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry's good will:
"It would be irresponsible to squander this chance to rein in Iran’s nuclear program."
Distrust and mistrust is something to be fully avoided in current international arena. Let's not destroy the chance for a better world just over the interests of a tiny fraction of the international community.
"It would be irresponsible to squander this chance to rein in Iran’s nuclear program."
Distrust and mistrust is something to be fully avoided in current international arena. Let's not destroy the chance for a better world just over the interests of a tiny fraction of the international community.
1
But this agreement allows Iran to have nuclear weapons in the near future!
2
I resent the editorial's suggestion that opposition to the deal came only or primarily from advocates of the State of Israel. I resent the editorial's allusion to Iran's terroristic schemes with respect to Israel and omission of discussion of Iran's aggressive designs toward various Arab states. This helps foster a suspicion that Israel and the Jews are a nagging obstacle to peace and reasoned discourse with adversaries.
Let's fact facts. The arab world is also upset about Iran's aggressive posture. The house of Saud is vehemently opposed to an augmentation of Persian power. The effects of Iran's belligerence is not only felt in Israel, because of the inhuman behavior of Hamas and Hezbollah, but also felt in Syria, where Iran assists Assad in the massacres of more Syrians, in Lebanon, where Hezbollah has destroyed Christian communities, and in Yemen, where the Houthis have been trying to topple the regime. However, people talk as if Israel were the only opponent of appeasement of Iran, stoking the anti-Semitic canard that the Jews cause all the problems and discord in the world.
And Israel and Saudia Arabia both have good reason to condemn the deal. Among other things, it provides that facilities and sites, that are not declared nuclear sites, are exempt from inspection unless there is evidence of cheating. The flaws in the agreement are devastating.
Let's fact facts. The arab world is also upset about Iran's aggressive posture. The house of Saud is vehemently opposed to an augmentation of Persian power. The effects of Iran's belligerence is not only felt in Israel, because of the inhuman behavior of Hamas and Hezbollah, but also felt in Syria, where Iran assists Assad in the massacres of more Syrians, in Lebanon, where Hezbollah has destroyed Christian communities, and in Yemen, where the Houthis have been trying to topple the regime. However, people talk as if Israel were the only opponent of appeasement of Iran, stoking the anti-Semitic canard that the Jews cause all the problems and discord in the world.
And Israel and Saudia Arabia both have good reason to condemn the deal. Among other things, it provides that facilities and sites, that are not declared nuclear sites, are exempt from inspection unless there is evidence of cheating. The flaws in the agreement are devastating.
Few nations are more anti-Western than Iran. Yet the West brought Iran to its knees by imposing sanctions. Nobody is free of the influence of Western business. It is our world and everyone else is visiting. Love us or hate us, Coca Cola makes the world go round.
2
Iran will never live up to the terms of this treaty. Never. Based upon its previous actions they will finance terrorist groups against other Middle Eastern countries and against Israel. I hope that the Senate never approves this treaty.
2
Some day, soon I hope, the worm will turn. There has to come a time when the American people finally see the Republicans for what they are—get fed up with endless Republican negativity, their againstism for anything remotely connected with Obama, their absolute lack of solutions to our national problems, and throw the bums out. Please Lord, make it sooner than later.
2
"These limits mean that if Iran ever decides to violate the agreement and make a dash for a nuclear bomb, it will take a year to produce the weapons-grade fuel needed for a single bomb, compared with a couple of months now."
-What keeps Iran from getting weapons-grade fuel from another country? Like North Korea or Pakistan?
We don't police their borders. We can barely police our own...
-What keeps Iran from getting weapons-grade fuel from another country? Like North Korea or Pakistan?
We don't police their borders. We can barely police our own...
2
Any human being of sound mind can appreciate why Benjamin Netanyahu takes umbrage at any accord with Iran; However, an agreement based on reasonable, rational grounds, is better than having no agreement whatsoever! I would sincerely hope that Iran realises that Israel is not their enemy, and their real enemy is that vector which terrorises us all? Who kill their own; who bomb their own places of worship? Who accuse innocent people of crimes that they are guilty of themselves? There is only one enemy and we all know who that is!
2
Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner has already received his marching orders from Tel Aviv. Netanyahu is in charge of US policy in the Middle East these days, leading Republicans around by the big rings in their noses. Since few Republicans bother to read any legislation before voting on it, Sen. Corker's review of the agreement (why does everybody call it a "deal?") will not change any congressional minds in thrall to Bibi.
4
The only negotiations that will satisfy Netanyahu is non-stop negotiation of Middle Eastern airspace by Israeli bombers repeatedly visiting Iran to deliver a never ending barrage of bombs. That is the essence of "peace negotiations" for him and our Republicans in Congress. The only wording in the deal that they ever wanted was intoned by Sen. Grumpy McCain.... "Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran."
5
I generally believe that the Obama Administration's foreign policy has been a disaster, but if this deal works the way it is designed, I won't be able to say that it has been an unmitigated disaster. This could be President Obama's greatest accomplishment. (Of course, in a way I am damning him with faint praise; I do consider his domestic agenda an unmitigated disaster.) If this deal delays Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon for 10 to 15 years, this deal will be a success. The 10 to 15 years gives us and our allies and other concerned parties time to prepare to deal with or prevent a nuclear-armed Iran down the road However, if it does not delay an Iranian bomb for 10 to 15 years, it will end up on the dustbin of history along with the Russian reset. Time will tell, but you can expect that if the deal fails, Democrats and the Times will have ready excuses and declarations of "at least he tried" readily at hand.
2
How do we ever deal with nuclear armed religious fanatics?
Today?
10 years from now when this treaty allows Iran to have nuclear weapons?
Today?
10 years from now when this treaty allows Iran to have nuclear weapons?
2
Up until today we had no measures [other than covert operations] to monitor Iran's nuclear program. Now we'll have U.N. sanctioned inspections AND the added benefit of covert operations; nobody said anything about getting rid of those! By the time Iranian oil hits the market and oil drops to $14 dollars a barrel, who in the U.S. is going to care? I just filled up today in CA @$5.35 a gallon. I'll take my chances and let Iran have an atomic bomb in 10 years, because I can't afford 1 more year of expensive gas.
4
Lest we forget, the actual populace of Iran, particularly young people, are not universal, dedicated hardliners. Tehran may have more to fear from the surge in aspirations for freedom and dignity among their people that is fueled by the money invigorating their economy as a result of this deal. IN a decade, the Middle East could look very different.
3
The Middle East could look like a large parking lot in the next decade!
1
1. If the US rejects a deal that has been accepted by England, France, Germany, Russia, and China, why won’t it result in a collapse of the current coalition and embargo?
2. If we abandon diplomacy for war, can those who favor bombing explain why the Iran that they assert is run by militant fanatics will stop their nuclear program after a few weeks of bombing?
3. If military action is necessary and bombs are not enough, that means a ground war. American military forces for the Iraq War peaked near 300,000 troops. With nearly three times the Iraqi population (plus Shiite Iraq), that could be 1 million American military personnel for more than 10 years. What is the plan to win that war?
4. If we attack one Muslim country without nukes because they support terrorism, and yet we tolerate the one Muslim country with nukes that had ties to the terrorists that actually attacked us on 9/11 (Pakistan), doesn’t this send a message that nukes are the defense against U.S. attacks?
5. Those who has asserted that a primary driver of these negotiations is President Obama's desire for a legacy should say why the leaders of England, France, Germany, Russia and China put so much effort into Obama's legacy
6. When Netanyahu gave Congress a guarantee that war in Iraq would “have enormous positive reverberations on the region…", did he learn from that historic mistake, or is his assertion today that this is a “bad mistake of historical proportions” based on the same flawed world?
2. If we abandon diplomacy for war, can those who favor bombing explain why the Iran that they assert is run by militant fanatics will stop their nuclear program after a few weeks of bombing?
3. If military action is necessary and bombs are not enough, that means a ground war. American military forces for the Iraq War peaked near 300,000 troops. With nearly three times the Iraqi population (plus Shiite Iraq), that could be 1 million American military personnel for more than 10 years. What is the plan to win that war?
4. If we attack one Muslim country without nukes because they support terrorism, and yet we tolerate the one Muslim country with nukes that had ties to the terrorists that actually attacked us on 9/11 (Pakistan), doesn’t this send a message that nukes are the defense against U.S. attacks?
5. Those who has asserted that a primary driver of these negotiations is President Obama's desire for a legacy should say why the leaders of England, France, Germany, Russia and China put so much effort into Obama's legacy
6. When Netanyahu gave Congress a guarantee that war in Iraq would “have enormous positive reverberations on the region…", did he learn from that historic mistake, or is his assertion today that this is a “bad mistake of historical proportions” based on the same flawed world?
38
All of these are good points. Iranians demonstrated in their streets with candlelight vigils after 9/11 in support of America, while in some Arab countries children danced at the idea of the American victims.
European companies are already busy negotiating trade with Iran. Republicans may badly hurt businesses in America with their nonsense.
The pope among other world leaders also approves this deal, so the pro-Israeli Republicans who are relying on their evangelistic Christian ideas are becoming more isolated.
European companies are already busy negotiating trade with Iran. Republicans may badly hurt businesses in America with their nonsense.
The pope among other world leaders also approves this deal, so the pro-Israeli Republicans who are relying on their evangelistic Christian ideas are becoming more isolated.
1
The Deal does not condition educating the Iranians to coexist with US, stop hate campaign and indoctrination that "death to America", a declaration of war against US, is unacceptable. The Ayatollah does not hide his US hate campaign. The treaty thus has no value because the Iranian terrorism against the West will continue as the Iranian public supports it.
3
This constant picking on Iran by us americans, is very self serving and short sighted. Let us not forget that in the late 40's we, the USofA, intentionally uprooted a democratically elected government in Iran to install our own stooge so that we could placate the oil companies. This is big, just imagine if some uprooted our democracy and installed the Queen of England back in Washington DC. Iran, on the other hand, has held our embassy hostage for 444 days but eventually all of them came home safe. Yes, ostensibly they have played mischief with terrorist but nothing as direct as say Al Queda or the Taliban. Iran has not been nice to us and we have not been playing nice to them either. As the old saying goes: remember when pointing a finger at others, three fingers are pointing back at you.
5
And what about the hostages they are still holding? Are they nothing? Kerry didn't want to go there because Obama was so desperate for a deal, but the issue of hostage-taking caused us to break off relations with Iran in 1979 but is a non-issue now. Apparently Obama does not believe in the arc of history which brings about moral as well as historical closure but prefers an open-ended view with a lot of raggedy edges. One can only hope that this arc will not suddenly spring back on us for our moral failure.
2
Ed, have you looked at the calender lately?
It is 2015 and not 1981 and the "hostages" that your are referring to have been returned by Iran, safe and sound over 34 years ago.
Folks, posts like the above one from Ed are a perfect example of why you should never drink the AIPAC Kool Aid.
It is 2015 and not 1981 and the "hostages" that your are referring to have been returned by Iran, safe and sound over 34 years ago.
Folks, posts like the above one from Ed are a perfect example of why you should never drink the AIPAC Kool Aid.
Many on the right have derisively and cynically said about President Obama's first campaign slogan, "Hope and Change? How's that working out for you?"
The answer: "Quite well, thank you."
The answer: "Quite well, thank you."
9
To all the doubters of Iran's intentions and in the sanctions camp , from what I can figure out, that Iran at this time in spite of the sanctions could easily produce and use a "dirty"bomb if they really wanted to hurt Israel.
3
Republicans will oppose this agreement on the grounds that Iran cannot be trusted. If the panel that negotiated with Iran had included a credible Republican foreign policy expert, and if that expert had signed on to the agreement, Congressional support would be more likely. Whether you favor Colin Powell, John McCain, Lindsey Graham or others, a credible Republican who had helped negotiate this agreement would have been a great benefit to all. Too bad bipartisan is a dirty word.
1
We went through this with Iraq being 6 months away from developing a nuclear weapon when the truth was they were not even within 20 years. American right wing Military Industrial Complex wants war. They will dazzle the public with all kinds of experts and intelligence analysts that will tell them what they want to hear. War is good for business.
5
I fail to understand the joy and rapture emanating from these comments and from places like the New York Times and other American media. What exactly are you celebrating about?
Are you aware that with its proxy Hezbollah Iran continues to fund, arm, train, and plan terrorist attacks against Jews all around the world? Are you aware that Iran continues to conduct terrorist operations against not only Israel but Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iraq?
Do people truly believe that the Iranians are not going to continue and perhaps increase their terrorist activities around the world? Do you truly believe that we have stopped their drive towards a nuclear weapon?
I urge everyone to learn about Alberto Nisman, the prosecutor in Argentina who was murdered because he was getting too close to exposing to the world the Iranian government's involvement in the bombing of the Jewish Cultural Center and Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires.
The Iranians have not stopped their relentless attempts to attack Jews around the world. So why are we celebrating? Because we are so desperate for an agreement that we do not care that it is not worth the price of the paper it is written on?
When a terrorist nation that is fomenting murder all around the world and is one of the most anti semitic regimes in history is now applauded, empowered, and enriched by hundreds of billions of dollars we all lose. History will not judge America kindly by our acts today.
Are you aware that with its proxy Hezbollah Iran continues to fund, arm, train, and plan terrorist attacks against Jews all around the world? Are you aware that Iran continues to conduct terrorist operations against not only Israel but Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iraq?
Do people truly believe that the Iranians are not going to continue and perhaps increase their terrorist activities around the world? Do you truly believe that we have stopped their drive towards a nuclear weapon?
I urge everyone to learn about Alberto Nisman, the prosecutor in Argentina who was murdered because he was getting too close to exposing to the world the Iranian government's involvement in the bombing of the Jewish Cultural Center and Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires.
The Iranians have not stopped their relentless attempts to attack Jews around the world. So why are we celebrating? Because we are so desperate for an agreement that we do not care that it is not worth the price of the paper it is written on?
When a terrorist nation that is fomenting murder all around the world and is one of the most anti semitic regimes in history is now applauded, empowered, and enriched by hundreds of billions of dollars we all lose. History will not judge America kindly by our acts today.
3
Its unfortunate that the nation must endure the obligatory hysterical reaction from the right. However, once the posturing is over and the base has been satisfied we will see a new relationship with Iran that must be better than what has gone before.
5
Obama and America have betrayed Israel! May the American people, next election, use their brains and elect a man who does not threaten Israel and the US-Israeli relationship (just as important to the US as Israel)!
2
This American Jew and passionate Zionist will, indeed, use my brain to elect a man -- or woman -- who supports this constructive effort to finally rein in the Iranian threat. Thank you, President Obama and Secretary Kerry (and our allies) for making Israel and the rest of the world a safer place. P.S. Those who oppose this deal may want to first read the facts - and then read up on the nuclear deals made with the USSR (by both Democrats and Republicans) back when the Russians were as threatening, and as untrustworthy, as Iran is today. May we always have Presidents willing to try diplomacy BEFORE taking us to war.
Most Republican politicians would be against this agreement simply because they are always against anything proposed by President Obama. Since we was elected, Republicans have been against anything significant he proposed, even those things they used to be for. Their hate of the President is more important to Republicans that doing what is good for the country.
Republicans were always going to be against any agreement with Iran, no matter what the terms. It's just too much to expect them to review the final agreement before their endless whine that it's a bad deal starts.
Republicans were always going to be against any agreement with Iran, no matter what the terms. It's just too much to expect them to review the final agreement before their endless whine that it's a bad deal starts.
3
When will the republicans ever learn to first think, and then talk, and not the other way around?
This agreement is not perfect. It is diplomacy at work.
Bravo Mr. President. And kudos to secretary John Kerry!
This agreement is not perfect. It is diplomacy at work.
Bravo Mr. President. And kudos to secretary John Kerry!
5
Creating a space for engagement, dialogue, commerce, and non development of weapons is a great achievement. This is what presidents should do. Pres. Nixon negotiated with China, Pres. Reagan with Russia. Diplomacy is about working with enemies to find more peaceful solutions.
In 1963, another Democratic president was involved in limiting nuclear weapons: "My fellow Americans, let us take that first step. Let us...step back from the shadow 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." John F. Kennedy
Congratulations, Pres. Obama, Sec. Kerry, and all those from the various nations involved in these negotiations. The world has more hope for peace now.
In 1963, another Democratic president was involved in limiting nuclear weapons: "My fellow Americans, let us take that first step. Let us...step back from the shadow 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." John F. Kennedy
Congratulations, Pres. Obama, Sec. Kerry, and all those from the various nations involved in these negotiations. The world has more hope for peace now.
5
It's a tad hypocritical how Republicans are against Obama's negotiating with Iran seeing as their standard-bearer Reagan did so with a much more extreme group before he was even President.
3
They key phrase in this editorial is "Republicans have offered no credible alternative." They offer nothing but lockstep opposition; there isn't a reflective candidate in the sorry bunch. Prime Minister Netanyahu and John Boehner donned the dunce caps they now wear; no one forced this repudiation on them. There's a vast difference between statecraft and staging.
4
I somehow missed the part where of course the US has agreed to set the good example and also will stop making/maintaining nuclear weapons. After all, the one country that has actually dropped atomic weapons on civilians is the US
What irks me is elected US officials condemning a deal moments after it is announced when they can't possibly have depth knowledge of the facts and science needed to make such an opinion. Blather that was prepared long before the facts are out. Once displayed they have lost any and all moral grounds to be part of any discussion the topic since they have shown bias and a closed mind on a topic too important to be about politics or handing a defeat to our President.
4
Or you could argue that the tens of billions of dollars the Iranians will gain will be used to foment conflict and lead to a greater chance of war.
As for the Iranians being punished for cheating, even the Editorial Board must realize that that's a pipe dream. Those sanctions took years to take effect and once there gone there's no way countries like Russia and China, which will gain enormous economic trade benefits from the lifting of sanctions will agree to re-impose them. The truth is once the sanctions are undone the Iranians will cheat and lie and there won't be a thing we'll be able to do about it.
As for the Iranians being punished for cheating, even the Editorial Board must realize that that's a pipe dream. Those sanctions took years to take effect and once there gone there's no way countries like Russia and China, which will gain enormous economic trade benefits from the lifting of sanctions will agree to re-impose them. The truth is once the sanctions are undone the Iranians will cheat and lie and there won't be a thing we'll be able to do about it.
2
I have not made up my mind on this "deal" and won't until I get a chance to read the final signed documents and hear from non-partial experts (if there are any) who have done the same thing. As far as I am concerned the noise coming from left and right wing bloggers and commenters who have not seen the final agreement is just that, noise.
I was surprised that the NY Times Editorial Board chose to publish this editorial before seeing the final agreement, based only upon " as described by Mr. Obama and other Officials". Not exactly even handed.
Further I noticed that they were dancing in the streets in Iran. I didn't see any reports of such celebrations in the streets of the US or our allies.
I was surprised that the NY Times Editorial Board chose to publish this editorial before seeing the final agreement, based only upon " as described by Mr. Obama and other Officials". Not exactly even handed.
Further I noticed that they were dancing in the streets in Iran. I didn't see any reports of such celebrations in the streets of the US or our allies.
3
This is a victory for the U.S. and for Israel. But the sanctions hit hardest at the Iranian people. Iran is a religious dictatorship which consistently places the interests of the government over those of the people. Were it not for pressure from the Iranian public this deal would not have happened. The big winners here are the people of Iran who have succeeded in putting the feet of the government to the fire. Recognition of the interests of the Iranian people is long overdue.
1
So many of your readers repeat the Fox News line that Iran is "the world's leading sponsor of terrorism".
Actually, Iran is our informal ally in fighting the two main terrorist groups, Al Qaeda and ISIS. We should be profoundly grateful for this.
Actually, the world's number one sponsor of Islamic terror is Pakistan, whose state security apparatus actively encourages the Taliban and other terror groups.
Actually, the ultimate source of Islamic terror is our "ally" Saudi Arabia, which for decades has been poisoning young minds with the fanatical version of Islam in spreads in madrassas in so many countries.
Actually, Iran is our informal ally in fighting the two main terrorist groups, Al Qaeda and ISIS. We should be profoundly grateful for this.
Actually, the world's number one sponsor of Islamic terror is Pakistan, whose state security apparatus actively encourages the Taliban and other terror groups.
Actually, the ultimate source of Islamic terror is our "ally" Saudi Arabia, which for decades has been poisoning young minds with the fanatical version of Islam in spreads in madrassas in so many countries.
6
It seems to me the Republicans are disappointed in this deal for two reasons – the first political and the second ideological. The Iran nuclear deal effectively removes the “threat of war” as political leverage for Republican candidates wanting to flex their “national security” muscle in the 2016 presidential campaign. They can no longer sing Senator McCain’s favorite “bomb, bomb, bomb” tune to the base.
The other ideological “strong on defense” reason to hate this deal is pretty obvious. Even if a Republican hawk won the 2016 presidential election, he/she would no longer be able to launch another war of choice in the Middle East under the pretext of looking for non-existent WMD in Iran?
Despite the odds, President Obama sought and has arrived at a peaceful solution to a long outstanding and nagging problem with Iran. He might have just saved us another trillion dollars in spending and, more importantly, the precious lives of American soldiers. More significantly, we just could return to an era, when Iran was our friend as was Israel – the situation did coexist before and it can again!
The other ideological “strong on defense” reason to hate this deal is pretty obvious. Even if a Republican hawk won the 2016 presidential election, he/she would no longer be able to launch another war of choice in the Middle East under the pretext of looking for non-existent WMD in Iran?
Despite the odds, President Obama sought and has arrived at a peaceful solution to a long outstanding and nagging problem with Iran. He might have just saved us another trillion dollars in spending and, more importantly, the precious lives of American soldiers. More significantly, we just could return to an era, when Iran was our friend as was Israel – the situation did coexist before and it can again!
6
Dean Vali Nasr at Johns Hopkins University, in his 2013 book The Dispensable Nation, maintained that Iran's nuclear programs are a "survival strategy" -- a strategy of the weaker Iran-led Shias against he more powerful Saudi-led Sunnis. The nuclear programs are not directed against Israel and certainly not against the United States. Professor Nasr contends that Israel's Prime Minister B. Netanyahu and his Likud Party have "exaggerated fears" of Iran and its nuclear projects. Some Americans also appear to have "exaggerated fears" of Iran. Let us assume that Iran has developed five nuclear bombs, what happen? Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states would develop two or three times the number of bombs, Iran would be at a more serious disadvantage. Iran launched nuclear attacks against the United States? Suicide mission? Iran launch nuclear attack against Israel? Suppose Israel retaliate with its larger stockpile of nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states would like that. Some critics believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Republican foreign-policy hawks actually exaggerate fears of Iran to advance their pro-war agendas. Reasonable assessments of the issues favor the Iran nuclear deal.
3
The opposition to the nuclear deal ignores that Iran is not a two bit country and that total surrender on their part is not obtainable.
They maintain that Iran is not to be trusted because it is bent on conquest. Netanyahu even warns us that Iran will send ballistic missiles to the US. Really ? It is well to remember that Saudi Arabia spends 10 times more on arms than Iran and that Iran spends only 9% of what is spent in the Middle East on arms. Iran is supporting what we call terrorism but for them it is taking side in the interminable fight between Sunnis and Chi as.
If we refuse to agree to the deal, Russia, China, France, England and the EU will not continue to support our sanctions and we will be left alone while Iran gets supplies from them and is free to pursue its nuclear program.
The assumption is that Iran's theocratic government will never change. We must remember that 30 some years ago two million Iranians brought down the tyrannical government of the Sha just by demonstrating before his palace. There is no reason why the same thing may not happen in the next decade or so. The reason why some people are against it (other for political interest or pro-Israel sympathies) is that Iran will not observe the deal. In this case, nothing is changed since a future US president will have exactly the same options that we have now. There is nothing in the deal that will prevent the US from re-imposing sanctions or bombing Iran, if we can stomach another war.
They maintain that Iran is not to be trusted because it is bent on conquest. Netanyahu even warns us that Iran will send ballistic missiles to the US. Really ? It is well to remember that Saudi Arabia spends 10 times more on arms than Iran and that Iran spends only 9% of what is spent in the Middle East on arms. Iran is supporting what we call terrorism but for them it is taking side in the interminable fight between Sunnis and Chi as.
If we refuse to agree to the deal, Russia, China, France, England and the EU will not continue to support our sanctions and we will be left alone while Iran gets supplies from them and is free to pursue its nuclear program.
The assumption is that Iran's theocratic government will never change. We must remember that 30 some years ago two million Iranians brought down the tyrannical government of the Sha just by demonstrating before his palace. There is no reason why the same thing may not happen in the next decade or so. The reason why some people are against it (other for political interest or pro-Israel sympathies) is that Iran will not observe the deal. In this case, nothing is changed since a future US president will have exactly the same options that we have now. There is nothing in the deal that will prevent the US from re-imposing sanctions or bombing Iran, if we can stomach another war.
4
"Bent on conquest"???
Frank, what "conquest" are you referring to?
The the type of "conquest" we saw when the American government in 1941 overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and placed a despot in office and continued backing that despot for nearly four decades or the type of "conquest" we saw from an American-armed Iraq when they invaded Iran in 1980 or the type of "conquest" we saw when an American-armed Israel decided to annex the West Bank and other adjoining terrorists?
So, my question to you is - where is the "conquest" that you are referring to?
Frank, what "conquest" are you referring to?
The the type of "conquest" we saw when the American government in 1941 overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and placed a despot in office and continued backing that despot for nearly four decades or the type of "conquest" we saw from an American-armed Iraq when they invaded Iran in 1980 or the type of "conquest" we saw when an American-armed Israel decided to annex the West Bank and other adjoining terrorists?
So, my question to you is - where is the "conquest" that you are referring to?
Mikenh, it's what Netanyahu and like thinkers say. It's their way of scaring people. Saddam wanted Kuwait because of its petroleum and because he felt that the colonial powers had separated it from Iraq in order to control it.
Nowadays, territorial conquest brings nothing but grief and control is better exercised through economic power. Germany is getting through this power what Hitler could not with his wars.
Nowadays, territorial conquest brings nothing but grief and control is better exercised through economic power. Germany is getting through this power what Hitler could not with his wars.
1. What does E3/EU+3 - IRAN on the sign stand for?
2. No country that wants to develop in secrecy a nuclear weapon and has the technological capability to do this, can be prevented by any international inspections. Example: the decades-long rumors of nuclear weapon development in Israel.
3. The effects of the latest Vienna Agreement or Congress are unlikely to be as lasting as those of the 1815 Congress.
2. No country that wants to develop in secrecy a nuclear weapon and has the technological capability to do this, can be prevented by any international inspections. Example: the decades-long rumors of nuclear weapon development in Israel.
3. The effects of the latest Vienna Agreement or Congress are unlikely to be as lasting as those of the 1815 Congress.
The USA has already fought one dictator to stop nuclear proliferation only to find he had none, but in doing so weakened us and thus opened wider the doors for Iran's nuclear advances to walk through.
2
Given that Iran also signed the NPT, why do we need another agreement that essentially forces Iran to do what they already agreed to do under the NTP?
3
"However, the accord contains provisions for “snapback” sanctions if a panel of nations should detect Iranian cheating." - from a companion NYT piece
Who will be on that panel of nations - Russia, China? Or was that such a sticking point (as it should have been) that it was a can kicked down the road?Can Iranian allies/sympathizers who happen to be on that panel veto the snapback? Will the snapback need a majority vote?
So Iran will have a grace period of 24 days before admitting the I.A.E.A anywhere in Iran that organization wants to go. Wonderful. And in the meantime Iran will get sanctions relief that will greatly augment financing its reign of terror in the Middle East. What a legacy for President Obama. I hope Democrats will consider this deal carfully before voting on it.
Who will be on that panel of nations - Russia, China? Or was that such a sticking point (as it should have been) that it was a can kicked down the road?Can Iranian allies/sympathizers who happen to be on that panel veto the snapback? Will the snapback need a majority vote?
So Iran will have a grace period of 24 days before admitting the I.A.E.A anywhere in Iran that organization wants to go. Wonderful. And in the meantime Iran will get sanctions relief that will greatly augment financing its reign of terror in the Middle East. What a legacy for President Obama. I hope Democrats will consider this deal carfully before voting on it.
4
One can only hope that this deal works out as desired by the Western Powers.
I don't understand though, why you would expect Israeli leaders, both in the government to react differently.
Let's say that Iran abides by all its committments. Iran has supported and help murder more than 200,000 Syrian citizens over the last years and supports complete destruction of the State of Israel, providing billions of dollars of weapons to Hizbollah. There was an agreement that was supposed to prevent this weapons flow and that has been totally ignored by Iran with no consequences at all. It will clearly be easier for Iran to support mass murder such as this after sanctions are lifted.
The agreement is now a fait accompli and one would hope that the Israeli government can find a better way to deal with the consequences than trying to influence Congress to do something that is not going to happen and poisoning US/Israeli relations with evern worse consequences.
Finally, why do you single out Mr. Netanyahu when you refer to "Powerful forces" in the last paragraph? What about the leaders of vastly larger and more infulential, in terms of economic and military impact on the US such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt and other Sunni Arab countries? Why is Mr. Netanyahu picked on as the bad guy? It seems to me that it is still difficult in many places in the world to understand that Jewish independence in Israel allows for its leaders to worry about the future of the Jewish people explicitly.
I don't understand though, why you would expect Israeli leaders, both in the government to react differently.
Let's say that Iran abides by all its committments. Iran has supported and help murder more than 200,000 Syrian citizens over the last years and supports complete destruction of the State of Israel, providing billions of dollars of weapons to Hizbollah. There was an agreement that was supposed to prevent this weapons flow and that has been totally ignored by Iran with no consequences at all. It will clearly be easier for Iran to support mass murder such as this after sanctions are lifted.
The agreement is now a fait accompli and one would hope that the Israeli government can find a better way to deal with the consequences than trying to influence Congress to do something that is not going to happen and poisoning US/Israeli relations with evern worse consequences.
Finally, why do you single out Mr. Netanyahu when you refer to "Powerful forces" in the last paragraph? What about the leaders of vastly larger and more infulential, in terms of economic and military impact on the US such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt and other Sunni Arab countries? Why is Mr. Netanyahu picked on as the bad guy? It seems to me that it is still difficult in many places in the world to understand that Jewish independence in Israel allows for its leaders to worry about the future of the Jewish people explicitly.
17
To answer your question, as reported in opensecrets.org, it is because Israel, through its pro-Israeli lobbying groups spent in 2014 well over $10 million dollars to elect pro-Israeli candidates in a successful effort that continues to garner support in Congress for for Israel.
That is the "powerful forces" this editorial is alluding to.
That is the "powerful forces" this editorial is alluding to.
Stuart,
You don't understand. The New York Times in all it's wisdom would prefer that Israel be destroyed.
Their editorials are consistent is stating that nothing Jewish is good.
However, while there is cause for concern the fact is we have been here before and despite the best efforts of people and governments we are still here and we will continus to be here long after they are gone.
I imagine a Roman would have thought that their world would have lasted forever. Any Jew of the time could have told him about all the eternal empires that had gone before. This is how it will be this time too.
You don't understand. The New York Times in all it's wisdom would prefer that Israel be destroyed.
Their editorials are consistent is stating that nothing Jewish is good.
However, while there is cause for concern the fact is we have been here before and despite the best efforts of people and governments we are still here and we will continus to be here long after they are gone.
I imagine a Roman would have thought that their world would have lasted forever. Any Jew of the time could have told him about all the eternal empires that had gone before. This is how it will be this time too.
1
Oh, right. I forgot that the Jews are the powerful force behind so many things. Wonder where I've heard that before?
But of course, the Saudis don't invest money in American candidates to help with oil and Arab issues. The Chinese don't spend money in helping candidates to support their view. Of course, big American corporations never spend money to help pass legistlation to benefit themselves and their stock owners.
It is only the Jews who do such things. Once again, thank you for reminding me about this.
But of course, the Saudis don't invest money in American candidates to help with oil and Arab issues. The Chinese don't spend money in helping candidates to support their view. Of course, big American corporations never spend money to help pass legistlation to benefit themselves and their stock owners.
It is only the Jews who do such things. Once again, thank you for reminding me about this.
2
Let's see--we are negotiating with a people whose Supreme Leader is leading chants of "Death to America"? The first condition of even sitting down at the table with these people is that they start acting like civilized human beings and are fit to enter into the international community.
5
What group of exemplary civilized human beings in the international community would the Iranians emulate?
The New York Times editorial writers must be willfully ignoring facts established in their own newspaper today - the deal does not call for inspections "anytime anywhere." The Iranians get 24 days advanced notice of any inspection and can object to said inspections. The insanity of such a concession goes without saying.
5
I do enjoy how so many of those opposed to this "deal" claim to be convinced that Iran would be quick to use a nuclear weapon. Do keep in mind, there's only one nation that's ever used an atomic bomb, TWICE, the USA. It's kind of hard to believe India and Pakistan didn't use the damned things on each other and I am sure people had money riding on South Africa using them at some point during Apartheid.
What's the alternative offered by the GOP to this agreement? Another ridiculously costly war that the USA could lose just like we did in Iraq? It's considerably larger in size, about the size of Alaska, population (about 2X Iraq), and the median age for men is what 25-26? Yeah, "shock and awe" would work great there and transform it into the beacon of Middle Eastern democracy that Operation Enduring Freedom was going to do for Iraq.
Any other suggestions? No? I'm shocked
What's the alternative offered by the GOP to this agreement? Another ridiculously costly war that the USA could lose just like we did in Iraq? It's considerably larger in size, about the size of Alaska, population (about 2X Iraq), and the median age for men is what 25-26? Yeah, "shock and awe" would work great there and transform it into the beacon of Middle Eastern democracy that Operation Enduring Freedom was going to do for Iraq.
Any other suggestions? No? I'm shocked
34
" Another ridiculously costly war that the USA could lose just like we did in Iraq?"
The US could completely destroy Iran in 30 minutes with the use of only two Trident missiles and 14 x W88 750Kt nuclear warheads.
The US could completely destroy Iran in 30 minutes with the use of only two Trident missiles and 14 x W88 750Kt nuclear warheads.
1
If the New York Times truly were concerned about the opposition to this accord they would state clearly the real reason why there is so much opposition to this accord.
And that reason doesn't come from fear of sate-sponsored Iranian terrorism, because there is little to speak of, or Iranian military might, which not only has never used against its neighbors, but pales in comparison to a heavily armed and nuclear capable Israel.
The simple fact is that we have been fed a diet full of lies by the Israel, whose powerful lobby in Washington has so many of our representatives fearful of doing the right thing, which is that peace and not another war is the best course of action when it comes to dealing with Iran.
The trouble is, we have yet to see the New York Times directly challenge these lies and the political fallout from the Israeli lobby's influence in our country.
So, why does it appear the New York Times is ducking this issue?
And that reason doesn't come from fear of sate-sponsored Iranian terrorism, because there is little to speak of, or Iranian military might, which not only has never used against its neighbors, but pales in comparison to a heavily armed and nuclear capable Israel.
The simple fact is that we have been fed a diet full of lies by the Israel, whose powerful lobby in Washington has so many of our representatives fearful of doing the right thing, which is that peace and not another war is the best course of action when it comes to dealing with Iran.
The trouble is, we have yet to see the New York Times directly challenge these lies and the political fallout from the Israeli lobby's influence in our country.
So, why does it appear the New York Times is ducking this issue?
5
Why do you suppose Iran wants the right to acquire ICBMs? Of what use are they? I can only think of one. I wonder if Mr. Kerry asked them.
4
How many ICBMs does the US have? Would you be laid back and cool if they were aimed at your house? I don't think so.
The purpose of negotiations was NOT to reduce the chance for war! Rather, simply, it was to reduce or even eliminate the possibility for Iran to make a nuclear bomb. Therefore these negotiations are a total and complete failure, by evidence of the Iranians dancing in the streets of Tehran.
5
Reduces the chance of war for 10-15 years that is. Reminds me of a cartoon I once saw in the New Yorker in which a man who obviously has just jumped off a tall building is portrayed in the middle of his descent with the windows rushing past. He has a big smile on his face and he says to himself "So far, so good."
Reduces the chance of war for about 10 to 15 years. After that, all bets are off with Iran free to do whatever it wants with its nuclear facilities, tens of thousands of centrifuges which no other country using nuclear power for peaceful purposes only (such as Canada, Germany, Japan and South Africa have ever needed) according to Iran's claims, and no longer any limits to stockpiling enriched uranium. Meanwhile, it is free to build its ICBMs, military, fund and arm its terror proxies with at least part of the $150 billion windfall it gets once the sanctions are lifted, not to mention the hordes of European businessmen tripping over themselves for juicy deals with Iran ... oh, and Iran can continue its monthly "Death to America; Death to Israel" mass demonstrations.
Reduces the chance of war for about 10 to 15 years. After that, all bets are off with Iran free to do whatever it wants with its nuclear facilities, tens of thousands of centrifuges which no other country using nuclear power for peaceful purposes only (such as Canada, Germany, Japan and South Africa have ever needed) according to Iran's claims, and no longer any limits to stockpiling enriched uranium. Meanwhile, it is free to build its ICBMs, military, fund and arm its terror proxies with at least part of the $150 billion windfall it gets once the sanctions are lifted, not to mention the hordes of European businessmen tripping over themselves for juicy deals with Iran ... oh, and Iran can continue its monthly "Death to America; Death to Israel" mass demonstrations.
5
I will try again
They were going to extend the deadline no matter how many times it took and then praise the outcome. Now At $50 a barrel they will be able to sell oil on the market. That 's $100 million dollars a day. What does the board think they will do with this money? Not only that but billions of dollars of their frozen assets will be released. Trading partners who have been waiting for this day will not only enhance their economies but Syria's as well. They have to wait 10 years to build a bomb? So? They've ben building their capabilities and built several facilities under ground that conventional bunker bombs cannot reach. If you have nothing to hide why build them in this fashion?
Next, whether the board likes it or is willing to admit Obama did say in 2012 that Iran must never become a nuclear Iran? Why won't they admit it? To me it was just empty rhetoric and we're going to pay for it.
Iran's president was the head of their nuclear program for years. Do you honestly believe he would just stand by and let years of work end?
I would like ask the board this. Do you honestly trust Iran to turn over ALL of their material? I don't and they won't. If in 10 years they get the material, and they will, the world suddenly becomes a powder Keg and Obama, who made this all happen, will not have to answer for it. Bush still get's excoriated for Iraq so Obama should be held to the same standard.
My comments won't be posted but my questions are sound and they know it.
They were going to extend the deadline no matter how many times it took and then praise the outcome. Now At $50 a barrel they will be able to sell oil on the market. That 's $100 million dollars a day. What does the board think they will do with this money? Not only that but billions of dollars of their frozen assets will be released. Trading partners who have been waiting for this day will not only enhance their economies but Syria's as well. They have to wait 10 years to build a bomb? So? They've ben building their capabilities and built several facilities under ground that conventional bunker bombs cannot reach. If you have nothing to hide why build them in this fashion?
Next, whether the board likes it or is willing to admit Obama did say in 2012 that Iran must never become a nuclear Iran? Why won't they admit it? To me it was just empty rhetoric and we're going to pay for it.
Iran's president was the head of their nuclear program for years. Do you honestly believe he would just stand by and let years of work end?
I would like ask the board this. Do you honestly trust Iran to turn over ALL of their material? I don't and they won't. If in 10 years they get the material, and they will, the world suddenly becomes a powder Keg and Obama, who made this all happen, will not have to answer for it. Bush still get's excoriated for Iraq so Obama should be held to the same standard.
My comments won't be posted but my questions are sound and they know it.
4
I actually don't understand how Netanyahu has so much influence in this country. He takes billions of $$s of aid from the U.S., and politicians from both sides almost genuflect when they see him.
What alternative solution does he have? Nothing. He wants Americans to go to war with Iran (and Syria etc.) and lose our own sons while he utters his vociferous comments anywhere he goes. He is making more enemies worldwide with his belligerence and losing friends. He should have been voted out last time.
What alternative solution does he have? Nothing. He wants Americans to go to war with Iran (and Syria etc.) and lose our own sons while he utters his vociferous comments anywhere he goes. He is making more enemies worldwide with his belligerence and losing friends. He should have been voted out last time.
6
If the GOP had been around, they would have opposed and tried to scuttle the magna carta.
6
Thank you NYT for taking such an enlightened position on this 2.0 treaty. May peace prevail.
4
Anyone in opposition is clearly willing to send his or her sons and daughters to war against Iran. With that point clear, let them say what they will.
4
No. No. No. They never send their kids to war. They send the kids from the wrong side of the tracks. Those kids are expendable.
Kicking the can down the road. That's all this agreement is meant to do. Our children will need to deal with this mess.
2
The Republican opposition to the agreement with Iran (without any attempt to present revisions or alternatives) proves yet again that the GOP puts electoral politics ahead of the security of this nation. Unless we wish to repeat the bloody and futile adventure in Iraq, this time with a far more capable adversary, this agreement is obviously the best way to curb Iran's rush to nuclear capability. Any public figure claiming that a failure to agree with Iran would result in lowering the likelihood of their bomb-making is either a charlatan or a fool.
37
"American officials say that Iran will get that money over time, and that its immediate priority will be to deal with pressing domestic needs."
Because pressing domestic needs Iranian stopped support Hezbollah ,Hamas,Assad long time ago.Really?
Because pressing domestic needs Iranian stopped support Hezbollah ,Hamas,Assad long time ago.Really?
2
Why does anyone think the Iranians can be trusted to honor any agreement?
@ Bruce Northwood
Why does anyone think the Chinese or Russians can be trusted. And yet we make agreements with them all the time. You really need to join the real world.
Why does anyone think the Chinese or Russians can be trusted. And yet we make agreements with them all the time. You really need to join the real world.
3
Why would the Iranians trust the Americans? The Americans spend a trillion dollars a year on their war machine, have thousands of nuclear weapons poised and ready, have been at war for decades, provide arms and money to Israel and Saudi Arabia, and have invaded two countries (at least) since 9/11. And, they lead a coup in Iran and installed a brutal dictator.
Bruce: No, they are not "trusted." That's why there will be continual inspections... duh.
there is more good to come from a deal with Iran than without one...an opportunity to build bridges with the Iranian people will do more for the safety of our world than not agreement at all
3
G7 of Asia should come together and form a new alliance for peace, prosperity and progress.
"AuChInIrIsJaSa"
1 Australia
2 China
3 India
4 Iran
5 Israel
6 Japan
7 Saudi Arabia
"AuChInIrIsJaSa"
1 Australia
2 China
3 India
4 Iran
5 Israel
6 Japan
7 Saudi Arabia
Eventually, more and more countries will have the capability to develop nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. It is easier to change how they conduct their affairs with the fellow beings. So, President Obama is right on in this approach to bring Iran, a great civilization itself, back into the fold of humanity.
Besides, people like Kissinger criticizing the deal seem to renege on their lifelong conviction. Making Iran the heavy really a failed methodology in other situation. By equating China with communism in the early part of last century, the U.S. lost China. By fixating the Soviet Union, the neocons first unleashed the Islamic extremists. The invasion of Iraq is the height of their stupidity. So, President Obama is smart to try to make friends instead of enemies. And allow the balance of power to checkmate different regional power. Why, siding with the Saudis only to unleash the Sunni extremists. Now, the Sunni and Shiite can watch each other. If they learn anything at all, learn from Mr. Obama: make friends and not enemies. Then they can put a stop to the real enemies, the extremists among their own rank
Besides, people like Kissinger criticizing the deal seem to renege on their lifelong conviction. Making Iran the heavy really a failed methodology in other situation. By equating China with communism in the early part of last century, the U.S. lost China. By fixating the Soviet Union, the neocons first unleashed the Islamic extremists. The invasion of Iraq is the height of their stupidity. So, President Obama is smart to try to make friends instead of enemies. And allow the balance of power to checkmate different regional power. Why, siding with the Saudis only to unleash the Sunni extremists. Now, the Sunni and Shiite can watch each other. If they learn anything at all, learn from Mr. Obama: make friends and not enemies. Then they can put a stop to the real enemies, the extremists among their own rank
5
Frankly, statements that this agreement reduces the chance of war confuse me. Under its terms, in the best circumstance imaginable, Iran doesn't cheat, etc, Iran will build a bomb in ten years, basically with our blessing, and throughout that period, they can improve their processes so as to lower their breakout period. Essentially Iran is now a nuclear power. OK.
So what do we get out of it? At best they delay building a bomb for ten years and in return get access to $100-$150 billion with which to build it, as well as have arms embargos lifted. At best, this delays the inevitable for a time.
But, other nations in the area, such as the Saudis, have let us know that whatever is allowed the Iranians they are going to take as well. Had we walked away and kept the sanctions (or at least the disapproval of the process), perhaps the Saudis would not get a bomb. But now, they almost certainly will, as might others. We have just dismantled nuclear non-proliferation, which greatly increases the possibility of their use.
So many here have presented this as an A or B situation, either we make a deal (no matter how terrible) or we go to war. Which is nonsense. Iran is a nuclear power under this agreement, she would have been one without it. Only, by making the deal, they get enormous benefits and we get? The only way this works well is if Iran somehow becomes our new BFF in the area, which is highly unlikely. We have snookered ourselves by insisting on an agreement at any price.
So what do we get out of it? At best they delay building a bomb for ten years and in return get access to $100-$150 billion with which to build it, as well as have arms embargos lifted. At best, this delays the inevitable for a time.
But, other nations in the area, such as the Saudis, have let us know that whatever is allowed the Iranians they are going to take as well. Had we walked away and kept the sanctions (or at least the disapproval of the process), perhaps the Saudis would not get a bomb. But now, they almost certainly will, as might others. We have just dismantled nuclear non-proliferation, which greatly increases the possibility of their use.
So many here have presented this as an A or B situation, either we make a deal (no matter how terrible) or we go to war. Which is nonsense. Iran is a nuclear power under this agreement, she would have been one without it. Only, by making the deal, they get enormous benefits and we get? The only way this works well is if Iran somehow becomes our new BFF in the area, which is highly unlikely. We have snookered ourselves by insisting on an agreement at any price.
5
The ultimate question is this: Does this "nuclear accord" between the Great Powers and iran actually prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon or does it merely delay it by a little extra time? This is vitally important to establish beyond any doubt. This treaty needs to be analyzed and scrutinized to pieces before Congress or the U.N. vote on this proposed agreement. Iran must not be allowed under any circumstances to acquire an atomic bomb. This would set off a Middle East nuclear arms race that could literally lead to the total incineration of this lonely planet. This can never be permitted.
1
@ rice Pritchard
The only middle eastern power with nuclear weapons is Israel. Allegedly 200 of them. They refuse to sign the NPT and don't allow inspections. It seems to have escaped your notice that they started the middle east nuclear arms race.
The only middle eastern power with nuclear weapons is Israel. Allegedly 200 of them. They refuse to sign the NPT and don't allow inspections. It seems to have escaped your notice that they started the middle east nuclear arms race.
8
This whole situation reminds me of how we as a nation were bullied into a war by Republicans who were not interested in the facts, because they already knew the "truth" - we would walk into Iraq and be welcomed as saviors and find weapons of mass destruction. When a group becomes so completely disengaged from reality it is impossible to reason with them we have a huge problem.
I do not know the exact terms of the agreement, but I know that 1.) The American people do not want a war with Iran - it will make Iraq and Afghanistan together look like a cakewalk; 2.) Iran will build a weapon if it is isolated, because it will have no incentive to play nice with others, which is contrary to everyone's interests; and 3.) Those opposing the deal without knowing the details like Netanyahu (considered a terrorist effectively by much of the world) and many Republican politicians (funded & paid for by war monger partisans) have no credibility in the world at large. We should ask questions, but the agreement sounds very positive so far.
I do not know the exact terms of the agreement, but I know that 1.) The American people do not want a war with Iran - it will make Iraq and Afghanistan together look like a cakewalk; 2.) Iran will build a weapon if it is isolated, because it will have no incentive to play nice with others, which is contrary to everyone's interests; and 3.) Those opposing the deal without knowing the details like Netanyahu (considered a terrorist effectively by much of the world) and many Republican politicians (funded & paid for by war monger partisans) have no credibility in the world at large. We should ask questions, but the agreement sounds very positive so far.
6
What is perfectly jaw-dropping about the hard-line Congressional Republicans is their refusal to learn the lessons that history teaches. They appear quite unable to acknowledge the unmistakable foreign policy blunders that resulted in the debacle--otherwise known as the Invasion of Iraq.
These Republican Apologists were wrong about almost everything
concerning the Iraq War. In any rational political system, they would now enjoy zero credibility about foreign policy matters--even as they fulminate about Obama's diplomatic initiatives
But Obama's efforts to reasonably engage the Iranians--with appropriate caution--reflects, if nothing else, lessons learned from the disasters of the Republican's 'bring-it-on' foreign policy. Right wing ideologues in Iran are surely as blind to changing realities as are Congressional Republicans. At some point, perhaps, the Iranian citizenry will take notice of a more reasonable and less threatening US. What might follow?
If nothing else, Obama deserves much credit for declining to repeat the grievous foreign policy errors of the previous administration.
These Republican Apologists were wrong about almost everything
concerning the Iraq War. In any rational political system, they would now enjoy zero credibility about foreign policy matters--even as they fulminate about Obama's diplomatic initiatives
But Obama's efforts to reasonably engage the Iranians--with appropriate caution--reflects, if nothing else, lessons learned from the disasters of the Republican's 'bring-it-on' foreign policy. Right wing ideologues in Iran are surely as blind to changing realities as are Congressional Republicans. At some point, perhaps, the Iranian citizenry will take notice of a more reasonable and less threatening US. What might follow?
If nothing else, Obama deserves much credit for declining to repeat the grievous foreign policy errors of the previous administration.
5
Does anyone, especially those who support the deal as it's been presented, recognize the irony that not one commenter believes that Iran's central negotiating argument - that it has no interest in building a nuclear weapon - was true or made in good faith? Yet, this deal allows for Iran to disallow any inspection of its choosing, especially at its military bases. Given the strong words we have heard from the U.S. about the need for a strong inspection regime, what has been agreed to appears rather weak. Perhaps this critical issue of inspections will be explored during the upcoming debate in Congress - and be televised.
4
This deal allows Iran to "disallow" any inspection?
Simply put, your statement is pure hogwash - the accord only allow, under certain circumstance, to delay inspections, not "disallow" them.
Simply put, your statement is pure hogwash - the accord only allow, under certain circumstance, to delay inspections, not "disallow" them.
"what has been agreed to appears rather weak. Perhaps this critical issue of inspections will be explored during the upcoming debate in Congress - and be televised."........ so that I might know what I'm talking about.
Like the editors, I find the automatic, sight-unseen, opposition of Netanyahu and the GOP to be extremely troubling. It's as if they no longer feel they have to hide their desire for war by jump-starting the military-industrial complex for yet another Middle East country.
I've heard and read quite a lot about the deal, but of course, I'm no expert on any of this. It does seem, though, that the US has an awful lot of chances to return to sanctions and return to square one if Iran cheats. And the fact that the people of Teheran are cheering in the streets while Republicans bray doesn't necessarily mean to me that this deal is bad.
What many forget is that while this deal was led by the US, it's backed by a motley coalition of international partners. Thus this isn't just the US vs Iran, but a set of countries that would lose much by Iranian nuclear capability.
In sum, this deal is far better than automatic war. And the fact that it was achieved through negotiations, in a first for this century and something the world has forgotten how to do, is a hopeful return to valuing diplomacy as a way of decreasing the need for war.
I've heard and read quite a lot about the deal, but of course, I'm no expert on any of this. It does seem, though, that the US has an awful lot of chances to return to sanctions and return to square one if Iran cheats. And the fact that the people of Teheran are cheering in the streets while Republicans bray doesn't necessarily mean to me that this deal is bad.
What many forget is that while this deal was led by the US, it's backed by a motley coalition of international partners. Thus this isn't just the US vs Iran, but a set of countries that would lose much by Iranian nuclear capability.
In sum, this deal is far better than automatic war. And the fact that it was achieved through negotiations, in a first for this century and something the world has forgotten how to do, is a hopeful return to valuing diplomacy as a way of decreasing the need for war.
11
Sometimes I wonder exactly which side the republicans are on. It doesn't seem as if their on the U.S. side anymore!
Putin seems to be the clear winner in this deal, considering that Russia may be where the Iran's enriched materials may be sent for 'safekeeping'.
Secondly, the thinking that Iran will have to start enriching its own Uranium to make a bomb is naïve. Once the sanctions are lifted, and once Iran is on a path to economic security, it could easily acquire nuclear weapons from rogue nations like Pakistan and even Russia.
Given that the 'military' facilities are not open to inspection by IAEA, who knows that Iran might be doing to hide its tracks and its activities?
Also, considering that Iran will have 24 days to permit inspection of its 'suspect' sites, it will have the ability to sanitize those sites when the inspectors do show up after 24 days.
Your editorial is simple-minded, and does not invoke objectivity in characterizing the deal. Any Congressional vote against the deal, even if vetoed by Obama, will only tarnish Obama's legacy, and not leave a good taste in our collective mouth.
Secondly, the thinking that Iran will have to start enriching its own Uranium to make a bomb is naïve. Once the sanctions are lifted, and once Iran is on a path to economic security, it could easily acquire nuclear weapons from rogue nations like Pakistan and even Russia.
Given that the 'military' facilities are not open to inspection by IAEA, who knows that Iran might be doing to hide its tracks and its activities?
Also, considering that Iran will have 24 days to permit inspection of its 'suspect' sites, it will have the ability to sanitize those sites when the inspectors do show up after 24 days.
Your editorial is simple-minded, and does not invoke objectivity in characterizing the deal. Any Congressional vote against the deal, even if vetoed by Obama, will only tarnish Obama's legacy, and not leave a good taste in our collective mouth.
3
Once again Sonny you are wrong.
Iranian military facilities are open for inspection.
Just a simple fact from a simple person who actually takes the time to keep up on the current news and read the points of this accord.
Iranian military facilities are open for inspection.
Just a simple fact from a simple person who actually takes the time to keep up on the current news and read the points of this accord.
We're lifting sanctions and giving Iran the opportunity to continue developing its nuclear program (anybody else think that "inspections" with several weeks' warning with reliably verify anything?) in exchange for--what? I don't see any requirement that Iran end its proxy war in Yemen, or sponsorship of the terrorist group Hezbollah. What exactly did we gain here, other than ticking off two of our main allies in the region? This was a giveaway to a regime that has promised to seek the annihilation of its neighbor, persecuted religious minorities and sponsored terrorism around the region and the world.
3
One of the Republican presidential candidates said that he preferred to stay with the current agreement that we had with Iran rather than accept Obama's new agreement.
I laughed.
I laughed.
At least this is a start. The fact that so many major nations have been involved from the beginning and all agree to the terms should be enough comfort. But the forces on the right, and of course Bibi, have been down talking this whole process before knowing what the final product would be and their audience on Fox news is listening. They pretend it is an agreement with only Obama and Iran, so of course, Obama got the short end of the deal. I truly hope that there remain some republicans in congress who will not stand in the way of some type of agreement as better than nothing - which has been the policy of the last administrations. I guess i am just a home body, but I truly wish the USA was not always put in the position of being the go to guy for other countries or areas problems. It is time we concentrate on our own country.
28
This "deal" is for the benefit for the U.S., to leave it with a little bit of pseudo dignity, or face saving, while this sham of a "world problem," created by the U.S., is ceremoniously handled by the P5 plus 1 and transferred by them to the United Nations for ratification. Thus the real world can keep turning.
In the same vein, the U.S. will be gently led by the modern world into a retirement home where it will not be allowed to impose its petulant will on anybody else.
(In the meantime, the U.S. is test driving its B61 bombers for allegedly targeting Russia with nuclear weapons.)
In the same vein, the U.S. will be gently led by the modern world into a retirement home where it will not be allowed to impose its petulant will on anybody else.
(In the meantime, the U.S. is test driving its B61 bombers for allegedly targeting Russia with nuclear weapons.)
The actual importance of this deal is that it replaces our pending invasion of Iran on the whim of the next Cheney-esque president with a posture of trust but verify. Relations are stabilised :
Iran remains strong enough that we dare not invade due to consequences, weak enough that we dont invade to repel Iranian expansion.
Hopefully this deal will last long enough that solar power makes oil obsolete and we lose interest in Iran completely.
Iran remains strong enough that we dare not invade due to consequences, weak enough that we dont invade to repel Iranian expansion.
Hopefully this deal will last long enough that solar power makes oil obsolete and we lose interest in Iran completely.
2
Leave it to the Republicans to trash a deal whose 80 odd pages have yet to be scrutinized or even read. Sure, it's quite transparent that Iran made concessions in order to extricate itself from sanctions that have crippled their economy, but the mere fact that we were actually able to sit at a negotiating table with our mortal enemy and, at least temporarily, prevent Iran's march to building the bomb, is a positive step. For heaven's sake, let's put aside all the bluster, debate this rationally, and see if it works. Certainly beats sitting by idly while Iran develops the capacity to do cataclysmic harm.
It seems those who are so opposed to this deal are assuming that the US, alone and unilaterally, can set the terms. Sanctions only work if our allies agree to cooperate.
Military action would have results that cannot be predicted, except to say that it would further destabilize a region where instability is a major problem. It may be hard to accept, but the US is limited in its ability to control events and/or relationships in the Middle East.
Iran and its neighbors have their own political issues. I suspect many Americans don't understand those issues and are thinking only of our own perspective when they oppose the deal, but, ultimately, it will be the people of the region who determine what happens next.
Military action would have results that cannot be predicted, except to say that it would further destabilize a region where instability is a major problem. It may be hard to accept, but the US is limited in its ability to control events and/or relationships in the Middle East.
Iran and its neighbors have their own political issues. I suspect many Americans don't understand those issues and are thinking only of our own perspective when they oppose the deal, but, ultimately, it will be the people of the region who determine what happens next.
1
The greatest success of this deal is that the IAEA will have an indefinite capacity to inspect the Iranian nuclear program.
70 percent of Iran's population is younger that 35. Youths in the country are far more progressive than the older generation and thirsty to become part of the world community. Unfortunately, it seems that if America and its allies had walked away from a deal with Iran, the Iranian old guard and media would have ensured that the Iranian people did not place blame on Iran, but on the other participants in the negotiations.
As a member of the NPT, Iran has agreed to never develop a nuclear weapon. Even after all other aspects of this deal are no longer in effect, inspectors will still be able to check if Iran is working towards a bomb. If inspectors find such evidence, America and its allies will be able to reimpose sanctions on Iran with renewed vigor supported by the international community. More importantly, the Iranian media and government will have a hard time convincing the youth that they should continue supporting the government. Such a situation could conceivably lead to a second, perhaps more successful green revolution.
The best outcome from this deal could be that Iran is caught cheating.
70 percent of Iran's population is younger that 35. Youths in the country are far more progressive than the older generation and thirsty to become part of the world community. Unfortunately, it seems that if America and its allies had walked away from a deal with Iran, the Iranian old guard and media would have ensured that the Iranian people did not place blame on Iran, but on the other participants in the negotiations.
As a member of the NPT, Iran has agreed to never develop a nuclear weapon. Even after all other aspects of this deal are no longer in effect, inspectors will still be able to check if Iran is working towards a bomb. If inspectors find such evidence, America and its allies will be able to reimpose sanctions on Iran with renewed vigor supported by the international community. More importantly, the Iranian media and government will have a hard time convincing the youth that they should continue supporting the government. Such a situation could conceivably lead to a second, perhaps more successful green revolution.
The best outcome from this deal could be that Iran is caught cheating.
7
There is no more idealistic and blood-keeping way to peace than diplomacy; that's evident. But the tumultuous and enigmatic situation in the Middle East, particularly Iran, has made the West, particularly the American Democrats, so eager for a bilateral peace deal that we are most likely erring into the blissful ignorance of illusionary detente.
We arrived in Switzerland begging for diplomatic achievement (however short-lived it could be) to fuel the idealism of "peace in our time" (and/or perhaps political agendas). Now Iran has access to very tangible and immediate financial funds it hasn't had in years past, and we have won ourselves, as best as I can describe it, a hope: that Iran, with its unrelenting penchant to dish out money to the militarization of terrorist organizations rather than its economically bereaved people, will embrace the world market ideals of capitalism and national progress.
When Mister Netanyahu and his Republican allies call this deal a "historical mistake" and are accused of proposing now alternative offer, it is because there is no need for an alternative offer. Tyranny only holds as long as the coffers are filled, and with crippling sanctions and a misguided economy, the Republican Guards are drying up quicker than a cold beer bottle. We've just handed them a free refill offer.
Call me a skeptic; I feel the mighty, burly Goliath (us) has just handed David (Iran) a pebble for his sling.
We arrived in Switzerland begging for diplomatic achievement (however short-lived it could be) to fuel the idealism of "peace in our time" (and/or perhaps political agendas). Now Iran has access to very tangible and immediate financial funds it hasn't had in years past, and we have won ourselves, as best as I can describe it, a hope: that Iran, with its unrelenting penchant to dish out money to the militarization of terrorist organizations rather than its economically bereaved people, will embrace the world market ideals of capitalism and national progress.
When Mister Netanyahu and his Republican allies call this deal a "historical mistake" and are accused of proposing now alternative offer, it is because there is no need for an alternative offer. Tyranny only holds as long as the coffers are filled, and with crippling sanctions and a misguided economy, the Republican Guards are drying up quicker than a cold beer bottle. We've just handed them a free refill offer.
Call me a skeptic; I feel the mighty, burly Goliath (us) has just handed David (Iran) a pebble for his sling.
2
I'm all for a negotiated solution, but this deal stinks. This editorial disingenuously ignores that face that, according to the agreement, the "anytime, anywhere" inspections may be declined by the Iranians, thereby bumping the dispute up to multiple complex bureaucratic committees. This process can take weeks, if not months. Without anytime, anywhere inspections, there are effectively no inspections. Also, the notion that the sanctions "snap back" if Iran cheats is also a lie. In fact, the signatories--including Russia and China--would need to again sign on for new sanctions to be re-imposed. This would be unlikely, not only because of the new business channels that will soon exist, exerting enormous economic pressure, but also because Kerry himself cited Russian and Chinese fatigue with the current sanctions as motivation for getting this deal wrapped up now. [As an aside, one can't help but wonder why, if the sanctions weren't working (as liberals claim, justifying the need for this deal) then why would Iran have come to the negotiating table in the first place, but I digress...] In addition to these problems with the deal, Iran will soon have billions of new dollars to pump into its terror infrastructure, and (shortly) it will add ballistic missiles to its arsenal. In the history of nations, a decade is tantamount to the blink of an eye, and Obama has all but assured Iran's eventual admittance to the league of nuclear nations, much as Clinton did with North Korea.
22
"[As an aside, one can't help but wonder why, if the sanctions weren't working (as liberals claim, justifying the need for this deal) then why would Iran have come to the negotiating table in the first place, but I digress...]"
I believe "liberals" are asserting that sanctions did indeed bring the Iranians to the table. Sanctions weren't sustainable over the long haul, however -- too many players were losing too much to keep them up.
I believe "liberals" are asserting that sanctions did indeed bring the Iranians to the table. Sanctions weren't sustainable over the long haul, however -- too many players were losing too much to keep them up.
Iran is like conservative radio, a totally closed off society that is being driven by propaganda. Non-conservative media groups have been able to pierce the fog of misinformation and scaremongering to some degree in America, and that is what must be done in Iran.
Opening the door to economic opportunity while simultaneously closing the door (for a time) on nuclear proliferation will provide us a window to let America's strongest weapon - capitalism - work to improve relations with Iranian moderates.
We need to set out a new world order, and first among them is turning extreme adversaries into reluctant partners. Force Iran into following international codes and norms. Hold them responsible. Allow capitalism to open up the Iranian middle class, encourage moderation and shun extremism.
This decade will prove instructive if that can be achieved. If, at the end of it we prove otherwise, then we can always fall back to Republican's strategy of war. In this sense, this is the only way forward. We cannot bomb first and if that fails, try to sue for peace. And I don't think any sane person would think we would have success in war with Iran if we haven't been successful with much weaker countries in the area. And if they fail to honor the agreement, then we will have an international coalition to back us up.
Long term thinking isn't in the Republican DNA. Luckily it is being carried by Democrats for America's well-being.
Opening the door to economic opportunity while simultaneously closing the door (for a time) on nuclear proliferation will provide us a window to let America's strongest weapon - capitalism - work to improve relations with Iranian moderates.
We need to set out a new world order, and first among them is turning extreme adversaries into reluctant partners. Force Iran into following international codes and norms. Hold them responsible. Allow capitalism to open up the Iranian middle class, encourage moderation and shun extremism.
This decade will prove instructive if that can be achieved. If, at the end of it we prove otherwise, then we can always fall back to Republican's strategy of war. In this sense, this is the only way forward. We cannot bomb first and if that fails, try to sue for peace. And I don't think any sane person would think we would have success in war with Iran if we haven't been successful with much weaker countries in the area. And if they fail to honor the agreement, then we will have an international coalition to back us up.
Long term thinking isn't in the Republican DNA. Luckily it is being carried by Democrats for America's well-being.
37
Unless the world accepts a fully non discriminatory nuclear non proliferation followed by universal disarmament, all initiatives will only go that far to serve the limited tactical objectives of those benefiting from the current asymmetry. Iran may have been persuaded to stall for now, but it is quite conceivable that any contretemps on the part of the big negotiating powers could result in quick build up of mistrust and will to breach. The USA, Russia, China and now India Pakistan continue to build up their nuclear arsenals through a queer mix of parity, ego and strategic up-manship. So let us assume that if India has 200 nuclear weapons and the USA 2,000 - why can we not negotiate a process that USA disarms 19800 of these and when down to the last 200 they head toward zero weapons in a synchronized countdown. USA and India being used here as a metaphor for those who have seem to promote a world order comprising of those who can legitimately posses these and those considered illegal upstarts. The nuclear armament doctrine was invented by the west and they must now lead the way for a universal disarmament or else it will simply not ever happen
This is a major diplomatic achievement, and that is why Republicans are looking under every cabbage leaf to find some way to sabotage it. The standards they are setting are impossible. Either they contradict the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which guarantees Iran and the 190 other signatories the inalienable right to peaceful nuclear development (and requires the US to protect that right), or they are concerned with matters that have nothing to do with Iran's nuclear program--the actual subject of the negotiations.
Regarding irrelevancies, where in the world did we get the tortured logic that says that by lifting the sanctions we would be "giving" Iran billions of dollars? No one is giving Iran anything. If they get billions of dollars it is because people want to spend those dollars on products and development in Iran, just as happens in normal trade.
Conventional arms import embargo? Also irrelevant to the nuclear issue. Iranians agreed to this as a sop to Ted Cruz and his ilk. It was symbolic anyway, since thanks to the sanctions, Iran has become self-sufficient in conventional arms manufacture, and actually exports them. They have proven that they can manufacture anything locally.
But the great achievement is that 40 years of meaningless estrangement between the US and Iran may be ended. Bibi Netanyahu doesn't want that, because (gasp!) we might even be friends again--to our and the world's benefit.
Regarding irrelevancies, where in the world did we get the tortured logic that says that by lifting the sanctions we would be "giving" Iran billions of dollars? No one is giving Iran anything. If they get billions of dollars it is because people want to spend those dollars on products and development in Iran, just as happens in normal trade.
Conventional arms import embargo? Also irrelevant to the nuclear issue. Iranians agreed to this as a sop to Ted Cruz and his ilk. It was symbolic anyway, since thanks to the sanctions, Iran has become self-sufficient in conventional arms manufacture, and actually exports them. They have proven that they can manufacture anything locally.
But the great achievement is that 40 years of meaningless estrangement between the US and Iran may be ended. Bibi Netanyahu doesn't want that, because (gasp!) we might even be friends again--to our and the world's benefit.
3
Well, the sterile Republican haters and blockers of progress, for 6.5 years now, have failed in blocking everything progressive that the President has done. Now it can fail at blocking Peace and really win against him, with another war that they will, again, be too cowardly and too inept to even win. What a legacy these Conservers of ignorance, poverty, death on the streets and in the churches is; What a legacy the Republicans have built fighting Obama! And all Obama did was use his head, fight for the right things, and for the people, and won. Black, green or purple, my kind of President, an EFFECTIVE one.
15
well said! My kind of president as well!
A deal that reduces the chance of war? Well... no, just the opposite. Mark. My. Words.
3
Your words are marked... you can remain scared... time will tell that your words didn't need to be marked, except to prove how wrong the war-loving fear-mongers were. So crazy.
Any day on which we can avoid a war, particularly one sought by Zionists and neocons, one which would be to stop Iran from doing what it is already not doing, but which The Jewish State does with impunity and US taxpayer subsidy - is a good day.
Let us, all of us, think about the 95% of human beings in the US, Israel, and Iran who crave peace.
And let us not let the tacit collusion of each nation's extremes ruin the chances to avoid the Nuclear Armageddon too many seem to be hoping for.
Let us, all of us, think about the 95% of human beings in the US, Israel, and Iran who crave peace.
And let us not let the tacit collusion of each nation's extremes ruin the chances to avoid the Nuclear Armageddon too many seem to be hoping for.
10
The Iranians know one thing, and they are right. Once the sanctions are lifted, and they get their $100+ billion, the chances of sanctions ever being re-imposed are near zero.
Because if the fear exists today that without this deal Iran will just go away and build a bomb, and that's why we did this deal, if we re-impose sanctions, the fear will be again that then they will just walk away and build a bomb.
The only practical solution, now squandered, was to increase sanctions, to continue to squeeze, harder. But no, just as it was starting to hurt Iran, we let go. We blinked.
I think the reason is this: Mr. Obama and the rest of the appeasers have already concluded that Iran will build nuclear capability. I think they have already accepted that (without telling us peon voters). In fact, there are apologists around who still insist that who are we to tell Iran they can't have the bomb. That Iran has a fundamental right to the bomb. We have it. Why shouldn't they?
The reason for this deal is, in Obama's view, to slow down the inevitable.
But there was an alternative to this view by internationalist weaklings. And that is, for us and our allies to be determined that Iran not get the bomb. That might have taken a stare down moment, and a lot more fortitude than our Debater-In-Chief has in him. But it would have happened with Iran weak, without a bomb.
We imposed sanctions. Iran came to the table. We had them where we wanted them. And we accepted a poor deal?
Because if the fear exists today that without this deal Iran will just go away and build a bomb, and that's why we did this deal, if we re-impose sanctions, the fear will be again that then they will just walk away and build a bomb.
The only practical solution, now squandered, was to increase sanctions, to continue to squeeze, harder. But no, just as it was starting to hurt Iran, we let go. We blinked.
I think the reason is this: Mr. Obama and the rest of the appeasers have already concluded that Iran will build nuclear capability. I think they have already accepted that (without telling us peon voters). In fact, there are apologists around who still insist that who are we to tell Iran they can't have the bomb. That Iran has a fundamental right to the bomb. We have it. Why shouldn't they?
The reason for this deal is, in Obama's view, to slow down the inevitable.
But there was an alternative to this view by internationalist weaklings. And that is, for us and our allies to be determined that Iran not get the bomb. That might have taken a stare down moment, and a lot more fortitude than our Debater-In-Chief has in him. But it would have happened with Iran weak, without a bomb.
We imposed sanctions. Iran came to the table. We had them where we wanted them. And we accepted a poor deal?
4
John,
What your conclusion leaves out is that the sanctions were not something the US could of kept in place by itself. Every country that was participating in the sanctions was suffering its results more than the US. Each has incurred higher prices for fuel as a result, something the US has been insulated from due to our new found shale harvesting. Simply put the sanctions were not going to stay in effect and certainly there was no chance of increasing them. So you argue a strategy that was not available. Iran was a good negotiator and came as far as they needed to, ensuring the other parties to the talks felt they had made a good faith effort. After they crossed that line, the sanctions stood no chance of continuing if we had walked away.
In many things in life you don't get to play the facts you want, but must play the facts you have. Under these conditions the US got as good a deal as was possible and it is far better than no deal with the sanctions falling apart. It simply came down to war or peace. We have to let peace have a chance as we owe it to humanity. If they cheat, we will have difficult decisions in the future.
What your conclusion leaves out is that the sanctions were not something the US could of kept in place by itself. Every country that was participating in the sanctions was suffering its results more than the US. Each has incurred higher prices for fuel as a result, something the US has been insulated from due to our new found shale harvesting. Simply put the sanctions were not going to stay in effect and certainly there was no chance of increasing them. So you argue a strategy that was not available. Iran was a good negotiator and came as far as they needed to, ensuring the other parties to the talks felt they had made a good faith effort. After they crossed that line, the sanctions stood no chance of continuing if we had walked away.
In many things in life you don't get to play the facts you want, but must play the facts you have. Under these conditions the US got as good a deal as was possible and it is far better than no deal with the sanctions falling apart. It simply came down to war or peace. We have to let peace have a chance as we owe it to humanity. If they cheat, we will have difficult decisions in the future.
The GOP holds a policy of harshness. In that world view, the poor can be motivated to improve themselves and to get jobs, if they are deprived of basic necessities; and a country like Iran can be brought to its knees and to submission to US will by tightening the screws of sanctions until the population lives in dire want. They forget that leaders of such countries seldom either suffer personally under sanctions or are motivated to change by the suffering of their people. Additionally, tightening those screws is more likely to anger and radicalize the suffering population against the USA than it is to cause the expected, but seldom seen, revolution against that country's leadership.
The GOP (and their honorary member, Bebe) have no viable answers other than continued oppression of a suffering population and periodic military action. While we practice those, Iran continues unmonitored to enrich uranium and prepare to make bombs. While such behavior may feed the ego of those who believe that being tough guys is a sign of strength, it does nothing to make the world safer.
The GOP (and their honorary member, Bebe) have no viable answers other than continued oppression of a suffering population and periodic military action. While we practice those, Iran continues unmonitored to enrich uranium and prepare to make bombs. While such behavior may feed the ego of those who believe that being tough guys is a sign of strength, it does nothing to make the world safer.
7
As a member of AIPAC and a supporter of Israel, I worried that a deal might give Iran more ability to threaten the Jewish state, especially when I read that Iran had demanded an end to the arms embargo.
I've now read all the coverage, and I honestly can't find any evidence that this deal makes things worse. And it may improve the situation somewhat. Forcing Iran to give up 98% of its enriched uranium puts it a full year away from a bomb, vs. two months at this point. I'm at a loss to see how that puts Israel in more danger, not less. The arms embargo won't be lifted unless Iran complies with its nuclear promises. The inspection regime looks tough. Economic sanctions won't go away if Iran doesn't cooperate.
I'm hopeful that through the process of talks with the U.S., Iran will emerge from its shell and find ways to engage more positively with the rest of the world. I'd like to think the Iran we know after 36 years of the ayatollahs isn't the real Iran. Most people there are educated, and want to participate in the world economy, not be isolated. They know they've been sold a bill of goods by the hardliners, and from what I've read, most people there wish the hardliners would go away. We tend to forget that until 1979, Iran was Israel's friend, and it could once again become a natural ally with Israel against the Sunni radicals in the region who target both Iran and Israel.
I've now read all the coverage, and I honestly can't find any evidence that this deal makes things worse. And it may improve the situation somewhat. Forcing Iran to give up 98% of its enriched uranium puts it a full year away from a bomb, vs. two months at this point. I'm at a loss to see how that puts Israel in more danger, not less. The arms embargo won't be lifted unless Iran complies with its nuclear promises. The inspection regime looks tough. Economic sanctions won't go away if Iran doesn't cooperate.
I'm hopeful that through the process of talks with the U.S., Iran will emerge from its shell and find ways to engage more positively with the rest of the world. I'd like to think the Iran we know after 36 years of the ayatollahs isn't the real Iran. Most people there are educated, and want to participate in the world economy, not be isolated. They know they've been sold a bill of goods by the hardliners, and from what I've read, most people there wish the hardliners would go away. We tend to forget that until 1979, Iran was Israel's friend, and it could once again become a natural ally with Israel against the Sunni radicals in the region who target both Iran and Israel.
70
You will no longer be welcome at AIPAC.
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.
If Netanyahu is correct, then Israel would suffer no diminution in its won status as a nuclear power.
If Netanyahu is correct, then Israel would suffer no diminution in its won status as a nuclear power.
5
When Republicans and Bibi plus his arch-right wing cabinet condemn this 'deal' as being the beginning of the end of this world before even having studied it word for word it must be a pretty good deal, at least in my opinion.
8
This deal is among the achievements of the Obama Presidency, along with the reopening of Cuba after decades of hostility. What the opposing Republicans truly want back is a new Shah to rule Iran in accordance to their idea of government. That's not going to happen anytime soon.
8
I hope this treaty also signals the end of the gravy train for Mr Nataniahu
8
Is there a deal or is this more Iranian obfuscation? The Koran is clear. There are two forms of lying to non-Muslims that are permitted, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
What's going on here a clear agreement or taqiyya and kitman you can decide. Hopefully it is not too late.
What's going on here a clear agreement or taqiyya and kitman you can decide. Hopefully it is not too late.
2
Excellent point, thank you. This could use some elucidation from the paper of record.
Thanks to the Editorial Board for a perceptive, helpful analysis of the Iran Nuclear deal -- an historic agreement which shows us that Peace, who was mourning in the shadow of death, is now becoming bright-eyed as she walks beside her handsome champion, Barack Obama.
5
The agreement is based not on trust but on a strong inspection regime. Except that inspections, none of which will be of the surprise variety, will depend on Iran's cooperation and any violation must pass through an arbitration procedure that includes Russia and China - both of whom have consistently blocked Security Council resolutions seeking to sanction Syria's Asssad for the wholesale slaughter of his own people. Expecting them to review any potential violations objectively doesn't appear to be high on their prioirity list. This issue needs to be explored before Congress and explained to the American people, as it seems to undermine all confidence in the robustness of any verification regime.
While the entire spectrum of Israeli politicians from left to right opposes this deal (note to certain commenters: it's not only Prime Minister Netanyahu), the Sunni Arab reaction will be most telling.
While the entire spectrum of Israeli politicians from left to right opposes this deal (note to certain commenters: it's not only Prime Minister Netanyahu), the Sunni Arab reaction will be most telling.
2
In the whole history of civilization this political process including cooperation between world powers on sanctions and tedious and challenging negotians stands out as a symbol of how results can be achieved between bitter enemies WITHOUT war!
Iran is run by fire breathing Mullahs BUT they are als a society rich in talent and creativity and a moderate middle class.
What other country in The Middle East can lay claim to that fact?
We have seen their negotiators as smart and reasonable men capable of nuanced thinking and reasonable trade offs.
And as they look at The snarling ignorant doctrine spouters in The GOP's Bible Belt it must have taken a great deal of courage to trust us SO Obama and John kerry have pulled off a minor miracle!
Kudos all around!
Iran is run by fire breathing Mullahs BUT they are als a society rich in talent and creativity and a moderate middle class.
What other country in The Middle East can lay claim to that fact?
We have seen their negotiators as smart and reasonable men capable of nuanced thinking and reasonable trade offs.
And as they look at The snarling ignorant doctrine spouters in The GOP's Bible Belt it must have taken a great deal of courage to trust us SO Obama and John kerry have pulled off a minor miracle!
Kudos all around!
10
For those who support, a rapid endorsement is reasonable, insightful even brave; for those who don't, early objections are irresponsible, partisan, even resentful. Ah...the liberal mind and the liberal world. Plus ca change.
1
All the king's horses and all the king's men still cannot make Obama into a statesman. The editorial combined with Peter Baker's piece in today's Times are an affront to serious journalism and reflect the lopsided nature of the American political spectrum, where Center itself occupies the Right.
Man of peace? Savage drone warfare killing innocent civilians. Huge military budget. B-52s in Latvia, hastening intended confrontation with Russia. Covert operations still engaged in assassination. How do you ignore or sweep under the rug these vile practices amounting to an intensification of the Cold War?
Delete my Comment; NYT is in the business of selective censorship. But at least open your eyes even to the Iran negotiations, which remained constant with the Baruch Plan of 1946, Kerry as Acheson, Obama as Truman, containment, isolation, dismemberment, integrated via the exercise of nuclear blackmail. And blithely skip over the pain caused by sanctions, shortage of medicines, rampant inflation.
Obama hardly a man of peace has a legacy of militarized globalization favoring multinational corporations over all else, as in TPP and encirclement of China. This is not Gandhi but Bush lite, yet more sophisticated in embracing the Pentagon mindset with a heavy dollop of Spec. Ops. It may take awhile for historians to catch on--but then it is too late, as America consumes itself in hegemonic glory, to the danger of world order and peace.
Man of peace? Savage drone warfare killing innocent civilians. Huge military budget. B-52s in Latvia, hastening intended confrontation with Russia. Covert operations still engaged in assassination. How do you ignore or sweep under the rug these vile practices amounting to an intensification of the Cold War?
Delete my Comment; NYT is in the business of selective censorship. But at least open your eyes even to the Iran negotiations, which remained constant with the Baruch Plan of 1946, Kerry as Acheson, Obama as Truman, containment, isolation, dismemberment, integrated via the exercise of nuclear blackmail. And blithely skip over the pain caused by sanctions, shortage of medicines, rampant inflation.
Obama hardly a man of peace has a legacy of militarized globalization favoring multinational corporations over all else, as in TPP and encirclement of China. This is not Gandhi but Bush lite, yet more sophisticated in embracing the Pentagon mindset with a heavy dollop of Spec. Ops. It may take awhile for historians to catch on--but then it is too late, as America consumes itself in hegemonic glory, to the danger of world order and peace.
1
Your comment wasn't deleted. So what now?
2
I am hopeful. Nobody seems to deny that average Iranians frankly adore Americans. That's all you hear from people who actually visit. Plus, Americans are DONE with Middle Eastern wars, and the folks the GOP tends to cater to are as sick of them as anyone. Now there is a diplomatic agreement in place, and really, how in any way does it put us in a worse situation than we were in yesterday?
2
If Netanyahu is against it it must be a good deal.
12
>
Of course it reduces the chance of war, which is why the GOP, the war party, does not like it.
It would be best if Iran did not get a bomb, but Iran having a bomb does not bother we any more than us having one. Iran knows that any bomb set off could be easily traced back to them via isotopes, at which point the response would not in Iran's interest to say the least. What a bomb does get Iran is a guarantee that they will not be attacked by the U.S. or Israel.
Of course it reduces the chance of war, which is why the GOP, the war party, does not like it.
It would be best if Iran did not get a bomb, but Iran having a bomb does not bother we any more than us having one. Iran knows that any bomb set off could be easily traced back to them via isotopes, at which point the response would not in Iran's interest to say the least. What a bomb does get Iran is a guarantee that they will not be attacked by the U.S. or Israel.
4
Firstly congratulations to Kerry. Kerry 2016!
Now please understand the base of the current flurry of criticisms.
Neocons like Wolfawitz goaded a foolish Condi and W a an amoral Cheney and a morally pliable Powell into fighting Israels wars by proxy in the middle East by going into Iraq.
Isis is the legacy. And they will now throw money at corrupt congress and blanket the airwaves with propaganda to stop this.
They want the US to be the puppet of Bibi.
It was in the past....and how did that work out for us??
Now please understand the base of the current flurry of criticisms.
Neocons like Wolfawitz goaded a foolish Condi and W a an amoral Cheney and a morally pliable Powell into fighting Israels wars by proxy in the middle East by going into Iraq.
Isis is the legacy. And they will now throw money at corrupt congress and blanket the airwaves with propaganda to stop this.
They want the US to be the puppet of Bibi.
It was in the past....and how did that work out for us??
6
I never got to vote up or down on Netanyahu and I don't think he should have a say in anything, or that the U.S. government must endlessly kiss his rear end and pay billions of dollars for the privilege. And I'm tired of Republicans dreaming up new wars for young men to die in.
8
Sorry, folks but while this "deal" is good for the short term, we're gonna be right back here in 15 years (or less) trying to tamp down Iran's nuclear ambitions. It's okay as long as it remains in effect but what happens after that? Back to square one?
For all of those who are bad-mouthing the Israeli's, explain to me, please, why Israel (which Iran still plans to destroy) was not given a seat at the table? The easiest way to silence a critic is to give that person a voice in the outcome. Never happened. Why?
And, fer cryin out loud, all this praise being heaped on Obama and his "outstretched hand" might be valid if he hadn't repeatedly extended our presence in Afghanistan and returned us to Iraq. This is not the stuff that Nobel Peace Prizes should honor.
Yup. Half a loaf is better than none but it is, really, just a half a loaf. Maybe a one-handed clap is all Obama deserves here.
For all of those who are bad-mouthing the Israeli's, explain to me, please, why Israel (which Iran still plans to destroy) was not given a seat at the table? The easiest way to silence a critic is to give that person a voice in the outcome. Never happened. Why?
And, fer cryin out loud, all this praise being heaped on Obama and his "outstretched hand" might be valid if he hadn't repeatedly extended our presence in Afghanistan and returned us to Iraq. This is not the stuff that Nobel Peace Prizes should honor.
Yup. Half a loaf is better than none but it is, really, just a half a loaf. Maybe a one-handed clap is all Obama deserves here.
1
Bibi, if you don't like this deal, you only have one person to blame. Look in the mirror. You made a desperate grab for the power to undermine a sitting president of the US. How was trying to stab him in the back politically by cynically allying yourself with his political opponents going to work out for the best?
8
Steady & sustained leadership despite unbending adventure has diminished the possibility of loss of lives, balanced conflicting interests & made a better day possible!
You can believe what the Editorial Board of the Times is telling you, or what the Ayatollah and the Iranian Republic News Agency are telling you or what your own lying eyes are telling you.
I'm sticking with the Ayatollah:
http://www.irna.ir/en/News/81683263/%5d
I'm sticking with the Ayatollah:
http://www.irna.ir/en/News/81683263/%5d
3
I don't have to criticize the deal. It speaks for itself. Below is the text on IAEA access in the event it believes Iran is not complying. Far from "anytime, anywhere" that the Administration had--at least up until recently--promised for the deal:
78. If the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA cannot be verified..., or if the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory arrangements to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the specified locations within 14 days of the IAEA’s original request for access, Iran, in consultation with the members of the Joint Commission, would resolve the IAEA’s concerns through necessary means agreed between Iran and the IAEA. In the absence of an agreement, the members of the Joint Commission, by consensus or by a vote of 5 or more of its 8 members, would advise on the necessary means to resolve the IAEA's concerns. The process of consultation with, and any action by, the members of the Joint Commission would not exceed 7 days, and Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.
78. If the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA cannot be verified..., or if the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory arrangements to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the specified locations within 14 days of the IAEA’s original request for access, Iran, in consultation with the members of the Joint Commission, would resolve the IAEA’s concerns through necessary means agreed between Iran and the IAEA. In the absence of an agreement, the members of the Joint Commission, by consensus or by a vote of 5 or more of its 8 members, would advise on the necessary means to resolve the IAEA's concerns. The process of consultation with, and any action by, the members of the Joint Commission would not exceed 7 days, and Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.
1
Rename the title to this opinion: An Iran Nuclear Deal That Reduces the Chance of War Now (But All Bets are Off in 10-15 Years)
1
You state: "As described by Mr. Obama and other officials, the deal seems sound ..."
Why don't you just read the deal. It has been posted on at least two websites.
What Iran has promised to do is irrelevant, so you can skip most of the pages.
What is relevant is the part that describes verification and access. Without those two, there is no substance to the deal (other than us providing Iran with $100+ billion in frozen assets)
If my reading is right, the verification and access agreements are weak, and a far cry from "access" and "verification" as those are normally understood. The accord basically guarantees interminable and constant haggling with Iran over whether inspectors can visit some bathroom in a corner of Arak. During which time Iran will have time to move, remove, change, disguise, terminate, etc, offending activities.
Been there, done that. A bit surprising nobody on our side seems to have learned anything from prior experience with Iran and North Korea.
Why don't you just read the deal. It has been posted on at least two websites.
What Iran has promised to do is irrelevant, so you can skip most of the pages.
What is relevant is the part that describes verification and access. Without those two, there is no substance to the deal (other than us providing Iran with $100+ billion in frozen assets)
If my reading is right, the verification and access agreements are weak, and a far cry from "access" and "verification" as those are normally understood. The accord basically guarantees interminable and constant haggling with Iran over whether inspectors can visit some bathroom in a corner of Arak. During which time Iran will have time to move, remove, change, disguise, terminate, etc, offending activities.
Been there, done that. A bit surprising nobody on our side seems to have learned anything from prior experience with Iran and North Korea.
3
It is disconcerting to watch Boehner and his Republicans represent the wishes of Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing rather than the majority of their constituents and the American people.
1
The Iranians have repeatedly and publicly threatened the existence of Israel (as recently as last week). This editorial skates around that fact thereby ignoring the intrinsic logical flaw in the entire deal. You see, either the Iranians - despite their public pronouncements - are not serious about destroying Israel, in which case their credibility regarding this nuclear deal must be similarly questioned. Or they are deadly serious about destroying Israel, in which case the P5+1 must question whether they haven't just teed up Israel for further terrorist attacks funded with the now liberated Iranian funds or even potentially a nuclear attack.
Sadly, judging by the disturbing anti-Israel vitriol of most of the comments I have read so far, my sense is the NYT's readership (and, arguably, leadership) could care less whether Israel faces such threats. Apparently, the only Democracy in the middle east is the true regional problem not the warmongers and jihadists.
Sadly, judging by the disturbing anti-Israel vitriol of most of the comments I have read so far, my sense is the NYT's readership (and, arguably, leadership) could care less whether Israel faces such threats. Apparently, the only Democracy in the middle east is the true regional problem not the warmongers and jihadists.
2
"W" went to war with Iraq over WMD that did not exist. Obama negotiated an agreement with Iran to prevent them from developing WMD. And the Republicans are opposed to this? In other words, the Republicans support more death and destruction, increased destabilization in the Middle East and at an unimaginable cost of human lives and treasure. Those who will not learn from history........
1
Calling it a "deal," an "accord," or an "agreement" instead of a "treaty" makes no difference. It isn't binding unless the Senate concurs by a two-thirds majority. The president doesn't have "executive authority" to make treaties with foreign powers without the advice, consent and concurrence of the Senate. Until the Senate votes, it is still a propose treaty, and the Iran Sanctions Act is still in effect.
3
Besides alienating Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Israel, all of whom face an immediate regional threat, and in the case of Israel, an existential one, the deal is seen by many around the world and in the US as real capitulation to a rogue regime which has broken 100% of its treaties to date.
Why would anyone expect them to abide by this one?
The new deal does not require Iran to disclose its previous nuclear history.. It is simply stated that this will be further discussed.
Does the deal require Iran to halt further enrichment of its many uranium centrifuges including the major one at Natanz? No.
Is Iran required to shut down and dismantle its Arak heavy water reactor and plutonium production plant? No. It will convert not dismantle it. Big difference. After 15 years it is free to do whatever it wishes.
Same for underground uranium enrichment facility it built secretly at Fordow.
Will they be required to halt ongoing missile development? No.
How about research and development of faster centrifuges that will enable Iran to get to a bomb faster than now? No limitations imposed.
What about the need for honest, on the spot investigations necessary for compliance at any time, without prior notice? All investigations must be announced and approved in advance.
What are the specific responses that the international community will use in case specific clauses are violated. Not mentioned.
Obama: this will be the crown in my foreign policy legacy.
Peace in our times.
Why would anyone expect them to abide by this one?
The new deal does not require Iran to disclose its previous nuclear history.. It is simply stated that this will be further discussed.
Does the deal require Iran to halt further enrichment of its many uranium centrifuges including the major one at Natanz? No.
Is Iran required to shut down and dismantle its Arak heavy water reactor and plutonium production plant? No. It will convert not dismantle it. Big difference. After 15 years it is free to do whatever it wishes.
Same for underground uranium enrichment facility it built secretly at Fordow.
Will they be required to halt ongoing missile development? No.
How about research and development of faster centrifuges that will enable Iran to get to a bomb faster than now? No limitations imposed.
What about the need for honest, on the spot investigations necessary for compliance at any time, without prior notice? All investigations must be announced and approved in advance.
What are the specific responses that the international community will use in case specific clauses are violated. Not mentioned.
Obama: this will be the crown in my foreign policy legacy.
Peace in our times.
4
These are opinions that have been formulated by listening to talk radio in the United States as opposed to actually reading the treaty or having any real understanding of the situation in the middle east. Remember Iran could have easily detonated a "dirty bomb" in Israel's vicinity if it really wanted to. They do have enough expertise right now to do that. The fact that they have not done so or have not exported their know how is a very revealing point.
It would be so much better for our country if Republicans were the loyal opposition instead of their richly deserved image as mindlessly opposing any initiatives from the Obama administration as evidenced by never having an alternative plan.
As for Netanyahu, he continues to verify that he is incapable of climbing out of the abyss of perpetual conflict.
As for Netanyahu, he continues to verify that he is incapable of climbing out of the abyss of perpetual conflict.
2
The idea that Iran can be trusted, even with verification measures, is dubious.
On the surface things look ok. But the snapback is weak. They will have a bomb in ten or fifteen years, which is no time considering the implications for the world. And we will be giving Iran 100 billion dollars to go on an arms buying binge to further its aggression. That doesnt sound like a sound way of dealing with a terrorist nation to me. It has faced us and won a tremendous victory which will eventually enable it to do many bad things. There will be no "Peace in Our Time"
On the surface things look ok. But the snapback is weak. They will have a bomb in ten or fifteen years, which is no time considering the implications for the world. And we will be giving Iran 100 billion dollars to go on an arms buying binge to further its aggression. That doesnt sound like a sound way of dealing with a terrorist nation to me. It has faced us and won a tremendous victory which will eventually enable it to do many bad things. There will be no "Peace in Our Time"
4
Lets tally up the number of wars started by Iran and the United States since the revolution in 1979
All this "happy talk" remains to be "confirmed". Many hurdles remain. Iran has been scheming to get weapons of mass destruction for years and only the fear of massive bombardment has kept her from going that "step beyond" and actually making one----or so it appears. The mad mullahs in Tehran have a mentality that is stuck in the Moslem Middle Ages----even backward by Mid east standards . They view the West as "infidels" and Jews as "Minions of Satan" who need to be defeated and wiped out as is constantly propagandized through the state controlled tv, radio, and newspapers in Persia. So what is real here? All these complex agreements that Iran may or may not comply with or the constant venom spewed forth from every government office in Tehran? It is not a good idea to bet the peace, safety and security of the Middle East, not to mention the entire world, on honeyed words and big talk at a conference table but in concrete action. It appears the plan is to play "cat and mouse" with Iran to try and enforce the anti-nuclear treaty and gradually lift sanctions. Of course the liberals are hoping that in a few years the radical Islamist regime will be gone and peaceful, pro Western, or at least neutral, technocrats will take over Iran. Again I would not bet the farm on it. Whatever happens Iran must not be allowed to have atomic weapons. If they get them then Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. will all want them to prevent nuclear blackmail from Iran. A catastrophe indeed.
1
It is truly astounding how Republicans have turned wholesale into Israel's lapdogs. Perhaps in their opinion we should take the stars out of the US flag and instead put Israel's flag in the respective place. The interests of this country are not identical with Israel's, no matter what the Republicans or Israel say. Is there any benefit for the United States to be goaded into another Middle Eastern war, after spending so much blood and over a trillion dollars in treasure in the region? Is there any convincing alternative to diplomacy? Have Republicans not learned anything from our wars in the last 12 years? Their futility? Their cost in lives destroyed and money wasted? Looking at the Middle East now it is hard not to conclude that the region was better off before our involvement. And now, on the verge of a diplomatic triumph that guarantees key limitations on Iran's nuclear program, Republicans once again sell out our national interests in order to deprive Obama of a foreign policy triumph and turn themselves into lackeys of a foreign power with decidedly different interests than the United States.
Mullahs from both sides rising up to decry the deal!
They have khamenie and his ilk and we have our republi-mullahs.
They have khamenie and his ilk and we have our republi-mullahs.
Today, history moves with digital speed. Within 36 hours, we have witnessed a repeat of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 now imposed on Greece, and then a repeat of the 1938 equivalent of a Munich agreement with Irn. Neither the Euros nor the Americans remember history which is cyclic and repeats.
1
If the Nuclear Deal with Iran is not accepted by Congress, if the powerful enemies of Iran are against this accord, and are able to convince Americans that it is a colossal and historical mistake, chances are the embargo won't be lifted and Iran's nuclear program will proceed apace. The President has earned laurels for this initiative, his earnest effort of several years to change American foreign policy in the Middle East. The Republicans and Israel's Prime Minister and Saudi Arabia's princes have denounced this extraordinary effort to end America's conflict with Iran, lift the embargo and financial and nuclear restrictions against Iran that have lasted since 1979 when Shah Reza Pahlevi fell to the Ayatollah's revolution. Remember that all previous efforts to end the Arab/Israeli conflict in Israel have come to nought. Too many slips twixt the Palestinian and Israeli cups and lips and there will be no peace in Israel for the foreseeable future. May the Congress sign off on this accord. Chances are slim to none that this obdurate, obstructive and hostile Congress will approve of President Obama's anti-nuclear proliferation deal with Iran. The past is always prologue. The present, with Republicans against this Iran nuclear deal because of their rigid and uncooperative party politics, is another example of the best-laid plans of mice and men which too often gang aft agley.
Most Americans would approve this deal as is for now, but Iran is not to be trusted. Time only will prove that this deal will be broken. Also most Sunni Muslims in the Arab world, a 90% of all Muslims detest this deal, also have issues with Obama and his apparent support to the Iranian Shiite invasion of Syria and Iraq.
Just read the blogs and the reaction of most social media in the Arab world which express distrust for America – this distrust has become an epidemic.
The result of this deal….
Kerry will only remember the long stay in Vienna and the waste of taxpayers money for what would be wishful thinking that he accomplished something historical but that is delusional.
Just read the blogs and the reaction of most social media in the Arab world which express distrust for America – this distrust has become an epidemic.
The result of this deal….
Kerry will only remember the long stay in Vienna and the waste of taxpayers money for what would be wishful thinking that he accomplished something historical but that is delusional.
1
Before you make up your mind about the deal, please listen for a few minutes to our President to explain the deal. Sorry to say that many TV stations do not allow time for this important short message so here it is: https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal?utm_source=em...
1
I don't believe Kerry is competent, and I'm pretty sure that Obama never hesitates to stretch the boundaries of truth when it comes to creating/selling his legacy. He and his cronies force fed us the ACA and misled regarding critical details. He simply lied about Benghazi. So why should we believe his view of this deal when he hasn't been a straight shooter?
Ultimately, Iran will get the bomb if it wants the bomb, and who thinks they don't want the bomb? They want hegemony over the middle east and they want to be an international power. The only pathway for Iran is to become a nuclear power. And we're not talking about their overwhelming desire to get out of the oil business.
Once they approach having the bomb, or have the bomb, we will have two choices: 1) admit them into the nuclear club or 2) go to war. Sanctions will be too late at that point.
We may get lucky. Maybe the zealots in charge of Iran will be replaced by moderates who might decide to give up the "death to America" rhetoric. Maybe. But generally, people who rely on luck eventually run out of it.
I still fail to see why anyone would negotiate anything with Iran as long as they chant "death to America" and lie about their intentions.
Of course, this is something of a no lose proposition for Obama. If somehow Iran doesn't build the bomb, Barrack will take credit. If they do build the bomb, it will be the fault of his successors who failed to hold Iran's feet to the fire.
Ultimately, Iran will get the bomb if it wants the bomb, and who thinks they don't want the bomb? They want hegemony over the middle east and they want to be an international power. The only pathway for Iran is to become a nuclear power. And we're not talking about their overwhelming desire to get out of the oil business.
Once they approach having the bomb, or have the bomb, we will have two choices: 1) admit them into the nuclear club or 2) go to war. Sanctions will be too late at that point.
We may get lucky. Maybe the zealots in charge of Iran will be replaced by moderates who might decide to give up the "death to America" rhetoric. Maybe. But generally, people who rely on luck eventually run out of it.
I still fail to see why anyone would negotiate anything with Iran as long as they chant "death to America" and lie about their intentions.
Of course, this is something of a no lose proposition for Obama. If somehow Iran doesn't build the bomb, Barrack will take credit. If they do build the bomb, it will be the fault of his successors who failed to hold Iran's feet to the fire.
1
Obama's deadlines are like his red line in the sand with Syria. It's a myth. He drew his red line and then when it was time to put up or shut up he suddenly said he never said that, it was the WORLD's red line.
Second, this is all about salvaging his legacy and nothing more. With his failure in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Obama's Arab Spring did nothing but mobilize the radical factions like Ansar al Sharia, al Qaeda and ISIS to dominate the region. But according to Obama they are not an existential threat. I guess arresting and prosecuting 53 radicalized Americans is of no great concern.
In 2012 Obama said
"Make no mistake, a nuclear armed is not a challenge that can be contained It would threaten the elimination, the security of the Gulf Region, the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear arms race in the region and unraveling of the non proliferation treaty."
Obama is obsessed with salvaging his legacy and nothing more. This is all about him. Iran has laughed at him this entire time and he took it. They have no intention of following that. The president was the head of their atomic program. They've spent billions of dollars on underground facilities and developing capabilities to enrich. They will not just give that up. It's naïve to think they will.
Well, Obama got what he wanted, the Times supports him AGAIN, and Obama can go play golf on his private courses, knowing this "treaty" did nothing but put all of us at risk. Nice job Obama.
Second, this is all about salvaging his legacy and nothing more. With his failure in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Obama's Arab Spring did nothing but mobilize the radical factions like Ansar al Sharia, al Qaeda and ISIS to dominate the region. But according to Obama they are not an existential threat. I guess arresting and prosecuting 53 radicalized Americans is of no great concern.
In 2012 Obama said
"Make no mistake, a nuclear armed is not a challenge that can be contained It would threaten the elimination, the security of the Gulf Region, the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear arms race in the region and unraveling of the non proliferation treaty."
Obama is obsessed with salvaging his legacy and nothing more. This is all about him. Iran has laughed at him this entire time and he took it. They have no intention of following that. The president was the head of their atomic program. They've spent billions of dollars on underground facilities and developing capabilities to enrich. They will not just give that up. It's naïve to think they will.
Well, Obama got what he wanted, the Times supports him AGAIN, and Obama can go play golf on his private courses, knowing this "treaty" did nothing but put all of us at risk. Nice job Obama.
2
'Healed by God'
Your rants are tiresome.
You sound more 'angry' than 'healed'.
Your rants are tiresome.
You sound more 'angry' than 'healed'.
1
This is probably a very bad agreement. Except for Iran and its client states (Syria and Lebanon) all the parties in the Middle East (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Oman, etc. ) think that the agreement is disastrous and will foment a nuclear arms race in the region. There is a small probability that the Iranian regime will collapse, but it will not be a result of the agreement. Most likely, Iran will gain more resources in its quest for nuclear weapons, and will get them sooner than expected. This is not a recipe for peace and stability. This editorial supporting the treaty is solely based upon the hope that: 1) the agreement places limits on the Iranian acquisition of enriched-weapon grade uranium, 2) the agreement has enforcement clauses in it, 3) the Iranians will abide by both the letter and spirit of the agreement, and 4) the Obama administration will utilize all its resources, up to and including the use of force, to ensure that the Iranians fulfill the provisions in the agreement. I do not believe that these hopes are at all probable.
2
If we follow the constitution I believe this will not become a treaty until two thirds of the Senate vote to confirm it.
From ArticleII, Section 2"
"He [ the president ] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"
Until now, only a proposed agreement existed and the final agreement has not yet been voted on.
Ratified Treaties are constitutionally law:
From Article VI
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
That says that it constitutionally takes only 1/3 of the senate to reject the treaty and prevent it from becoming law.
My understand is that congress took an earlier vote that the treaty will become law unless a bill is passed to reject it, and that the President indicated he will veto any such bill. Only 1/3 of the Senate need approve the treaty moving forward since 2/3 are required to override a veto.
"Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives,"
From ArticleII, Section 2"
"He [ the president ] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"
Until now, only a proposed agreement existed and the final agreement has not yet been voted on.
Ratified Treaties are constitutionally law:
From Article VI
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
That says that it constitutionally takes only 1/3 of the senate to reject the treaty and prevent it from becoming law.
My understand is that congress took an earlier vote that the treaty will become law unless a bill is passed to reject it, and that the President indicated he will veto any such bill. Only 1/3 of the Senate need approve the treaty moving forward since 2/3 are required to override a veto.
"Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives,"
1
Trust the Iranians ? You gotta be joshing me - we avert war with Iran? why would we go to war with Iran? Oh forgot our staunch ally Israel. An ally that says "Hey were in this together. i'll hold you coat." I really don't get it????
2015: "An Iran Nuclear Deal That Reduces the Chance of War." 1938: "Peace in our Time." In the 90's "North Korea will not have a nuclear weapon." What part of this is news?
In 1938 Germany did not have all the armaments that they had in 1939. What changed? They got Czechoslovakia and all the Skoda tanks and heavy guns from the Czechs. Chamberlain made possible for Hitler to launch the attack on most of Europe thanks to the "Peace in our time" invasion of Czechoslovakia History repeats itself, first as drama and then as comedy. This will be a dramatic comedy brought to your neighborhood by this President.
In 1938 Germany did not have all the armaments that they had in 1939. What changed? They got Czechoslovakia and all the Skoda tanks and heavy guns from the Czechs. Chamberlain made possible for Hitler to launch the attack on most of Europe thanks to the "Peace in our time" invasion of Czechoslovakia History repeats itself, first as drama and then as comedy. This will be a dramatic comedy brought to your neighborhood by this President.
1
So Secretary Ahab gets his white whale. But at what cost?
1
This is an astounding advancement for Middle East peace. It makes inroads in reducing a nuclear threat and demonstrates the strength of diplomacy and a united front among like-minded allies.
But it also shows what a strong U.S. President can do, even in the face of the ugliest collection of transparent bigots in Congress whose only goal remains the destruction of that President. But, despite them and a split Supreme Court, the nation still has a breakthrough national healthcare law, a breakthrough civil rights law and now a breakthrough Middle East diplomatic nuclear arms deal with a long-time enemy country. Think -- just think -- what this nation could accomplish if we had a reasonable, fair and ethical Congress!
But it also shows what a strong U.S. President can do, even in the face of the ugliest collection of transparent bigots in Congress whose only goal remains the destruction of that President. But, despite them and a split Supreme Court, the nation still has a breakthrough national healthcare law, a breakthrough civil rights law and now a breakthrough Middle East diplomatic nuclear arms deal with a long-time enemy country. Think -- just think -- what this nation could accomplish if we had a reasonable, fair and ethical Congress!
10
The preemptive attack on the deal by the Republicans -- the warmonger set -- is an engraved invitation to the next Middle Eastern war. Even the Israelis, who actually can manage a successful military operation, really don't want to give their sworn enemies to lob missiles into Israel. Should Iran get a bomb and lob it at Israel it's detonate within minutes because that's the distance it needs to travel.
3
And oil prices are dropping, dropping, dropping, putting more money into the pockets of Americans and, as in the fracking explosion, triggering an economic upturn. Let's keep our eyes on the prize, better economy for the mass of Americans. Iran getting a nuclear bomb in 10 years, who cares, Israel already has likely over 200 weapons, and their human rights record, as recorded by the UN, is far worse than Iran.
40
Their human rights record is not worse than Iran's. I care of Iran gets a bomb in ten years. I am against inexpensive fossil fuels. But I am for this treaty.
Iran will now be able to sell 2 million barrels of oil a day. Can you tell me whose pockets that goes into? The US is releasing billions of dollars of Iranian assets. How will they use them?
President Obama said that Iran should NEVER allowed to become a nuclear Iran. This ensures they will. Why did Obama say that if he had no intention of following through? More empty rhetoric by Obama?
How is this deal going to strengthen our economy. It's going to help countries Iike England, France, and the Scandanavian countries who see them as a good trading partner. If it helps us why didn't we lift the sanctions a long time ago to help stimulate the economy? I think you might look at the list of countries again. I don't think Israel murders and tortures political prisoners. Iran does. Iran's judicial system does not allow for witnesses and they will prevent a defendant in many cases from seeing their attorney before the trial. In Iran there is no appeal process. Does Israel stone women to death for committing adultery? Do they force young girls into arranged marriages? Commit honor killings? Refuse to allow women to speak in public? Have a job? Does Israel sponsor terrorism like Iran? Facts trump empty comments
President Obama said that Iran should NEVER allowed to become a nuclear Iran. This ensures they will. Why did Obama say that if he had no intention of following through? More empty rhetoric by Obama?
How is this deal going to strengthen our economy. It's going to help countries Iike England, France, and the Scandanavian countries who see them as a good trading partner. If it helps us why didn't we lift the sanctions a long time ago to help stimulate the economy? I think you might look at the list of countries again. I don't think Israel murders and tortures political prisoners. Iran does. Iran's judicial system does not allow for witnesses and they will prevent a defendant in many cases from seeing their attorney before the trial. In Iran there is no appeal process. Does Israel stone women to death for committing adultery? Do they force young girls into arranged marriages? Commit honor killings? Refuse to allow women to speak in public? Have a job? Does Israel sponsor terrorism like Iran? Facts trump empty comments
1
Last time I checked Israel was not US identified sponsor of state terrorism and does not hang gays or imprison American journalists.
2
How does Mr. Netanyahu get so much power and wisdom to rein over USA? Mr. Netanyahu chronologically violated all UN resolutions and still has the gut to criticize a historical deal orchestrated by six powerful, well thought and wise leaders of six nations under the umbrella of UN. Most of the GOP Presidential candidates in USA has the intelligence or the leadership to guide an independent views. Unfortunately, they are led by a foreign leader with political donations for the interest of Israel not USA.
46
Why did Obama interfere in Israel's election by sending over one of his key 2008 people to work with Netanyahu's opponent? Why did the State Department give $150,000 to a non profit whose main client was Netanyahu's opponent?
These well thought leaders? You do realize that Russia has illegally invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea? You do realize his goal is to restore Russia to the stature of the 60's-70s?" Russia will now be able to sell them arms, arms they can use against Israel and US soldiers in the region.
China? China get's to buy their oil and solidify them as a partner.
Isn't it interesting that 2 of these wise countries have some of the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world?
Since you condemn the money Israel supposedly gives do you also condemn the $50 million the Clinton Foundation received from foreign governments,
For example in 2013 they received between $1 million and $5 million from Qatar (the main financier of Hamas) Oman, Kuwait, UAE and Saudi Arabia? They have among the worst human rights records and they also practice Sharia law, which oppresses and abuses women. So your comments ring hollow but you anti Israel bias speaks loud and clear.
These well thought leaders? You do realize that Russia has illegally invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea? You do realize his goal is to restore Russia to the stature of the 60's-70s?" Russia will now be able to sell them arms, arms they can use against Israel and US soldiers in the region.
China? China get's to buy their oil and solidify them as a partner.
Isn't it interesting that 2 of these wise countries have some of the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world?
Since you condemn the money Israel supposedly gives do you also condemn the $50 million the Clinton Foundation received from foreign governments,
For example in 2013 they received between $1 million and $5 million from Qatar (the main financier of Hamas) Oman, Kuwait, UAE and Saudi Arabia? They have among the worst human rights records and they also practice Sharia law, which oppresses and abuses women. So your comments ring hollow but you anti Israel bias speaks loud and clear.
1
You might want to broaden your criticism, because much of the Democratic Party caucus is also in the hip pocket of AIPAC, drinking the same Israeli war-mongering Kool Aid as their GOP counterparts.
2
Yet again, another good example of bad logic. Israel is a fraction of the size of Iran and is the ONE and ONLY Jewish state. Our leaders in this country have shown miraculous fortitude against the biased UN that is anti-American and Anti-Israel; let's not forget that the UN has far more Muslim allies than does Israel who is now up against a regime that is closer to their masterpiece...destruction of a Jewish country in the M/E. Who knows...you would probably like that...
It is tiresome to keep hearing that no credible alternative was suggested by anyone. In fact it's a downright lie. How about keeping the sanctions in place and even tightening them? Internal pressure would have led to regime collapse. The EU and Merkel are tougher on Greece than we are with Iran. The happiest people on the planet? Assad, nasrallah, Khomeini, Putin... Democracy bows to tyranny. Amazingly shortsighted and stupid.
14
That was not a "credible alternative."
If we refused this reasonable deal, the states imposing the sanctions would have walked away.
"In fact it's a downright lie."
If we refused this reasonable deal, the states imposing the sanctions would have walked away.
"In fact it's a downright lie."
38
Yes, somehow "war" became the only other option. It seems to be based on a group's fear of war more than anything else. Fear is never a good basis for decision making when dealing with an adversary.
Nor is trying to justify one's Nobel Prize.
Nor is trying to justify one's Nobel Prize.
8
"It is tiresome to keep hearing that no credible alternative was suggested by anyone....The only reason sanctions worked is because the sanctions were world wide. The negotiations that were just completed were not carried out in isolation. They included and were agreed to by all five members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. You say "How about keeping the sanctions in place". That would require the continuing support from Russia, China, and a whole host of other countries. How do you propose to do that? "Keeping the sanctions in place and tightening them" unilaterally is not even a remotely credible alternative. Tiresome or not, all I hear is complaints, but I have not read anything the that is even close to a credible alternative and certainly not "keeping the sanctions in place."
3
Nonsense, we will be two steps closer to war, only fools could think otherwise.
19
Only the blind can't see that we are at war already and have just lost an important battle.
1
Let's hear it for the fools, who foolishly didn't want us to invade Iraq.
1
What an adorable little sound bite, uttered and conveyed as an absolute truth, yet with no proof points, facts, logic, reason, anything. Please, enlighten us fools specifically as to how this agreements is two steps to war.
I might oppose this plan for Bibi's sake if he submits Israel's nuclear weapons producing system to monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Otherwise, he just needs to be quiet.
Otherwise, he just needs to be quiet.
45
When US extends you a deal, take it. I think folks are mistaken in thinking that its a watered down deal. But the US is not just one President who calls shots (unlike what happens in a lot many Countries), but an amalgamation of independently working Institutions and Civic bodies.
US has the expertise to bring business acumen and increased trade to revitalize the economy in that part of the World.
As President Coolidge said "the chief business of the American people is business.". Economics should dictate deals; not disdain.
Finally, one would be a fool to break the terms of a deal with the US.
US has the expertise to bring business acumen and increased trade to revitalize the economy in that part of the World.
As President Coolidge said "the chief business of the American people is business.". Economics should dictate deals; not disdain.
Finally, one would be a fool to break the terms of a deal with the US.
10
Joking, right? North Korea?
2
I am taken aback by this editorial.
The deal delays Iran's ability to produce a nuclear bomb by maybe six months. And this is provided we have adequate access and they don't develop better centrifuges. In exchange they will get massive economic and military technology benefits so that they can cause more damage throughout the world.
Terrorists do not have a united front, but Iran is on the wrong side of terror. Iran is also on the wrong side of repression and progress.
The Iran deal brought was a victory for the dark side and for the personal vanity of western politicians.
The deal delays Iran's ability to produce a nuclear bomb by maybe six months. And this is provided we have adequate access and they don't develop better centrifuges. In exchange they will get massive economic and military technology benefits so that they can cause more damage throughout the world.
Terrorists do not have a united front, but Iran is on the wrong side of terror. Iran is also on the wrong side of repression and progress.
The Iran deal brought was a victory for the dark side and for the personal vanity of western politicians.
15
No, it extends breakout risk by nine months. It puts off that risk for years.
That gives time to make peace. Some don't want peace of course, but that is a separate problem we will need to deal with soon.
That gives time to make peace. Some don't want peace of course, but that is a separate problem we will need to deal with soon.
38
Well said, James! There's a reason people are parading in the streets of Tehran. They got over on us.
" All we are saying, is give Peace a chance". - John Lennon
13
We have given peace a chance. It doesn't work with the likes of Iran. J L's comment reminds me of what LBJ said about burning candles and singing Kumbay--"Like peeing in your pants; gives you a nice warm feeling, but doesn't accomplish very much.
This great news! An historic event. But we must be aware of efforts by our bought Congress to torpedo it.
For starters why is it that Israel is able to bar international inspection of its Dimona nuclear reactor, refuses to sign the international nuclear nonproliferation agreement or join the IAEA, yet demands (with a straight face) that Iran be more transparent in revealing its nuclear program? The hypocrisy here is breathtaking. Yet we blithely permit the AIPAC, the lobby for a foreign government, to buy our hands-out-all-the-time Congress to fight approval of this historic measure whereby Iran agrees to temper its nuclear energy program.
If, as I fervently hope, this deal is approved & implemented, it should be followed by an international conference with the ultimate end of creating a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In the near term, such a notion appears fanciful, as Mr. Netanyahu and his Likud partners would bitterly resist any move in that direction. That said, the notion of creating a nuclear-free zone should be pursued as a long-term goal of U.S. Middle East policy.
For starters why is it that Israel is able to bar international inspection of its Dimona nuclear reactor, refuses to sign the international nuclear nonproliferation agreement or join the IAEA, yet demands (with a straight face) that Iran be more transparent in revealing its nuclear program? The hypocrisy here is breathtaking. Yet we blithely permit the AIPAC, the lobby for a foreign government, to buy our hands-out-all-the-time Congress to fight approval of this historic measure whereby Iran agrees to temper its nuclear energy program.
If, as I fervently hope, this deal is approved & implemented, it should be followed by an international conference with the ultimate end of creating a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In the near term, such a notion appears fanciful, as Mr. Netanyahu and his Likud partners would bitterly resist any move in that direction. That said, the notion of creating a nuclear-free zone should be pursued as a long-term goal of U.S. Middle East policy.
39
As a long-time supporter of Israel, I second the notion of a nuclear-free Middle East. The problem is, I don't think Israel's neighbors have given Israel any reason to trust them over the years, and Israel's nukes, sad as it seems, are probably the only thing preventing another invasion such as the one Israel suffered in 1973.
1
A real tongue-in-cheek moment... Since Iran was pursuing their "peaceful" nuclear program even with sanctions in place, it's nice to have at least an ostensible halt to that program, even if it is a bit weak. It's kind of like being on the Titanic. You can't stay on the boat and there aren't any rafts left so you jump in the water out of necessity. Of course the water will eventually kill you too, but faced with the immediate danger of drowning below deck, you choose to take your chances with hypothermia and hope you can improve the situation with the extra time it grants you. So yeah, take the ice bath that is Iran for now just to get off the sinking ship and keep my eyes peeled for a rescue boat once I'm off the sinking ship. Am I comfortable? No! But at least I'm not drowning in the abyss.
15
It is time now for the civilized world to denuclearize Pakistan and ask the Saudis to behave.
3
Like Obama's vow to sit down and settle all differences with Akmadinejad. I have a bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in buying.
"Details of the agreement still must be scrutinized, but as described by Mr. Obama and other officials..."
****
Thanks, but I'll wait for scrutinization. Too many are too anxious to believe and/or too anxious about war to see this objectively.
Quite frankly, whenever Obama is involved people lose their objectivity, relying solely on his judgment, which we've found to falter. This is one time where faltering is quite dangerous.
****
Thanks, but I'll wait for scrutinization. Too many are too anxious to believe and/or too anxious about war to see this objectively.
Quite frankly, whenever Obama is involved people lose their objectivity, relying solely on his judgment, which we've found to falter. This is one time where faltering is quite dangerous.
10
@AACNY: "Quite frankly, whenever Obama is involved people lose their objectivity,"
That's certainly true in your case, AACNY.
That's certainly true in your case, AACNY.
11
Feel that way about the UK and Merkel too? All losing their heads to Obama?
Got git 'em, tiger. Don't falter; fare fiercely forward. Jist maybe ease up on demanding that the rest of us go fight while you stay home and bluster.
This deal isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It is not a road to peace it is a road to giving Iran billions of dollars and weapons from Russia, so they will control most of the Middle East by the end of the decade. Obama and Kerry are as smart as Curly and Moe. The only winner is Putin. We could have done better by selling the nukes to Iran ourselves. Netanyahu was correct in his opinion of this deal, it's a shame our President chose not to listen to him. But then again Obama hates America and this deal is fine with him. It gives our enemy what it wants. Four days ago the Supreme leader of Iran attended a rally where they burned the Israelly flag and U.S, Flag and chanted Death to America and Israel. Great people to make a deal with!!
9
Feel free to go enlist in the Israeli Defence Force. You want war have at it.
Think the Iranians are angry that we deposed their democratically elected government, installed our preferred dictator, armed Saddam Hussein to fight them, gave Saddam Hussein satellite imagery to improve his use of chemical WMD's on Iran, shot down Iran Air 655, killing 290 civilians, 66 of them children, that we cyber nuked Iran and are currently trying to starve Iran?
Think the Iranians are angry that we deposed their democratically elected government, installed our preferred dictator, armed Saddam Hussein to fight them, gave Saddam Hussein satellite imagery to improve his use of chemical WMD's on Iran, shot down Iran Air 655, killing 290 civilians, 66 of them children, that we cyber nuked Iran and are currently trying to starve Iran?
49
"But then again Obama hates America..." And with that you give the game away. You nuked your own argument. But then Obama hates America. Please exchange your toxic waste for something productive. Like reason.
61
The truth is Russia does not want Iran with nuclear arms either. They have restive Moslem minorities that might get one some day from Iran and use it. Ditto for China. As for selling conventional weapons to Iran, the U.S. can hardly point fingers as we are the biggest arms producers/merchants on the planet and have armed many brutal dictators worldwide with advanced weapons systems. Russia has three client states that are on Iran's border and can and does and will trade anything they like with the Persians----and there is nothing we can do about it. I was concerned about Russia supplying Iran with the most advanced air defense missile system on earth until a friend of mine who worked for years in military intelligence told me the truth. The Russians will supply a system. In the event of a full scale aerial bombardment it is highly unlikely the system will work properly. This is because the Russians are not fools and want the money for these sophisticated armaments but do not want them to really work in case Iran's nuclear and other military facilities have to be "taken out" one day to forestall them from acquiring atomic bombs. Makes sense to me. What the U.S. needs to do is get serious about making real peace with Russia over this simmering Ukrainian imbroglio and get Russia's help in keeping Iran in line, containing North Korea, controlling China's imperial ambitions, and ending the civil war in Syria. Peace with Russia is imperative for genuine international cooperation.
3
It's funny that today some Republicans are talking as if Iran only just today acquired the means to build a bomb with this agreement. After years of sounding the alarm over Iran's imminent nuclear bomb threat, you would think listening to them that it all started with this agreement. Even more rich, when I've heard some pressed on what they would have done instead, I've heard a few insist that they would have made a tougher bargain. And yet, the same critics who say that they would have been tougher negotiators are the same ones who were screaming bloody murder when Obama opened talks in the first place. They are the ones who insisted all up and down that we should have never been talking to the Iranians at all. Now they assure us that they wouldn't go to war with Iran, they would just talk harder. They better watch out, they may find themselves in the President's chair one day, where real tough choices have to be made, difficult realities have to be faces, and criticizing everything won't cut.
176
They found themselves in that chair in 2000. That led to 9/11, war in Afghanistan and war in Iraq. All thanks to the same Republicans who oppose this negotiated deal.
1
So Henry Kissinger doesn't like the deal. What would you have us do instead Mr. Kissinger? Bomb Iran? You do have a lot of experience bombing countries. How did that work out in Vietnam and Cambodia?
57
Trust and verify.
Two words that were always redacted from Henry Kissinger's playbook.
Two words that were always redacted from Henry Kissinger's playbook.
The Times Editorial Board did get something right, this is the "final deal with Iran." Why would the Islamic Republic need to return to the negotiating table after flogging John Kerry and President Clueless into submission?
Iran got everything they want.
America got a brand new nuclear threat from the world's #1 sponsor of Islamic terror.
Forgive me if I'm not dancing in the streets of Washington with the rest of the clueless liberals.
Iran got everything they want.
America got a brand new nuclear threat from the world's #1 sponsor of Islamic terror.
Forgive me if I'm not dancing in the streets of Washington with the rest of the clueless liberals.
14
Please suggest a better alternative....if you have one.
4
You're never, ever going to take the time to find out what the actual deal was, are ya? Figures.
Hey, didja know that Ronald Reagan cut an illegal deal with iran's terrorists, trading arms for hostages so he could finance death squads in Latin America?
Just makes yer heart SWELL with pride, don't it?
Hey, didja know that Ronald Reagan cut an illegal deal with iran's terrorists, trading arms for hostages so he could finance death squads in Latin America?
Just makes yer heart SWELL with pride, don't it?
I am sure, Mr. DC Attorney, you will be the first to sign up or have you loved ones sign up to join the military in a war against Iran, am I right?
Despite the obstructionist braying of the GOP, it is very clear that any more pressure on Iran would simply have broken the talks down, with Iran hunkering and charging ahead. Yes...Israel, or (unlikely) even we might have tried to take out their facilities, probably unsuccessfully and we would have entered a whole new chapter of war in the middle east. With this agreement, the most cynical interpretation is that nothing has changed except that we have more space and time within which to decide on bombing and war if and when we have a hint that they are cheating. Iran may suddenly have a bomb, 10-20 years from now, but they will never suddenly find themselves in a position to actually use it with any chance of "success." Congratulations Mr. President!!!!
18
Peace in our time. Also a deal that "reduced the chances of war". Did the New York Times write an editorial hailing that one as well?
13
Nobody in the world today his Hitler, than God. No nation is a rearmed and furious world power of the first rank as was Germany, much less led by a Hitler.
It isn't 1938.
Anyway, in 1938 Britain had no antiaircraft ammo, no modern fighters yet designed much less built, was still experimenting with radar, it's navy had not yet taken delivery of even one of its new or modernized ships, and much more of the same. The Admiralty had warned against war with Mussolini, because Britain didn't have the means even for that.
Chamberlain also changed that, with a massive re-armament program that produced everything with which Britain prevailed.
So while his words were mistaken, his policy was sound.
It isn't 1938.
Anyway, in 1938 Britain had no antiaircraft ammo, no modern fighters yet designed much less built, was still experimenting with radar, it's navy had not yet taken delivery of even one of its new or modernized ships, and much more of the same. The Admiralty had warned against war with Mussolini, because Britain didn't have the means even for that.
Chamberlain also changed that, with a massive re-armament program that produced everything with which Britain prevailed.
So while his words were mistaken, his policy was sound.
15
EXACTLY!!!! We are not weak Britain (and France) of 1938.
So why do we kow-tow to the mullahs - who ARE weak?
Why are we making them stronger when we are so much more powerful?
Mr. Thomason, your own response provides good ammunition against your erroneous view of this deal. Thank you for that.
So why do we kow-tow to the mullahs - who ARE weak?
Why are we making them stronger when we are so much more powerful?
Mr. Thomason, your own response provides good ammunition against your erroneous view of this deal. Thank you for that.
1
Unlike 1938 Britain, Israel and the U.S. have nuclear weapons. I don't see a repeat of the Blitz.
3
If this deal had been made by a President McCain or Romney, Republicans would be hailing it as a triumph of American economic power, and point out that a terrorist state was going to be forced to allow nuclear inspections for 10 years. This would be hailed as a gift to the state of Israel from it's American friends - let your children sleep better for the next decade.
Of course the President's name is Obama, so we will get more "the sky will fall" rhetoric, just like we did with Obamacare. But they were wrong then, just as they are now.
Of course the President's name is Obama, so we will get more "the sky will fall" rhetoric, just like we did with Obamacare. But they were wrong then, just as they are now.
64
Your first paragraph is nonsense. It would never happen. It even sounds ridiculous. It frankly, sorry to say, says more about you than about the Republicans.
By the way, it's "its American friends" not "it's".
By the way, it's "its American friends" not "it's".
1
None of the Republicans you mentioned would have signed on to this idiotic agreement.
1
Hypotheticals don't happen in the real world. Capitulation, however does.
1
A pragmatic way of evaluating the Iran deal is to listen to the assessment of the deal by the P 5+1 & Israel ; excluding the [possible] bad actors (China & Russia) and those who have too much to loose or gain ( America & Israel).
Britain's Prime Minister, David Cameron, described the deal with Iran as historic, saying it "secures our fundamental aim — to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon — and that will help to make our world a safer place."
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told Le Monde that the agreement was "sufficiently robust" to last for the next decade and beyond.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the agreement provides a "realistic chance of overcoming one of the most difficult international conflicts through diplomatic means" and brings much closer the goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
These three [impartial] key players point to the deal being a "good" one, but only time will tell.
Britain's Prime Minister, David Cameron, described the deal with Iran as historic, saying it "secures our fundamental aim — to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon — and that will help to make our world a safer place."
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told Le Monde that the agreement was "sufficiently robust" to last for the next decade and beyond.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the agreement provides a "realistic chance of overcoming one of the most difficult international conflicts through diplomatic means" and brings much closer the goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
These three [impartial] key players point to the deal being a "good" one, but only time will tell.
20
Yes -- this comment is exactly right.
These are European bureaucrats.
1
We are about to agree to start of a nuclear arms race in Middle East. The Saudi's will not be denied nuclear capacity when the terrorist state of Iran is allowed to have it. The have the money to buy the technology and jump to the race to the bomb, which will cause Iran to break the agreement in a few years. The Iranians will site the Saudi's as the reason, they will have the money they need by then and the ability to impose sanctions by the major powers will be lost in the grey zone of international politics. We will choose to ignore the Saudi program and Russia and china will ignore the Iranian violations. The world will be a more dangerous place. All so Obama can satisfy his need for a legacy.
7
The last time anyone noticed is that any significant sponsored acts of terrorism came not from Iran, but from Saudi Arabia.
But don't let that simple fact get in the way of your anti-Iranian and anti-Obama screed....
But don't let that simple fact get in the way of your anti-Iranian and anti-Obama screed....
Iran was already developing nukes for years before this agreement, so there's no more reason now than previously for the Saudis to start developing them. Whether they will is anyone's guess, but this agreement doesn't change anything on that front by itself.
"Blessed are the peacemakers," not the least among them our President.
41
"And they shall cry 'peace, peace,' but there shall be no peace."
1938 Munich Agreement, Neville Chamberlain - "Peace in our time..."
"Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana
"Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana
16
As I recall, that was what many Conservatives said about Reagan after his agreements with the USSR in the late 80s, though most try to write that out of the history these days.
13
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling"- Chicken Little.
20
Because something was a mistake in some form, at some point in time and some place does not mean that it will always and in every place be a mistake. To simplify and generalize to this extent simply demonstrates the poverty of this retort.
20
The onus is now on the Obama administration to show a steely resolve in front of any Iranian fanning of the flames of sectarian strife in the Middle East. And above all, to avoid a conflagration between Hezbollah and Israel that would result in the destruction of Lebanon and the spreading of the present chaos.
Otherwise, Obama's legacy will end up being one of appeasement and not of peace.
Otherwise, Obama's legacy will end up being one of appeasement and not of peace.
2
Republicans running for the Presidency, and in the Congress, seem to have full knowledge of the agreement, its stipulations, and how it manages Iran's nuclear facilities into the future. They have quickly and roundly condemned the effort.
My questions are where did they get their inside information? How can it be that they and the Prime Minister of Israel know that this agreement is a sell out to Iran? Or could they be working with a particular political mindset and a particular goal? Or could it be that they no nothing about which they speak? I wonder?
My questions are where did they get their inside information? How can it be that they and the Prime Minister of Israel know that this agreement is a sell out to Iran? Or could they be working with a particular political mindset and a particular goal? Or could it be that they no nothing about which they speak? I wonder?
6
Based on prior negotiations, it is safe to assume that Obama & Co have deceived Americans rather than deceiving Iranians. Add to that there is no teeth in the verification process, there is a 14 day waiting period for any "request" for inspections, and the Iranians can simply say no and still abide by the agreement, I think it's safe to say Obama has treated the greatest terror threat in the world better than the Americans still in prison in Iraq that he failed to secure the release of.
2
Well, by golly, you seem to also have an inner line into the fine print of this agreement. Where'd you get it? Wikipedia?
The Republican noise machine will always be condemning this deal with Iran. The problem for them is and has always been that their anti-Obama hyperbole on almost every public issue diminishes the strength of whatever argument they might have raised as legitimate concerns. So, instead of tough-minded analysis, we have yet another act in this ongoing theater of the absurd.
As the Times so often has pointed out, the president's political opponents offer nothing in the way of constructive alternatives. Instead, they offer unrestrained belligerence, bombast, and precious little else in the way of a plan for how to respond if the agreement were to ultimately fail. We have already experienced how Republicans' ideology-inspired wars have gone. If nothing else, Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated the futility of unilateral action, unhinged from any closely held national interest.
This is the latest of numerous issues in which Republicans opposed the president, and which they have thus far lost. The issues might be different, but their emotional tantrums and tirades have remained very much a piece with how they see the president. Instead facts and reasoned argument, they offer up religious platitudes, nationalistic slogans, disingenuous spin, and partisan invective.
With no fewer than 15 announced Republican presidential candidates, I would've thought that at least one would have had the courage and good sense to come up with realistic alternatives that others could agree on.
As the Times so often has pointed out, the president's political opponents offer nothing in the way of constructive alternatives. Instead, they offer unrestrained belligerence, bombast, and precious little else in the way of a plan for how to respond if the agreement were to ultimately fail. We have already experienced how Republicans' ideology-inspired wars have gone. If nothing else, Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated the futility of unilateral action, unhinged from any closely held national interest.
This is the latest of numerous issues in which Republicans opposed the president, and which they have thus far lost. The issues might be different, but their emotional tantrums and tirades have remained very much a piece with how they see the president. Instead facts and reasoned argument, they offer up religious platitudes, nationalistic slogans, disingenuous spin, and partisan invective.
With no fewer than 15 announced Republican presidential candidates, I would've thought that at least one would have had the courage and good sense to come up with realistic alternatives that others could agree on.
24
Arthur Silen Davis California
The Republican noise machine...
*****
If ONLY this were about republicans. It's so easy to make it about them and deflect attention, right? The thought that people are going to support this deal because republicans don't is unsettling.
The Republican noise machine...
*****
If ONLY this were about republicans. It's so easy to make it about them and deflect attention, right? The thought that people are going to support this deal because republicans don't is unsettling.
Most people who would be willing to support the agreement will do so for the reasons that the president and his negotiating team have publicly stated. There may be any number of reasons to support the proposed agreement that the president and his envoy have not mentioned, but that's not part of the public record. What counts is whether people have confidence in the president and in his ability to negotiate a significant agreement that promises long-term benefits to the United States and others.
Those opposing the deal have offered nothing more than scare tactics, questionable assumptions based on made-up facts, slippery slope arguments, and arguments that our president is an utter incompetent, or someone who harbors a secret malevolent purpose against this country. At bottom, that worldview holds the president is inherently untrustworthy, and should not be believed under any circumstances, based upon who he is as a person.
That is the worldview of Donald Trump, and those to whom Trump has been pandering as long as Obama has been president. Neither Trump nor any of his fellow candidates has offered up a coherent reason to oppose the president, nor do any of them propose a viable alternative. It's all armchair quarterbacking by people who should know better. They have been consistently wrong on every significant foreign policy issue going back decades. These are not serious people. Why should the rest of us pay any attention to any of them?
Those opposing the deal have offered nothing more than scare tactics, questionable assumptions based on made-up facts, slippery slope arguments, and arguments that our president is an utter incompetent, or someone who harbors a secret malevolent purpose against this country. At bottom, that worldview holds the president is inherently untrustworthy, and should not be believed under any circumstances, based upon who he is as a person.
That is the worldview of Donald Trump, and those to whom Trump has been pandering as long as Obama has been president. Neither Trump nor any of his fellow candidates has offered up a coherent reason to oppose the president, nor do any of them propose a viable alternative. It's all armchair quarterbacking by people who should know better. They have been consistently wrong on every significant foreign policy issue going back decades. These are not serious people. Why should the rest of us pay any attention to any of them?
This is a sad day for the Military Industrial complex.
One less enemy, one less boogeyman, to keep the average American scared, so that tax money can used to benefit the purveyors of death.
This President is killing us.
Maybe, we can now sell fighter planes to Iran. That won't be so bad after all.
One less enemy, one less boogeyman, to keep the average American scared, so that tax money can used to benefit the purveyors of death.
This President is killing us.
Maybe, we can now sell fighter planes to Iran. That won't be so bad after all.
6
No agreement is worth the paper it's written on--unless both parties want what is contained in the agreement. The West wants Iran to discontinue its development of nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't want to discontinue development of nuclear weapons. Instead, Iran wants the end of crippling sanctions. Once they achieve that goal, they will still want nuclear weapons--and will continue to develop them--in secret, of course.
Iran has historically shown us only hatred and deceit--and we should not trust them. It looks like we have fallen into that trap, however--and once again will be outmaneuvered on the world stage.
Iran has historically shown us only hatred and deceit--and we should not trust them. It looks like we have fallen into that trap, however--and once again will be outmaneuvered on the world stage.
32
You might want to bone up on history, Jessie. Look up 1953 clout d'état in Iran ad then get back to us about who should trust who and why.
6
@Dave Hearn, ahhhh yes. Spoken like someone who plays only on the left side of the field--and who only reads negative (or revisionist) history of this great nation.
I'm wondering...how do you interpret these events of the past?
The liberation of Europe--not once, but twice by American Soldiers.
The liberation of the Philippines--from the Spanish and Japanese
The liberation of South Korea
The liberation of Panama--from Noriega
The liberation of Grenada
The Berlin Air Lift
Our protection of Taiwan (from China)
Can you find anything about this country to like--or be proud of--other than the election of Obama--or the campaign of Bernie Sanders?
I'm wondering...how do you interpret these events of the past?
The liberation of Europe--not once, but twice by American Soldiers.
The liberation of the Philippines--from the Spanish and Japanese
The liberation of South Korea
The liberation of Panama--from Noriega
The liberation of Grenada
The Berlin Air Lift
Our protection of Taiwan (from China)
Can you find anything about this country to like--or be proud of--other than the election of Obama--or the campaign of Bernie Sanders?
2
Jesse, what would your solution be? Not trying to be provocative, but I haven't seen or read about any reasonable alternative plan.
We don’t have any problem with the Iranian government.
Only the Iranian people might have the problems with the Ayatollahs. They don’t know how to end up a 14-century-old conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites.
If you don’t know how to end such a bloodshed, never dare to declare self as any kind of theological expert.
The true experts know how to make the people live in peace. You don’t even have to be a theologian.
Just have a look at Josip Broz Tito, the former leader of ex-Yugoslavia. He inherited at the beginning of the WWII the bloodsheds among the local population divided between six republics, five nations, four religions, three languages and two alphabets.
Do you know how he pacified and united them? With a single great idea.
Some called it the communism. No, it wasn’t the communism at all. He united them before the communism eventually grabbed the power.
He united them with the pure faith and love for the neighbors free of any clerical involvement.
Additionally, he had to fight against the German Nazis and the Italian fascists to liberate his country.
Do you know how long it took him to accomplish all the above?
A mere four years.
That’s how badly the Ayatollahs misunderstand the true faith. Fourteen centuries gone and no results.
However, we have the problem with the Netanyahu’s government. He sees his first neighbors as crazy enough to destroy the entire world. He even sees his friends here in America as untrustworthy and naïve...
Only the Iranian people might have the problems with the Ayatollahs. They don’t know how to end up a 14-century-old conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites.
If you don’t know how to end such a bloodshed, never dare to declare self as any kind of theological expert.
The true experts know how to make the people live in peace. You don’t even have to be a theologian.
Just have a look at Josip Broz Tito, the former leader of ex-Yugoslavia. He inherited at the beginning of the WWII the bloodsheds among the local population divided between six republics, five nations, four religions, three languages and two alphabets.
Do you know how he pacified and united them? With a single great idea.
Some called it the communism. No, it wasn’t the communism at all. He united them before the communism eventually grabbed the power.
He united them with the pure faith and love for the neighbors free of any clerical involvement.
Additionally, he had to fight against the German Nazis and the Italian fascists to liberate his country.
Do you know how long it took him to accomplish all the above?
A mere four years.
That’s how badly the Ayatollahs misunderstand the true faith. Fourteen centuries gone and no results.
However, we have the problem with the Netanyahu’s government. He sees his first neighbors as crazy enough to destroy the entire world. He even sees his friends here in America as untrustworthy and naïve...
1
See, after Tito’s death and without his leadership skills, the communism still stayed in power, but the true faith and love for the neighbors were under the fierce attack.
They were slowly substituted with idolatry for the specific nations and soon the true faith was replaced with the pure hatred.
The communism was still an official form of ex-Yugoslavia but the important stuff was gone.
That’s the problem with the Sunnis and the Shiites in the Middle East too.
The forms, rituals and dogma have replaced the very substance of the faith.
The allegiance is to the clergy, not to the principles.
The principles mandate that you love all your neighbors. The clergy is pushing you to fight and/or ethnically cleanse them.
The Ayatollahs who cannot understand what’s happening across the Middle East don’t deserve to be in the leadership position.
They just hurt the people who blindly follow them.
The problem is not in the nuclear energy but in misunderstanding of the true faith.
If they don’t love all their neighbors, they shouldn’t construe themselves as the believers at all.
Faith is determined by the principles we follow and implement, not by our words.
By the way, determining who the infidels is none of our businesses. It’s not our prerogative or right to determine.
Similarly, when the ISIS claims they are fighting the infidels they ignore and spit on the very fundamentals of the faith...
They were slowly substituted with idolatry for the specific nations and soon the true faith was replaced with the pure hatred.
The communism was still an official form of ex-Yugoslavia but the important stuff was gone.
That’s the problem with the Sunnis and the Shiites in the Middle East too.
The forms, rituals and dogma have replaced the very substance of the faith.
The allegiance is to the clergy, not to the principles.
The principles mandate that you love all your neighbors. The clergy is pushing you to fight and/or ethnically cleanse them.
The Ayatollahs who cannot understand what’s happening across the Middle East don’t deserve to be in the leadership position.
They just hurt the people who blindly follow them.
The problem is not in the nuclear energy but in misunderstanding of the true faith.
If they don’t love all their neighbors, they shouldn’t construe themselves as the believers at all.
Faith is determined by the principles we follow and implement, not by our words.
By the way, determining who the infidels is none of our businesses. It’s not our prerogative or right to determine.
Similarly, when the ISIS claims they are fighting the infidels they ignore and spit on the very fundamentals of the faith...
John Boehner and his Congressional fellow-hicks seem to labor under the illusion that a vote by Congress to block the nuclear agreement with Iran, part of the Republican program to obstruct anything President Obama does even if it's in the US national interest, will keep Iran under sanctions. Sanctions depend on participation by the European Union and Russia, which need pay no attention to the antics of the US Congress. If Iran honors the agreement, Europe and Russia will end their sanctions. Boehner's threat is empty.
21
Just as the Republicans have become such knee-jerk opponents of everything Obama does that they can't be trusted, the New York Times is such a knee-jerk Obama loyalist that it cannot be trusted.
6
THe Islamic Republic has promised not to make nuclear weapons in the next seven years.
Truly, this is peace in our time.
Truly, this is peace in our time.
7
Could you have negotiated a better agreement? Perfection wasn't on the menu,
Notwithstanding the bizarre notion that a nuclear-armed Iran will be transformed into a warmongering bully, and not any more ominous than say Pakistan,North Korea (or Israel), the deal to phase out sanctions in exchange for dramatically delaying achievement a goal that it professes it will never seek, is a net win for Iran. This deal is a face-saving way for the the U.S. to bring Iran's oil back into play on the world market.
3
The deal gives Iran time and money, by lifting sanctions, to produce a "beat the band" WMD Nuke program and to develop the ability to hit any location in the Middle East and maybe Europe with their Nukes. Any nation that will be within striking distance of Iran when they do get their hands on Nukes in large quantities should arm themselves before that happens or they will be at Iran's mercy. Iran is not a merciful country so you all who know who you are better get moving on your Nuke programs so they are ready to meet the threat.
2
Iran hasn't attacked or invaded anyone in over a century, the real problem is Israel's nukes, they will not sign the non Proliferation agreement., inspectors are needed to see what they are hiding. There is a strange psychosis that international law does not apply Israel.
1
The goal of these negotiations was to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. What we've got instead is, at best, a delay in a nuclear armed Iran by a mere 10 years. In exchange for a nuclear armed Iran 10 years from now, we've given up everything. The sanctions get lifted. The restrictions on weapons sales get lifted. Iran hasn't released any of the Americans being held over there. Iran has not made any moves to stop financing global terrorism. This is a huge win for Iran and massive loss for the US and our allies in the region.
6
This is encouraging news. Let us create a world where future generations can live without constant threat of doomsday wars. That said, the people who profit from never-ending war are not going to be happy about this and I fear they will stop at NOTHING to prevent an outbreak of peace.
12
What do the Republicans want. To keep a nation forever under US sanctions? This is an unfair proposition and no doubt all the other nations of the world simply will not comply with unfair demands of the American right.
14
You are incorrect. They are also under UN sanctions for an arms embargo that continues for 7-10 years. UN is ore than just the US isn't it? Can you tell how much participation your country made to the negotiations? Were they one of the negotiations? If not, how can you criticize the American right as you call it when your own country was not part of the process.
Another possible feather in the cap of Pres. Obama!
It sounds good. However, I am strictly against the US playing policeman to the world. Yes, with great power comes great responsibility, but we spend too much on this and need to address our own issues. Terrorists call us to battle in foreign lands, but I don't think we ought to join the fight... But please let us improve our airport security -- Israel does a wonderful job with this, why can't we?
It sounds good. However, I am strictly against the US playing policeman to the world. Yes, with great power comes great responsibility, but we spend too much on this and need to address our own issues. Terrorists call us to battle in foreign lands, but I don't think we ought to join the fight... But please let us improve our airport security -- Israel does a wonderful job with this, why can't we?
Based on what the President and Secretary promised, it appears the deal falls way short. These men promised - over and over again - a result that PREVENTED Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. This deal doesn't do that. These men promised - assured the American people - that inspections would be ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. This deal uses the fudge words "as necessary" instead, which are very different from inspections anytime, anywhere. I could go on. You get the idea.
Perhaps we could get no other result and this is the best we could do. But then you have to ask yourself, what did we give up? If little, then okay. But, I'm afraid we gave up quite a bit by lifting onerous sanctions.
So, did we reduce the chances of a war? I don't think so. It's naive to think so. The President, Mr. Kerry and the NYTEB are naive. And once again the President made false promises.
Perhaps we could get no other result and this is the best we could do. But then you have to ask yourself, what did we give up? If little, then okay. But, I'm afraid we gave up quite a bit by lifting onerous sanctions.
So, did we reduce the chances of a war? I don't think so. It's naive to think so. The President, Mr. Kerry and the NYTEB are naive. And once again the President made false promises.
8
For me, as a progressive, President Obama has largely been a major disappointment, but I believe that this agreement is a profound achievement, likely the greatest of his presidency. It has taken courage and determination, and a willingness to stand up to the bullies in the Republican Party and in Jerusalem, for whom war is the solution to all problems.
10
Forget the Republicans. Heck, Mr. Kerry (and his chief negotiator who "stopped" North Korea from getting a nuclear bomb) didn't even stand up to the bullies from Iran at the negotiating table.
3
Netanyahu has claimed for over 20 years Iran was months away...
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-cr...
The fact that Americans don't know this - should also tell you something about how the media covers Israel and Israel's 'enemies'.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-cr...
The fact that Americans don't know this - should also tell you something about how the media covers Israel and Israel's 'enemies'.
5
War and peace; Obama choses peace, his opponents, haters, chose confrontations and wars. Let the truth and peace prevail.
14
Netanyahu. He's afraid of Iran. Scared to death. His tough guy posture is a joke. Great job, Obama, Kerry and co. I'm proud to be an American with this great President. I accept the Iranian people as people.
27
The US relationships with Iran must be one of the biggest mistakes the US has made in Foreverstan (the Middle East as a whole) in the last 35 years. Look at what we have done. We gave money and support to our good buddy Saddam Hussein in the 1980's to invade Iran, causing hundreds of thousands of Iranian and Iraqi casualties. We have murdered their scientists around the world. We have hacked their computer systems, disrupting their economy and government. We have embargoed them denying their citizens basic supplies and services. We have labelled them as 'terrorists' for supporting civil wars in Lebanon and Yemen, while our good friends Pakistan and Saudi Arabia provide weapons and support to Al Queda, ISIS, and the Taliban, all of whom are mortal enemies of Iran.
Have these been essential elements of our 'winning' wars in Foreverstan? LOL. Rather, it does make you cry, doesn't it? Our wars in Foreverstan will continue and our stupidity concerning Iran will continue. What a shame.
Have these been essential elements of our 'winning' wars in Foreverstan? LOL. Rather, it does make you cry, doesn't it? Our wars in Foreverstan will continue and our stupidity concerning Iran will continue. What a shame.
8
the alternative of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities was never realistic in the wake of the second Iraq war. the best aspect of this deal appears to be the restriction on warhead research. that said, the deal doesn't slowdown the accumulating Iranian expertise on producing bomb-grade fuel; in particular, the agreement directly acknowledges that Iran will continue research on higher capacity centrifuges that will render the "two-thirds" reduction irrelevant. while not well-reported (including in the nyt), it appears that the ability to have unrestricted inspection access trumpeted in the tentative deal is gone and replaced with the requirement for Iran to move its centrifuges to facilities that are subject to inspection. this is hardly comforting since who knows what Iran will be up to in its military facilities.
yet, as much lack enthusiasm for this deal its close to the best that was possible, given that for the sanctions to really work they must be international. so even if the U.S. wanted to walk away and continue sanctions, the Russians, Chinese and probably even the EU would've not followed. The lack of unity on continuation of sanctions provided Iran the leverage it needed to negotiate a deal in its favor.
so when viewed in the light of what is possible, Congress should support this deal unless they have some leverage with the Russians, Chinese and EU that President Obama does not.
yet, as much lack enthusiasm for this deal its close to the best that was possible, given that for the sanctions to really work they must be international. so even if the U.S. wanted to walk away and continue sanctions, the Russians, Chinese and probably even the EU would've not followed. The lack of unity on continuation of sanctions provided Iran the leverage it needed to negotiate a deal in its favor.
so when viewed in the light of what is possible, Congress should support this deal unless they have some leverage with the Russians, Chinese and EU that President Obama does not.
3
"the deal doesn't slowdown the accumulating Iranian expertise on producing bomb-grade fuel"
At the risk of inviting C.I.A. scrutiny, one can Google how to make a nuclear weapon and each of its components. It's been established science for several decades.
At the risk of inviting C.I.A. scrutiny, one can Google how to make a nuclear weapon and each of its components. It's been established science for several decades.
Obama caved on every single requirement he originally declared Iran must accept. He lost. Iran won, on every 'demand'. The Three Stooges could have negotiated a better deal for America and it's allies than the stooge in the White House and his knee padded minions. The alternative is not war, as the hustler squeals, but, as Carly Fiorina proposes, a shut down of Iran's ability to use international banking, which could drive them to their knees, rendering their daily screams of 'Death to America' meaningless drivel.
9
No. Actually Iran capitulated on everything. Oh and this is not our agreement only. It belongs as well to the EU Russia China France Britain and through the EU to Germany. It belongs to all the worlds great powers. Get over your hatred of this president and join the rest of the world. There's no future in being old, white and angry.
12
Ah, by all means let us draw on the expertise of a jumped-up secretary who ran HP into a tree, got canned, has never been elected to anything, has never done jack by way of education...you know what?
Go pull her resume and John Kerry's lay them side by side, and just go down the list.
Go pull her resume and John Kerry's lay them side by side, and just go down the list.
That is just blatantly false. How can you post something so untrue without any citation.
No doubt Mr. Netanyahu is a great statesman, worthy of the heritage of David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin and Shimon Peres. His grade-school arithmetic skill, however, could use -- umm-m-m -- an upgrade, along with his interpretation of history.
Today, negotiators achieved an agreement that pretty much assuredly takes Iran off its nuclear weapons quest for ten years, with the prospect of gradual re-incorporation with the community of nations. Failure to achieve this agreement would probably have produced an Iranian nuke in 2-3 years, and/or a middle eastern war of incalculable devastation.
OK, give me a minute to do some calculation .... Got it! Persian nuke delayed for ten years, possibly indefinitely -- OR -- Iranian nuke in 2-3 years topped with the near certainty of another unwinnable, trillion+ dollar, unspeakably destructive war guaranteed to destabilize further a region already mired in catastrophe. What to do? What to do?
My math tells me that the world has just bought 7-8 years of peace with a prospect of Iran rejoining the modern world. I admit that I'm no math whiz, but I wonder how any progress toward peace can be made with a block-headed "no chance, lance" approach, now, tomorrow or ever.
No deal is ever perfect for all its interlocutors. If it were, there would be no deal because deals are simply not made that way.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Today, negotiators achieved an agreement that pretty much assuredly takes Iran off its nuclear weapons quest for ten years, with the prospect of gradual re-incorporation with the community of nations. Failure to achieve this agreement would probably have produced an Iranian nuke in 2-3 years, and/or a middle eastern war of incalculable devastation.
OK, give me a minute to do some calculation .... Got it! Persian nuke delayed for ten years, possibly indefinitely -- OR -- Iranian nuke in 2-3 years topped with the near certainty of another unwinnable, trillion+ dollar, unspeakably destructive war guaranteed to destabilize further a region already mired in catastrophe. What to do? What to do?
My math tells me that the world has just bought 7-8 years of peace with a prospect of Iran rejoining the modern world. I admit that I'm no math whiz, but I wonder how any progress toward peace can be made with a block-headed "no chance, lance" approach, now, tomorrow or ever.
No deal is ever perfect for all its interlocutors. If it were, there would be no deal because deals are simply not made that way.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
5
For Israel this has never been about preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Anyone who believes that is uninformed. For Israel this has been entirely about hobbling Iran's economy to limit it's ability to project power and become a world player. Whatever terms the P5 1 had achieved, it would not have satisfied Israel.
1
July 14, 2015
All the world is wise to bring faith in the structure of the deal that is an example for the power of negotiations with grit and smarts at the senior most elite level of minds on the planet. Let's remember the orchestration of collective world efforts inclusive of the United Nations bold heroics is worthy of the highest affirmation in making rational forensics operate across the board on its mandate to diplomatic necessity as the best to achieve - with the grace that trust and verification is perennial - P5 plus 1 is memorial and thanks and blessings to a safer planet.
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
All the world is wise to bring faith in the structure of the deal that is an example for the power of negotiations with grit and smarts at the senior most elite level of minds on the planet. Let's remember the orchestration of collective world efforts inclusive of the United Nations bold heroics is worthy of the highest affirmation in making rational forensics operate across the board on its mandate to diplomatic necessity as the best to achieve - with the grace that trust and verification is perennial - P5 plus 1 is memorial and thanks and blessings to a safer planet.
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
3
Global nuclear disarmament is the only answer
Id think that contretemps such as this only strenghten this obvious conclusion
Id think that contretemps such as this only strenghten this obvious conclusion
1
My feeling, if I may, is that Iran never had the intention of nuking anyone, including Israel, but rather their intention is to increase their known support of terrorism world wide and so they are laughing all the way to having their sanctions lifted and their electorate secured while the West is congratulating itself.
2
If those who helped us in this agreed with you, then there would have been no sanctions at all.
If they become convinced that our motive is as you say, sanctions will disappear almost instantly, never to return.
They were with us against a nuclear Iran. They are not with us serving Israel's right wing.
If they become convinced that our motive is as you say, sanctions will disappear almost instantly, never to return.
They were with us against a nuclear Iran. They are not with us serving Israel's right wing.
2
Without this deal, Iran would have the bomb (already or within less than a year). I think it is entirely plausible that they will get it eventually (in 10 years and 3 months). So what this gives us is 10 years during which Iran has more economic freedom and whatever emerges (to grow, to buy weapons, to sell weapons, give them to Hamas, to grow less theocratic, to overturn the regime, to support the regime...) will be a product of the years to come, not just of the past. While this deal doesn't result in miracles, it's a good thing. I understand Mr. Netanyahu's concerns (not the A-bomb, it's about the money for Hamas etc.) but this is the US, not Israel. Israel has its own deals to make.
82
Let's see, we can do this deal that has a chance of working. The Iranians are desperate to get relief from sanctions, and we are desperate to not ramp up the continuous war in the middle east. All that desperation seems the basis for a deal with a chance of succeeding.
OR
We can sing along with John McCain (Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.) A catchy ditty, but not something to base foreign policy on. The Republican way seems to involve attacking another country, spending additional trillions, and then cutting taxes and claiming we spend too much. We've seen this movie before and know it doesn't work.
Are we really gonna do the same thing over again and expect a different result? Let's give peace a chance.
OR
We can sing along with John McCain (Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.) A catchy ditty, but not something to base foreign policy on. The Republican way seems to involve attacking another country, spending additional trillions, and then cutting taxes and claiming we spend too much. We've seen this movie before and know it doesn't work.
Are we really gonna do the same thing over again and expect a different result? Let's give peace a chance.
267
"we are desperate to not ramp up the continuous war in the middle east"
We've already done that. Now we want to find a way out. Iran can help. That is a major US motive in this deal, as much as anything about nuclear concerns.
We've already done that. Now we want to find a way out. Iran can help. That is a major US motive in this deal, as much as anything about nuclear concerns.
6
This is a nuclear treaty that will stop Iraq from acquiring an atomic bomb.
Half this country will think this is a good thing. Half will not.
And everyone thinks they're on the side that makes sense.
What could be more nonsensical?
Half this country will think this is a good thing. Half will not.
And everyone thinks they're on the side that makes sense.
What could be more nonsensical?
Falling bombs would be more nonsensical.
1
Rein in Iran … it's been a few centuries since Iran attacked any other country. Can't say the same for its neighbors or the US, alas.
7
What planet do you live on? Iran has sponsored terrorism and fought proxy wars for the last several decades.
3
I just listened to the house hearing whose witnesses had a chance to see the agreement before the hearing.
Their concerns re a limited length of deal, verification by political means not technical, a lifting of all sanctions including those not related to the nuclear issue, made me have a feeling we have been had. I was very surprised by what I heard. As one witness pointed out, we have never used military action against Iran for any of their atrocities against us; we have used sanctions. Now we are lifting all of those. The UN is lifting the arms and technology ban and the President by executive order is lifting all others.
I was truly unsettled by what I heard. What this editorial says and what I heard in the hearing are different.
I encourage everyone to see the Cspan replay of the hearing.
Their concerns re a limited length of deal, verification by political means not technical, a lifting of all sanctions including those not related to the nuclear issue, made me have a feeling we have been had. I was very surprised by what I heard. As one witness pointed out, we have never used military action against Iran for any of their atrocities against us; we have used sanctions. Now we are lifting all of those. The UN is lifting the arms and technology ban and the President by executive order is lifting all others.
I was truly unsettled by what I heard. What this editorial says and what I heard in the hearing are different.
I encourage everyone to see the Cspan replay of the hearing.
4
What were Iran's "atrocities" against us?
1
1953. The American atrocity against Iran. Read some history friend. They don't hate us just for nothing.
1
The lifting of the sanctions is the single greatest mistake this president could make. It will be his legacy alright. Congratulations to Obama for ending the only leverage we had and for opening the spigot of billions so that it can flow to the Iranian regime.
It's not every president who would dare to do this. (This is not a compliment.)
It's not every president who would dare to do this. (This is not a compliment.)
1
If Iran were serious about giving up the chance to acquire nuclear weapons, which they claim they have no interest in obtaining, they would have been willing to abandon the capability to enrich uranium and to submit to full inspections in return for lifting of the sanctions. They are not serious. This agreement may buy some time, but unless Iran changes its attitude, they are going to build nuclear weapons. We can only hope that they will only use them to intimidate (and to resist intimidation) and not to commit genocide.
2
The administration still owes a substantive explanation of the deal to the sympathetic skeptics and the American people. Nevertheless, a great accomplishment. Kudos to Obama and Kerry for sealing the deal. Everyone can probably forgive Kerry for losing the 2004 election now.
2
"The administration still owes a substantive explanation of the deal to the sympathetic skeptics and the American people."
He explained it in surprising detail in his press conference. But I suspect a minuscule portion of the populace can be bothered to spend even those ten minutes. Many of the others will simply rage with indignation.
He explained it in surprising detail in his press conference. But I suspect a minuscule portion of the populace can be bothered to spend even those ten minutes. Many of the others will simply rage with indignation.
Except for the military industrial complex, for whom this is a sad day, the title should read: An Iran Nuclear Deal That Reduces The Risk Of War".
5
We understand the NYT had this editorial written months ago; whatever the Administration announces is good enough for the NYT. A pack of dogs could have negotiated more favorably for the US and the allies than the crew that came up with this sad arrangement. Just kick the nuclear can down the road until it becomes the mess for the next Administration; WDC politics s usual, where looking like something is being done is the ultimate goal.
6
I wish this concord had been concluded a day sooner or a day later, because Bastille Day is already such a cause for celebration that humanity would have enjoyed a stand-alone date for this hopeful cause. What a joy to be vigilant for peace it will be, and not for belligerent opportunity, will explain itself in that renovation of regional politics the Times foresees, and of our own that is equally urgent. Moreover, we know to whom to turn to lead the United States on the course now set. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
To all those denouncing this deal, I say: give peace a chance. War is easy to initiate. War is hard to contain. . Peace is hard to initiate. Peace avoids countless deaths and bereaved mothers, both Iranian and America. I applaud President Obama and President RouhanI. Congratulations to the the American and Iranian people.
5
Give peace a chance?
Correction: Give Iran the freedom to make nuclear weapons and destroy us while we sit with Obama singing kumbaya.
Correction: Give Iran the freedom to make nuclear weapons and destroy us while we sit with Obama singing kumbaya.
4
While I have no faith in Iran, I do question your "destroy us" comment. I remember the cold war. We still have our detection, ICBM, air, and naval based nuclear strike capabilities. We still live in mutual assured destruction (MAD) relationship with the other nuclear powers of the world. A nuclear armed Iran (and probably Pakistan) probably present the least likely scenario of US 'destruction.' There are bigger bad guys out there.
The Times and other proponents of this deal frequently criticize Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for opposing it. In fact, though, almost every Arab government also opposes this deal.
These concerns have merit. As other comments have pointed out, this agreement will provide Iran with new funds for its foreign adventures in Syria, Gaza, and the Gulf Arab states.
A possible result of this deal is loss of US influence in the Arab world. And of course it is not at all clear that we are gaining a friend in Iran.
These concerns have merit. As other comments have pointed out, this agreement will provide Iran with new funds for its foreign adventures in Syria, Gaza, and the Gulf Arab states.
A possible result of this deal is loss of US influence in the Arab world. And of course it is not at all clear that we are gaining a friend in Iran.
3
Here's a small thought: maybe this deal buys time, time when Iran isn't building the bomb, time for the country to get its economic house in order, time for everybody to settle down some, time for the government to change for the better.
And maybe that's all such negotiations can do: buy time without war, time without bombing people, time without even more danger.
Sure, there'll be problems with these clowns down the line. Sure, there'll be other challenges in the region. But for a few years, no shooting. Maybe some cooperation on things like ISIL. Definitely more monitoring, and more Iranians with cellphones and Internet.
You know, time.
And maybe that's all such negotiations can do: buy time without war, time without bombing people, time without even more danger.
Sure, there'll be problems with these clowns down the line. Sure, there'll be other challenges in the region. But for a few years, no shooting. Maybe some cooperation on things like ISIL. Definitely more monitoring, and more Iranians with cellphones and Internet.
You know, time.
4
Netanyahu with all of his zeal
Will try to derail this good deal,
He praised, didn't block
The war 'ganst Iraq,
His advice should lack all appeal!
Will try to derail this good deal,
He praised, didn't block
The war 'ganst Iraq,
His advice should lack all appeal!
33
The Iran deal is fact,
Obama will drink to that.
In days we'll have proof,
That this deal is a goof,
And Iran will end up with the bomb!
Obama will drink to that.
In days we'll have proof,
That this deal is a goof,
And Iran will end up with the bomb!
5
Obama's Iran deal doesn't quite fit,
Republicans should try hard to strike it,
From history's books,
It's as bad as it looks,
Because Iran can keep its Nuke plan if they like it.
Republicans should try hard to strike it,
From history's books,
It's as bad as it looks,
Because Iran can keep its Nuke plan if they like it.
5
War is big business.
In order to invade and free Iraq from Saddam Hussein, Republicans created more than 1 trillion dollars of national debt and throw away thousands o U.S. lives (including all the veterans that our Republican-led Congress refuses to help).
The results of our "Mission Accomplished" were that the Chinese took over Iraq's oil field, Iran became the most influential foreign government in Iraq, and the corrupt and incompetent leader installed by the U.S., Nouri al-Maliki tore the country apart, leading to the creation of ISIS.
Republicans will fight any chance for peace tooth and nail.
And most Americans, including many Democrats, are stupid enough to let them.
In order to invade and free Iraq from Saddam Hussein, Republicans created more than 1 trillion dollars of national debt and throw away thousands o U.S. lives (including all the veterans that our Republican-led Congress refuses to help).
The results of our "Mission Accomplished" were that the Chinese took over Iraq's oil field, Iran became the most influential foreign government in Iraq, and the corrupt and incompetent leader installed by the U.S., Nouri al-Maliki tore the country apart, leading to the creation of ISIS.
Republicans will fight any chance for peace tooth and nail.
And most Americans, including many Democrats, are stupid enough to let them.
85
Speaking of stupid, how is lifting economic sanctions, granting legitimacy and US foreign aid to an Islamic Republic whose leader finishes every speech with "Death to America" good for the United States?
It isn't.
It isn't.
4
"US foreign aid" to Iran? That is just not true, and making it up is dishonesty serving warmongering.
2
No question that lifting sanctions against Iran, which also means billions of dollars of liquid assets the US gov't has frozen and kept Iran from getting is not only US aid, but costly US aid.
1
I'm less concerned about the possibility of Iran's creating a (single) nuclear bomb than than I am about their continued support for shiite terrorist organizations throughout the middle east. Ending that support, rather than the nuke issue should have been the basis for ending sanctions.
4
And the Saudis? Who do they support? Where are the madrassas that teach women are second class citizens and they shouldn't be educated? Where are they sanctifying Jihad? In Iran? No. Look, there is enough evil in the Middle East to go around on all sides. Our job is to figure out a way to stop the killing and start solving problems through negotiation. that's all we can do.
This is a real opportunity we have here, and might not come again for decades.
Let’s take the chance, and see where it leads.
On the plus side, it could mean the end of the wars being fought between the USA and Iran via proxy countries. A better life for Iraninans, and a stabilization of the Middle East.
On the minus side, all the nightmares that the Israel lobby wants us to believe.
I say we take the chance. We can always park missiles to shoot down missiles in the area, in case Iran does try to pull a fast one.
But once Iran becomes part of the world, gets oil rich, and prosperous, the last thing they will want to do, would be to cash all that in, for a war with Israel.
It’s a good chance. Let’s take it.
Let’s take the chance, and see where it leads.
On the plus side, it could mean the end of the wars being fought between the USA and Iran via proxy countries. A better life for Iraninans, and a stabilization of the Middle East.
On the minus side, all the nightmares that the Israel lobby wants us to believe.
I say we take the chance. We can always park missiles to shoot down missiles in the area, in case Iran does try to pull a fast one.
But once Iran becomes part of the world, gets oil rich, and prosperous, the last thing they will want to do, would be to cash all that in, for a war with Israel.
It’s a good chance. Let’s take it.
20
Beside of being an indicator of the good will and tolerance between America and Iran, the signed nuclear deal is completely worthless piece of paper.
“With its strong limits, the accord offers the best chance to rein in Iran”
Rein in Iran from doing what? Not attacking their neighbors for almost two centuries?!
From telling us that the endless occupation of Palestine by Israel is extremely harmful to the world peace and friendly relationship between Israel and the Arabs?
Stopping them from producing the nuclear weapons that would be lost like a tiny needle in enormous stack of the world nukes?
Can’t we have the leaders who prefer to start dealing with some rational options beside of cataclysmic visions of sudden nuclear destruction of the entire world?
Our senseless accusations of Iran make as much sense as if Tehran claimed that Washington D.C. had so many nukes because we planned to exterminate the human race and life on the earth?
Would such a delusional claim of the Ayatollahs from Tehran be worth denying?
We haven’t provided what Iran truly needs from us and what they had a problem solving on their own over the last 14 centuries – theoretically explanation how to end the atrocities between the Sunnis and the Shiites.
That’s what the Iranian people really need from us and we failed them utterly...
“With its strong limits, the accord offers the best chance to rein in Iran”
Rein in Iran from doing what? Not attacking their neighbors for almost two centuries?!
From telling us that the endless occupation of Palestine by Israel is extremely harmful to the world peace and friendly relationship between Israel and the Arabs?
Stopping them from producing the nuclear weapons that would be lost like a tiny needle in enormous stack of the world nukes?
Can’t we have the leaders who prefer to start dealing with some rational options beside of cataclysmic visions of sudden nuclear destruction of the entire world?
Our senseless accusations of Iran make as much sense as if Tehran claimed that Washington D.C. had so many nukes because we planned to exterminate the human race and life on the earth?
Would such a delusional claim of the Ayatollahs from Tehran be worth denying?
We haven’t provided what Iran truly needs from us and what they had a problem solving on their own over the last 14 centuries – theoretically explanation how to end the atrocities between the Sunnis and the Shiites.
That’s what the Iranian people really need from us and we failed them utterly...
4
This positive input by the NYT Editorial board is uplifting and so appreciated. It seems the negative comments from those who are in lock-step with the Netanyahu government just couldn't wait to get on tv with their prepared rhetoric. Can't they, for a minute, give President Obama and the diligent efforts of John Kerry some credit before attacking a deal which most American citizens, and citizens of the other countries involved agree with ? It's been a long and tedious process with absolutely no help from the Israeli government nor the majority of the Republican representatives in Congress. One gets weary of the continual obstructionism of the Republican representatives.
40
Opposition to this like all opposition to the president is about one thing and one thing only: race.
1
"Powerful forces, like Mr. Netanyahu, have vowed to defeat it."
Since when does the State of Israel get a say -- apparently a possible veto -- in the governing of the United States of America? Who does this jerk think he is? We are not the outsourced defense department for Israel. He does not get to veto our foreign treaties and he does not get to come to the United States and lecture our elected leader on policy or the vicissitudes of democracy in the Middle East -- which he did early in the Obama presidency, in an outrageous and inappropriate manner. This treaty is the best possible agreement in the real world. We are not going to attack Iran because that is what Bibi insists we do. Perhaps we need to reconsider our relationship with Israel. In the era of Netanyahu it has simply become too expensive.
Since when does the State of Israel get a say -- apparently a possible veto -- in the governing of the United States of America? Who does this jerk think he is? We are not the outsourced defense department for Israel. He does not get to veto our foreign treaties and he does not get to come to the United States and lecture our elected leader on policy or the vicissitudes of democracy in the Middle East -- which he did early in the Obama presidency, in an outrageous and inappropriate manner. This treaty is the best possible agreement in the real world. We are not going to attack Iran because that is what Bibi insists we do. Perhaps we need to reconsider our relationship with Israel. In the era of Netanyahu it has simply become too expensive.
328
Conservative Republicans seem to be in lockstep with Bibi. There is no doubt they plan a veto proof refusal of the deal.
1
As an American Jew I could not say it better! Israel has lost its moral compass. Having a moral compass is not inconsistent with security! For both moral and security reasons Israel's position on the settlements, its refusal to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians (notice i didn't say Hamas) and its "Chicken Little/Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" approach to the Iranian negotiations reflects the absence of that moral compass and a real understanding of what may bring it the security it has longed for.
We don't need to reconsider our relationship with Israel. Our relationship with Israel, the only democracy in the region and a key ally, isn't something we'll walk away from. What's needed is what Obama has done. He's not letting Bibi - a natural bully - step on his head. Like past U.S. Presidents of both parties, Obama is standing up against the far right wing of the Israeli settlement movement, which at this time is led by Bibi. I strongly believe that most Israelis are centrist and want our positive relationship to continue.
1
Today I'm proud of president Obama. He chose a civilized way to resolved the conflic with Iran, with dialog than bomb. Now he truly deserves the novel prize. Which was given to him prematurely. Secretary John Carey definitely should be a candidate along with Mr.Zarif for next years novel prize for World Peace.
16
It continually amazes me how people are against the agreement and think by not supporting Iran won't go right back to their enrichment programs. A vote against this agreement is a vote for war with Iran, it will be much more costly in lives and in dollars than the Iraq war and we will have gained as much. I just wish one time the Republicans would be as honest as Senator John McCain and just admit that for them there is no solution other than war.
184
If you don't like the deal, then what deal do you think you can make that's better?
37
Obama says sanctions got Iran to the negotiating table. So, why didn't he crank up the sanctions further (I.e. banking sanctions) to extract a better deal? And, for God's sake, why couldn't he have demanded back our American hostages as part of any deal?
Two problems I foresee with this deal: 1) "where necessary, when necessary" is very weak - it's not nearly as strong as "anyplace, anytime", and undoubtedly will be the loophole Iran uses to deny verification rights to IAEA; and 2) don't think for a minute that snapback provisions will reimpose tough sanctions for violations. From the economic perspective of Western companies, the genie will be out of the lantern and impossible to stuff back in.
3
What is 10-15 years of inspections followed by nothing? A bad joke.
The inspectors have been fooled so many times already, by their own admission, that you'd have to be insane to believe this has any teeth. The prudent solution would be to intensify the sanctions and continue to isolate Iran until we got a better deal with real teeth.
Compare the two options:
Current:
- Iran, pursuing regional domination and a proud international supporter of terrorism, is limited by economic/ geo-political isolation.
- Iran's tyrannical regime, due to the economic sanctions, faces internal challenges as evidenced by past student uprising. Regime collapse is eventually possible.
- Iran knows that if they make a final dash towards the bomb they will face a military option from Israel or the US.
- Iran is developing nuclear weapons at known and secret sites.
Kerry Deal:
- Iran, continues aggressively pursuing regional domination, but is no longer economically isolated.
- Iran's tyrannical regime is strengthened internally.
- Iran knows that if they make a final dash towards the bomb it will be much more difficult for Israel to go it alone.
- Iran will focus on secret sites or offshore the nuclear projects assisted by increased economic power.
This foolish agreement is a selfish sacrifice of those huddled in the safety of the present, from the tenfold that it will take to regain that which was lost in the future.
The inspectors have been fooled so many times already, by their own admission, that you'd have to be insane to believe this has any teeth. The prudent solution would be to intensify the sanctions and continue to isolate Iran until we got a better deal with real teeth.
Compare the two options:
Current:
- Iran, pursuing regional domination and a proud international supporter of terrorism, is limited by economic/ geo-political isolation.
- Iran's tyrannical regime, due to the economic sanctions, faces internal challenges as evidenced by past student uprising. Regime collapse is eventually possible.
- Iran knows that if they make a final dash towards the bomb they will face a military option from Israel or the US.
- Iran is developing nuclear weapons at known and secret sites.
Kerry Deal:
- Iran, continues aggressively pursuing regional domination, but is no longer economically isolated.
- Iran's tyrannical regime is strengthened internally.
- Iran knows that if they make a final dash towards the bomb it will be much more difficult for Israel to go it alone.
- Iran will focus on secret sites or offshore the nuclear projects assisted by increased economic power.
This foolish agreement is a selfish sacrifice of those huddled in the safety of the present, from the tenfold that it will take to regain that which was lost in the future.
8
This deal, because our incessant backtracking in the name of negotiating, will put this region at greater risk. While the nuclear option for Iran was and remains a serious problem, the greater and more immediate risk now is fully unleashing Iran to now move unfettered in supporting its many terrorist causes. Iran's dialing back its nuclear program was only to have the sanctions removed. Would that Chancellor Merkel, instead of Mr. Kerry, had been doing our dealing.
7
...and the State of Israel. Well said NYTimes, as what is Mr. Netanyahu thinking that he failed to get Obama to bomb Iran. Would a Republucan President simply bomb Iran and then what. Regardless, The Editoral Board offers a rational analysis even though you might have mention something about the growing, glowing, Golden Obama legacy.
14
"It is deeply unsettling that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel derisively dismissed the deal immediately as a “historic mistake.”
it is unsettling. Since the correct grammatical clause is "a(n) historical mistake."
Nonetheless, this "deal" merely buys time, and ISIS and their Shia counterpart, the Mahdi Mullahs, will use that time to continue to support Assad in Syria, the Shiites at the expense of the Sunnis in Iraq and Yemen. Of course, at any time, Hezbollah and Hamas may be ordered to re-commence hostilities against the "unsettling" Prime Minister of Israel and his country of troublesome Jews.
There will be no American "snap backs, or "military interventions," or anything except maybe an impotent whimper or two, when Iran boots the inspectors out of the country, and enjoys continued business investment because in business, the money is where the markets are, stupid.
But is it worth a try. After all, the President received a Nobel Prize for Peace before he actually brought peace, and now he has brought peace for ten years or so, and that is better than nothing. If Harper Lee can have another book, then the President can win another Nobel.
As for cry-baby Israel, stop spoiling our fun. We fund you and we can take it away. And anyway, if you would give Judea and Samaria back to the Arabs they would make it a paradise like they made Gaza, and then the Mideast would stabilize and we would all be at peace.
I find all this "unsettling."
it is unsettling. Since the correct grammatical clause is "a(n) historical mistake."
Nonetheless, this "deal" merely buys time, and ISIS and their Shia counterpart, the Mahdi Mullahs, will use that time to continue to support Assad in Syria, the Shiites at the expense of the Sunnis in Iraq and Yemen. Of course, at any time, Hezbollah and Hamas may be ordered to re-commence hostilities against the "unsettling" Prime Minister of Israel and his country of troublesome Jews.
There will be no American "snap backs, or "military interventions," or anything except maybe an impotent whimper or two, when Iran boots the inspectors out of the country, and enjoys continued business investment because in business, the money is where the markets are, stupid.
But is it worth a try. After all, the President received a Nobel Prize for Peace before he actually brought peace, and now he has brought peace for ten years or so, and that is better than nothing. If Harper Lee can have another book, then the President can win another Nobel.
As for cry-baby Israel, stop spoiling our fun. We fund you and we can take it away. And anyway, if you would give Judea and Samaria back to the Arabs they would make it a paradise like they made Gaza, and then the Mideast would stabilize and we would all be at peace.
I find all this "unsettling."
8
Now,what happens to Isreal 100 plus nuclear weapons.Their overwhelming military superiority should make them obsolete.But no,they want more
25
Big mistake. Obama is worst negotiator, why do we not negotiate from the strength of the sanctions in place. We act like we don't have the leverage when it is Iran that drastically wants the sanctions lifted. We had an opportunity to make some real demands on terror, better terms with the nuclear deal could have been made. Instead Iran wins big and USA looks weak..AGAIN!
9
Netanyahu wants us to do his bidding to destroy Iran, just as he willed us to destroy Iraq. Look where that left us: Hundreds of thousands dead, trillions wasted, and a radical Sunni menace arising from the mess.
Our nation spends a hundred dollars on military solutions for every dollar we spend on diplomacy (do the math). Thank you Obama for giving peace a chance.
Our nation spends a hundred dollars on military solutions for every dollar we spend on diplomacy (do the math). Thank you Obama for giving peace a chance.
124
"also to reshape Middle East politics"
That is the real objection, the fear, of many opponents of this deal.
That is the real objection, the fear, of many opponents of this deal.
26
This deal is claimed to be based on verification, not trust. But how do you verify when IAEA inspectors are not allowed to inspect military sites without Iranian agreement?
Just weeks ago, and for good reason, the US State department was saying that anytime anywhere inspection was a deal breaker. But this deal is license to cheat and a path to a bomb.
Until now "Death to America; Death to Israel" was a rallying cry for conventional terrorism; we are now enabling it to become a practical program for nuclear genocide.
As promised: http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IransIntent2012b.pdf
Just weeks ago, and for good reason, the US State department was saying that anytime anywhere inspection was a deal breaker. But this deal is license to cheat and a path to a bomb.
Until now "Death to America; Death to Israel" was a rallying cry for conventional terrorism; we are now enabling it to become a practical program for nuclear genocide.
As promised: http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IransIntent2012b.pdf
8
The people who are assuming that this deal is bad don't want any negotiated deal and never did. They want complete victory, meaning a military defeat of Iran or a "regime change," like the one they got in Iraq. Now, people of intelligence know that those desires are virtually impossible to achieve, and yet the proponents of war and humiliation don't care. If the negotiated deal works, all of the hawks loose their moorings and float away. If they can sabotage the deal, they have life.
385
Not true. We just want a deal that allows anytime anywhere inspections and no expiration date. If Iran really is not interested in making a bomb is that too much to ask?
5
the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq is by far the most destabilizing event in the middle east in the past 2 decades. It led to the development of ISIS and the much amplified power of Islamist ruled Iran.
3
We have the ability to inspect and determine any violations. I don't trust Iran, but I trust our technical ability to do that. Walking away from the table because the language doesn't say "anytime anywhere.." would not be good diplomacy. We can hold them to this deal. Lets see if they break it.
3
Iran will give up developing nuclear weapons for at least 15 years, while its "sworn enemy", as the editorial puts it, is free to develop and build more nuclear weapons? Why would Iran do this? Because it believe that Israel's ability to use such weapons is practically zero, given the global opposition to Israel if it ever did? Because it isn't as fixated on Israel as Israel is on Iran? For whatever calculus it is we owe this decision by Iran to step back from nuclear weapons, we must be thankful. Obama, the Democrats and the rest of us must also be concerned that the Republicans and the Israelis are denied the chance to sink this historic agreement. They will try hard to do so, but in the end, I think they will lose.
315
Because Israel doesn't threaten its neighbors with nuclear annihilation. I'm sorry but Iran does.
3
But Iran doesn't have the capacity to do so, and has just agreed not to acquire it. Israel, however, has such capacity, but can't use it for obvious reasons. Hence any threat to do so is meaningless. You are mistaken about Iran, which has never had nuclear weapons, has denied any desire to acquire them, and has now agreed not to do so. One factor driving some Iranians to make their own nuclear weapons is that Israel has them. The next goal should be to reduce and eliminate Israeli nuclear weapons.
2
"Amazed at the hypocrisy?" How about changing your name to Amazing fiction? Show us one official Iranian statement saying they are developing nuclear weapons and plan to use them against Israel. Just one.
On the other hand the Israeli Defense Minister Ya'alon made a thinly veiled threat to attack Iran - referring to "cases in which we feel like we don't have the answer by surgical operations (so) we might take certain steps that we believe…should be taken in order to defend ourselves."
"Of course, we should be sure that we can look at the mirror after the decision, or the operation."
"Of course, we should be sure that it is a military necessity. We should consider cost and benefit, of course. But, at the end, we might take certain steps."
He said he was reminded of Harry Truman when "asked, (h)ow do you feel after deciding to launch the nuclear bombs, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, causing at the end the fatalities of 200,000, casualties?"
On the other hand the Israeli Defense Minister Ya'alon made a thinly veiled threat to attack Iran - referring to "cases in which we feel like we don't have the answer by surgical operations (so) we might take certain steps that we believe…should be taken in order to defend ourselves."
"Of course, we should be sure that we can look at the mirror after the decision, or the operation."
"Of course, we should be sure that it is a military necessity. We should consider cost and benefit, of course. But, at the end, we might take certain steps."
He said he was reminded of Harry Truman when "asked, (h)ow do you feel after deciding to launch the nuclear bombs, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, causing at the end the fatalities of 200,000, casualties?"
2
Republicans seem to be under the impression that the U.S. and Israel can just fly in and drop a few bombs and the problem would be solved. It's as if they think Iran would just accept being bombed and not retaliate against Israel starting a war and drawing Russia into the equation. Is anyone foolish enough to to believe Iran will just accept being bombed? The Middle East would explode worse than the Bush/Cheney blunder.
Thankfully McCain and Palin aren't in office starting WW3.
Thankfully McCain and Palin aren't in office starting WW3.
183
Cue the hyperbolic rantings from the right, including, of course, the loudest scaremonger on the planet - Netanyahu.
125
That's not scaremongering. That legitimate concern for the continued existence of his people. Fear of this deal is universal across the political spectrum in Israel, because they continue to live in the cross-hairs.
3
Netanyahu doesn't call for the death of anyone. The Iranian leaders do!
4
OH! I thought you'd say McCain.
3
Congratulations and thanks to Secretary Kerry. A Secretary of State of substance determined to make a difference, not just make speeches.
142
Lifting sanctions will allow Iranians to join, at least in part, the rest of the world, increasing their appetite for normal lives. It will demonstrate that, regardless of the supreme dictator, more normal lives are worth a centrifuge or two.
30
As much as I was wishing and hoping that the P5+1 would come up with a good deal that has not come to pass. Regardless of the specifics contained within the binder the fact that it has an expiration date makes it a bad deal. Verifiability means little when all Iran needs to do is live up to the agreement for 10 - 15 years and then go gangbusters for a nuclear weapon.
God help us all in 2031.
God help us all in 2031.
7
You mean the deal did not guarantee in perpetuity? What were you expecting?
15 years is a long time. Many events will occur in the next 15 years. Many leaders will change or die. I wouldn't worry about events that may or may not occur in 15 years, but a non nuclear proliferation agreement for at LEAST 15 YEARS is better than being 6 months away from a nuclear weapon with the sanction policy that has been enforced fro 10 years but done nothing to stop development.
Other countries can deal with other Iran issues which are non vital issues to the US. Oil is a vital interest, and that regard, consumers in the US and elsewhere will be the beneficiaries.
Other countries can deal with other Iran issues which are non vital issues to the US. Oil is a vital interest, and that regard, consumers in the US and elsewhere will be the beneficiaries.
If anything it sounds and reads so far as if Iran capitulated on almost everything.
Of course you would not know that if you listened to the howling and screeching coming from NetanYahoo and the American right.
But the rest of the world, including all the rest of the world's great powers, which just happen to have also made the deal, is applauding in a standing ovation.
This is an historic achievement for American diplomacy and foreign policy and in the longer run -- not long run -- but longer than short, will do more to restore some sense, sanity, stability and a measure of peace to the Middle East than have all of our and everyone else's wars in that miserably dangerous region.
It will rank with FDR and the UN/IMF/World Bank and with Nixon and the SALT agreements in bringing order and certainty to a disorderly world.
Of course you would not know that if you listened to the howling and screeching coming from NetanYahoo and the American right.
But the rest of the world, including all the rest of the world's great powers, which just happen to have also made the deal, is applauding in a standing ovation.
This is an historic achievement for American diplomacy and foreign policy and in the longer run -- not long run -- but longer than short, will do more to restore some sense, sanity, stability and a measure of peace to the Middle East than have all of our and everyone else's wars in that miserably dangerous region.
It will rank with FDR and the UN/IMF/World Bank and with Nixon and the SALT agreements in bringing order and certainty to a disorderly world.
62
I sure would be happy to see more sanity, stability etc in the Middle East - but I dont think that giving an extra 150 billion dollars to an imperialistic regime that sponsors terrorism and interferes in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza to teh detriment of stabiility and peace is the way to do so.
1
Israel has hundreds of nukes and is actually wiping a country off the map.
Iran allows inspections and has no nukes.
Russia is sanctioned for letting Crimea rejoin Russia after a vote..
but Israel can defy international law and commit war crimes and maintain a brutal occupation - and its reward is billions in tax dollars as Detroit decays and Americans can't find jobs.
Iran allows inspections and has no nukes.
Russia is sanctioned for letting Crimea rejoin Russia after a vote..
but Israel can defy international law and commit war crimes and maintain a brutal occupation - and its reward is billions in tax dollars as Detroit decays and Americans can't find jobs.
222
Where did you make up all these FACTS???
1
The sheer ignorance of this comment is breathtaking. Wiping another country out? Do tell - which country is that? Gaza? That's territory given to Palestiniams by Israel. War crimes? You mean Hamas' use of human shields and schools and hospitals to launch weapons from?
As for your name please see what Hillary Clinton has to say about the the "BDS" movement and get back to us.
As for your name please see what Hillary Clinton has to say about the the "BDS" movement and get back to us.
1
I don't see millions of refugees expelled by Israel but I do see millions of Arabs in Iraq and Syria expelled from their homelands thanks to the neocons and their insane war against Iraq over falsified reports of Iraq's non-existant nuclear weapons. Get your facts straight.
3
As an American, I applaud Hassan Rouhani and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for their courage, and thank them.
24
Netanyahu wants war with Iran and he wants the US to fight it for them. It looks like the Republicans are more than willing to support yet another ill conceived military intervention in the Mideast instead of a negotiated settlement of the nuclear issue with Iran.
594
Sorry. You are confusing Israel with the Sunni Arabs. Unlike them, Israel has never called on any third power to fight its wars based on the lesson History has repeatedly taught: no one will fight to save Jewish lives. That is one of the central reasons Israel exists and needs to exist.
2
No, Netanyahu wants a better deal -- not this lazy blood libel that has become sacred dogma to the so-called progressive crowd. Do you really think Israel -- a country of 7 million people the size of New Jersey of whom virtually every person knows someone who was either killed or wounded in war -- wants a new war this time with Iran, and a leader who will lead them to one?
It looks like the progressives like you and the 229 people who recommended your nonsense are more willing to look the other way while Iran continues building up its terror proxies, calling for "Death to America; Death to Israel" in its mass rallies, and builds up its ICBMs.
As for your other popular blood libel among left/progressives these days: Netanyahu wanting the US to fight a war for Israel, the Jewish People have learned the very very hard way not to rely on any other country when their annihilation is threatened, as Iran does on a daily basis against Israel. Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that whether Israel stands together with allies or has to stand alone, it will stand.
It looks like the progressives like you and the 229 people who recommended your nonsense are more willing to look the other way while Iran continues building up its terror proxies, calling for "Death to America; Death to Israel" in its mass rallies, and builds up its ICBMs.
As for your other popular blood libel among left/progressives these days: Netanyahu wanting the US to fight a war for Israel, the Jewish People have learned the very very hard way not to rely on any other country when their annihilation is threatened, as Iran does on a daily basis against Israel. Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that whether Israel stands together with allies or has to stand alone, it will stand.
1
That is how it appears, alright. With typical lack of forethought, do Netanyahu and his base in the U.S. Congress have any idea how Iran might respond to such bombings? I'm betting , not well.
It is quite frankly hard to imagine how any responsible official in the United States, in Israel, in Iran would believe another war in the region would be anything but Apocolyptic.
Thank you Sec. Kerry and the entire negotiating team and thank you Pres. Barack Obama.
It is quite frankly hard to imagine how any responsible official in the United States, in Israel, in Iran would believe another war in the region would be anything but Apocolyptic.
Thank you Sec. Kerry and the entire negotiating team and thank you Pres. Barack Obama.
3
This is the Obama who inspired us to challenge the status quo, who called "stupid wars" by their rightful name, who offered his hand to an unclenched fist, who departed from the cynicism of Netanyahu and Congress, who believes in actual international coalitions, who takes us above the politics of fear. This is the President who was soundly elected twice. Today is a proud day for those who believe in change.
787
a proud day, indeed. Proud to have voted for Obama, for not faltering and believing that with diplomacy people of all nations stand to gain.
You mean the way Obama brought peace to Libya, Syria, and "ended" the war in Iraq? The way he stood up to Putin in the Ukraine, a direct result of the weakening of NATO? The way he is fighting ISIS? This is a historic agreement all right, one that will be remembered as a disaster for the world. To give the biggest state sponsor of terrorism $150 billion dollars to spend on new proxy wars, and guarantee them a bomb in 10 years? This starts a new race in the ME for nuclear armaments.. Egypt and the Saudis are not going to stand by while Iran gets a bomb, they are not stupid and know Iran plans to bully all of its neighbors. And don't count on mutually assured destruction to prevent a nuclear war in the ME, the mullahs are crazy and driven by radical theology that tells them they are required to destroy Israel by whatever means they can. They believe this is their destiny. Obama and his minions have been fooled by some very intelligent Iranians, that in reality hold no power or control over what the mullahs do. Obama's foreign policy is a joke and this deal is the capstone. A sad day for the world.
2
And, a lame duck president at that. What this guy is accomplishing as his presidency winds down is amazing.
Well done and thank you, Mr. President.
Well done and thank you, Mr. President.
5
Mr. Netanyahu put the world on notice many years ago that Israel would never accept a nuclear-armed Iran. Having been left no choice now but to demonstrate that this was not an empty threat, he will move ahead in the very near future to do exactly that.
My guess is that the bombing runs over Iran’s nuclear facilities will occur soon after the deal is finally implemented over strenuous Congressional objections.
Israel's Air Force has a good track record in matters like this, and I expect the raid will prove highly successful, with fewer than 100 casualties, coming as it will after years of planning and practice runs.
Afterwards, President Obama will denounce Mr. Netanyahu for his “intemperate” and “precipitate” action, but the President's
overall response will be muted, due to the obvious success of the mission. The Ayatollah will compare the raid to Pearl Harbor, denounce Mr. Netanyahu as Satan-in-the-flesh and promise swift revenge, but even his reaction will be somewhat muted, knowing as he will, that President Obama will still be
around for a while to make deals with.
Behind the scenes, White House staffers will let it be known that President Obama’s long negotiations with Iran made it possible for Israel’s raid to succeed. Far-left supporters of President Obama will be inconsolable with grief, having failed to achieve the epic defeat of Israel they have always dreamed of. Many of them will accuse AIPAC and Sheldon Adelson of treason.
My guess is that the bombing runs over Iran’s nuclear facilities will occur soon after the deal is finally implemented over strenuous Congressional objections.
Israel's Air Force has a good track record in matters like this, and I expect the raid will prove highly successful, with fewer than 100 casualties, coming as it will after years of planning and practice runs.
Afterwards, President Obama will denounce Mr. Netanyahu for his “intemperate” and “precipitate” action, but the President's
overall response will be muted, due to the obvious success of the mission. The Ayatollah will compare the raid to Pearl Harbor, denounce Mr. Netanyahu as Satan-in-the-flesh and promise swift revenge, but even his reaction will be somewhat muted, knowing as he will, that President Obama will still be
around for a while to make deals with.
Behind the scenes, White House staffers will let it be known that President Obama’s long negotiations with Iran made it possible for Israel’s raid to succeed. Far-left supporters of President Obama will be inconsolable with grief, having failed to achieve the epic defeat of Israel they have always dreamed of. Many of them will accuse AIPAC and Sheldon Adelson of treason.
8
"The United States has to be extremely vigilant in monitoring how Iran uses those new funds and in enforcing those sanctions." You think? And how to monitor the use of these billions to fund terrorism and spread fundamentalism? Apparently, the underlying political logic of this deal is to provide a decade during which, the fond hope is, the Iranian regime will somehow moderate. How the lifting of economic sanctions, and the empowerment of the Ayatollahs that will ensue from these newly released billions, will encourage moderation is hard to see.
4
The fundamentalism that has been spread is the Wahhabi Sunnis - not the Shia religion of Iran. Wahhabism originated out of Saudi Arabia. It is the sworn enemy of Iranian Shia.
Oh. Sorry. You're right of course. Hamas, a creature of Iran, represents a moderate form of Islam.
Iran wanted this deal because it's in its best interests. President Obama wanted this deal because he wanted a deal. End of story.
5
President Obama wanted a deal that is in the best interests of the United States, fully aware that deal-making involves compromise. How does this deal harm our interests?
1
Once the barrage of comments stating that this is a bad deal for whatever reason, please be so kind to add what is your alternative so that we can understand what position you are defending - I made a small list for you to pick from.
A) Do nothing (no deal/no war) - keep in mind the rest of the world will move on to do business with Iran and Iran can go ahead in its path to the bomb.
B) Go to war - because that worked so well ...... (note - people advocating war are the almost the same that claimed Iraq would be great!)
C) More sanctions - that apparently will be impose by the US alone - read A.
A) Do nothing (no deal/no war) - keep in mind the rest of the world will move on to do business with Iran and Iran can go ahead in its path to the bomb.
B) Go to war - because that worked so well ...... (note - people advocating war are the almost the same that claimed Iraq would be great!)
C) More sanctions - that apparently will be impose by the US alone - read A.
25
The correct answer is C. And yes the US has enough clout so as to make the sanctions so painful that if Iran really wanted a deal it would have agreed to anytime anywhere inspections and no expiration date...which would have made this a good deal.
1
Yeap - I would like to see the so called US clout with China, India, and Russia - which have stated that they will break the sanctions if the US refuses the treaty. Furthermore, you assume that the response from Iran will not be to go all speed ahead for a bomb. We live in multi-polar world.
This deal can't be separated from the fact that Obama made not a peep during Iran's Green Revolution, which started in 2009. He was indistinguishable from Bush 41, who didn't peep during Beijing Spring. Neither Obama nor Bush 41 understands that democracy is inherently moral, inherently stable, and necessarily leads to prosperity.
Obama spoke against Mubarak--a relatively harmless dictator. He participated in overthrowing Qaddafi, which has led to a serious mess in Libya. On the other hand, he hasn't joined Saudi Arabia in fighting the Houthis in Yemen. He never did anything to oppose Assad in Syria. The pattern is quite consistent: he opposes Sunnis on occasion, but never has he opposed a Shiite.
Obama spoke against Mubarak--a relatively harmless dictator. He participated in overthrowing Qaddafi, which has led to a serious mess in Libya. On the other hand, he hasn't joined Saudi Arabia in fighting the Houthis in Yemen. He never did anything to oppose Assad in Syria. The pattern is quite consistent: he opposes Sunnis on occasion, but never has he opposed a Shiite.
8
The US speaking in support of the Iranian opposition would be making the game of any regime branding them as foreign agents.
Then calling the murderous Mubarak, head of the -nowadays renewed- military junta dictatorship which has oppressed the Egyptian people for decades as "relatively harmless" must be a bliss rationalization... Let's not mention the Saudis, for decades behind most of the Sunni terrorism worldwide.
Then calling the murderous Mubarak, head of the -nowadays renewed- military junta dictatorship which has oppressed the Egyptian people for decades as "relatively harmless" must be a bliss rationalization... Let's not mention the Saudis, for decades behind most of the Sunni terrorism worldwide.
14
Yes, Obama is clearly part of the Shiite conspiracy to rule the world. Glad you cotton onto it.
2
Define "relatively harmless." 30 years of martial law and oppression is hard to square with any definition.
2
It seems like the only alternative that the opponents can come up with is another trillion dollar war that would be even more disastrous than the last one. I guess if the Republican objective is to reduce government to only national defense that is one way to do it.
32
Clearly this is the way to resolve international disputes and threats - through diplomacy. And just like the Affordable healthcare act this too has limitations. I am sure the right wing will this dub this Affordable Nuclear act or something of that sorts. Nevertheless it raises our stature again in the world. Mr Obama, in many ways, has restored some of this through his actions and he is highly regarded in many parts of the world. I do differ with editors in some ways that this accord will have profound affect on middle east politics. I agree, it will, but not in a positive way. We will now have to deal with a radicalized Saudi Arabia who along with Israel will not be happy. If the President can use this accord and "unclench the fist" with Iran just as he has done with Cuba we may actually SEE a monumental shift in middle east politics. Good Job! Mr. President!
282
As a closet conservative, I can't help but declare 'death to everything that's affordable except for the stuff that I want.'
Thank you Obama, the P5+1 and Iran negotiators.
Reason and diplomacy winning over debunked fear-mongering, dangerous warmongering, saboteurs and other traitors on foreign interests payrolls. A good day.
Reason and diplomacy winning over debunked fear-mongering, dangerous warmongering, saboteurs and other traitors on foreign interests payrolls. A good day.
58
This picture of Kerry reminds me of the famous photo of Neville Chamberlain...we who do not learn from history.
8
Even though this deal is better than war, I believe the Iranians cannot be trusted. I heard that the inspection of the military bases is not included in the deal. If so, then that's where they will build the bombs.
41
Again, you heard it wrong:
"If international inspectors want to visit a site, they submit a request to Iran. Iran has 14 days to grant it. If not, the Joint Commission (P5+1/Iran/E.U.) would have a mechanism of 10 days to determine the outcome." ("Highlights of Iran nuclear deal", foxnews)
"If international inspectors want to visit a site, they submit a request to Iran. Iran has 14 days to grant it. If not, the Joint Commission (P5+1/Iran/E.U.) would have a mechanism of 10 days to determine the outcome." ("Highlights of Iran nuclear deal", foxnews)
5
You did read that it is not based on trust and that there are strong, very strong, verification procedures being implemented as we speak? Trust but verify. One of the right's sacred heroes said that. The Great Communicator. The Actor.
5
Does it matter to you that the Iraninas have scrupiously adhered to every agreement they ever made? SInce the text has not been made public anything you "heard" unless John kerry called you personally is just that hearsay
5
it reverses the dark dynamic, overt for 40 years, and puts us on a positive path. perhaps what is most important is not this breakthrough but other possible breakthroughs to come...
136
I agree, frankly. This is how nations reduce the threats of war, by small steps at a time. then, hopefully, bigger steps will follow.
A very farsighted view. Good!
Frankly, please remove the rose colored glasses and recognize the Iran regime for what it is: a cunning supporter of terrorism who now will fill its coffers with oil money to further support terrorist groups.
As with most forward movement on the part of the Obama administration, the Republican alternative to a nuclear deal with Iran will be to lower taxes on the super-rich. What else?
25
And now that Iran has been brought to the table, it will be that much harder for leaders like Lindsay Graham to bluster with statements like "Iran is the enemy." Not only have President Obama and his Cabinet made history, they have thrown down the gauntlet for political rhetoric to change, for the likes of American Republicans, Netanyahu, and all those who would spread fear rather than work to reduce adversaries.
40
NM,
As long as the Government of Iran holds an annual "Death to America" day, as it just did. Iran is the one saying they are our Enemy, not someone in Washington!
As long as the Government of Iran holds an annual "Death to America" day, as it just did. Iran is the one saying they are our Enemy, not someone in Washington!
5
"Iran is the one saying they are our Enemy"
There is plenty of that going both ways. It is past time to change that. This deal is meant to change that. Those who oppose the deal are the very ones who do not want to change that. They want Iran to be a US enemy.
There is plenty of that going both ways. It is past time to change that. This deal is meant to change that. Those who oppose the deal are the very ones who do not want to change that. They want Iran to be a US enemy.
12
It's been asserted that this deal does nothing to change Iran's foreign policy behavior. That's largely the position of Netanyahu.
Perhaps that's true. But the reality is that the U.S. has little leverage over Iran's foreign policy.
But Israel has a great deal of leverage on Iran's foreign policy. If Israel were to deal fairly with the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, that would have a lot more influence on Iran's foreign policy than anything the U.S., or the rest of the P5+1 could do.
How Iran's foreign policy goes has a lot to do with Israel's foreign policy.
Perhaps that's true. But the reality is that the U.S. has little leverage over Iran's foreign policy.
But Israel has a great deal of leverage on Iran's foreign policy. If Israel were to deal fairly with the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, that would have a lot more influence on Iran's foreign policy than anything the U.S., or the rest of the P5+1 could do.
How Iran's foreign policy goes has a lot to do with Israel's foreign policy.
29
Details of the agreement still must be scrutinized, but as described by Mr. Obama and other officials, the deal seems sound and clearly in the interest of the United States...
Really...an opinion piece just stating what Obama and Kerry have said without actually reading the agreement.
Really...an opinion piece just stating what Obama and Kerry have said without actually reading the agreement.
Not only does it decrease the chance of war, it vastly improves our strategic position in the near and middle east. Nice work.
54
Israel prefers war. It would prefer to inflict pain on millions of innocents if it thinks that the pain of others might makes Israel slightly safer. Its leaders have no empathy, and do not care about the pain it inflicts on others.
99
Really? You think a country the size of NJ where every soldier is a personal friend, relative or next door neighbor wants to have a war? You think they don't care about pain inflicted on others? Do you really believe that if Israel wanted to inflict pain on others it would not have completely destroyed its malicious arab neighbors? Israel cares about its own survival. Jews have known too often what happens when we are stateless. Never again means never again. Israel will go to war if necessary to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. You may not like it but it about Israel's survival.
4
The antisemites never miss an opportunity to crawl out from under their rocks and pretend that their hatred is a proud and noble stance. You only fool yourself and others of your ilk. It is you who have no empathy; it is you who revels in the pain you'd like to see inflicted on Israel and the spilled blood of the Jewish people.
7
Really,
Lots of beheadings In Israel these days? Lots of car bombs set off outside churches and mosks? Lots of barrel bombs dropped on civilians as in Syria by its government?
Lots of beheadings In Israel these days? Lots of car bombs set off outside churches and mosks? Lots of barrel bombs dropped on civilians as in Syria by its government?
7
Predictions: The deal will go into effect. The Iranians will develop a nuclear bomb. Obama's legacy will be substantially tarnished. The Democratic party will be wounded.
5
And if the republicans had their way israel and the U.S. would bomb Iran. Iran would retaliate by attacking Israel. Israel would then retaliate drawing the U.S. and Russia into a wide Middle East conflict. Republicans would blame Obama somehow.
23
"The deal will go into effect. The Iranians will develop a nuclear bomb."....The deal doesn't go into effect. The Iranians develop a nuclear bomb. What's your point?
13
Prediction. Iran will comply, they will enter the modern world economically and politically and will begin acting more responsibly over all when not confronted with a West that seems to think of nothing at all but bombing and shelling and droning and killing. Then, we will talk legacy.
12
Rubbish.
The deal states that inspections occur when thr Iranians do not object, if they do object it goes to an international panel for resolution. That could take years.
Bottom line Iran got $100 million, we got nothing concrete.
This isn't a deal it's a giveaway and Obama and Kerry know it.
The deal states that inspections occur when thr Iranians do not object, if they do object it goes to an international panel for resolution. That could take years.
Bottom line Iran got $100 million, we got nothing concrete.
This isn't a deal it's a giveaway and Obama and Kerry know it.
13
No, so read again or stop lying:
"If international inspectors want to visit a site, they submit a request to Iran. Iran has 14 days to grant it. If not, the Joint Commission (P5+1/Iran/E.U.) would have a mechanism of 10 days to determine the outcome." ("Highlights of Iran nuclear deal", foxnews)
"If international inspectors want to visit a site, they submit a request to Iran. Iran has 14 days to grant it. If not, the Joint Commission (P5+1/Iran/E.U.) would have a mechanism of 10 days to determine the outcome." ("Highlights of Iran nuclear deal", foxnews)
8
It would be so nice if this editorial reflected reality. In reality, though Iran will start cheating immediately. Once the genie of trade with Iran is out of the bottle, it will not be put back, so sanctions will not "snap back." And Iran will use the windfall cash to stoke Assad in Syria, Hizbullah in Lebanon, and its terrorists in South America, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. Iran is not allowing anywhere-anytime inspections. So basically we have given Iran a green light to go for nuclear weapons, and lifted all sanctions. Congress should reject this "deal," leave sanctions in place, and go back to the negotiating table until we get anywhere-anytime inspections and a lifting of sanctions only after compliance is assured. Anything else is just giving away the store and making the world a more dangerous place.
5
Thank you for this editorial in support of the agreement with Iran. We have seen the utter bankruptcy of preemptive war in the fiasco in Iraq, and given that, diplomacy and negotiations provide the only reasonable alternative to the unstable status quo.
It seems to me that the Republicans who are so firmly opposed to this deal are delusional about the extent of American power. It is simply impossible for one nation to take on ISIS, Iran, Russia, North Korea, and whomever seems to threaten our interests--even with allies. And as we saw in Iraq, if we are deemed to be trigger-happy, the consequential allies are very likely to fall away.
It seems to me that the Republicans who are so firmly opposed to this deal are delusional about the extent of American power. It is simply impossible for one nation to take on ISIS, Iran, Russia, North Korea, and whomever seems to threaten our interests--even with allies. And as we saw in Iraq, if we are deemed to be trigger-happy, the consequential allies are very likely to fall away.
40
The pursuit of nuclear non-proliferation was always during the Cold War with the Soviet Union--a much more dangerous and untrustworthy adversary than Iran--a bipartisan effort. The policy of detente originating with the Democratic Truman Administration at the dawn of the nuclear era in the 1950s was conscientiously followed with similar nuclear arms reduction pacts by conservative Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Without this almost half century of united political effort to rein in the nuclear arms race and reduce the number of weapons, we all might be radioactive ash today. It is simply outrageous to have Republicans denouncing the tentative deal with Iran before they've even read it. It is folly that borders on the madness of nuclear annihilation.
516
I agree. It is amazing how anyone can comment on anything they haven't read, including the NYT.
2
It's clear that neither the GOP nor Israel regards Iran as a genuine danger - just a convenient bogeyman. I do regard Iran as a genuine danger, and am glad to see that danger reduced by this treaty.
1
And NY Times support the deal after editorial board read it.Are you sure?
You think it is unsettling that Prime Minister Netanyahu described the deal as "a historic mistake". Here most people of all political parties from left to right think it unsettling that there are so many loopholes in the deal. Many in the Middle East who are not Shiite supporters of Iran or supported by Iran are also unsettled by the deal.
We are also unsettled by the fact that just last Friday the President and Supreme Leader of Iran were busy shouting "Death to Israel" (and "death to the US"). We believe that they mean it and we are not that sure that the under 30 jeans wearing crowd that is supposed to influence the Iranian government as to the positive aspects of life as a friend of US does not mean it also. We are unsettled by BBC reporters, just to cite one example, who claim that Iran is not a threat to Israel. We are unsettled by a skewered view about the region and ignorance that may have dire consequences for us, not you.
It is our lives on the line, not yours. "We have your back", said President Obama. If you were we would you trust that? I don't.
So "historic mistake"? Quite likely.
Iran won big time today. Who will lose? Time will tell. But probably everybody that is not Iran.
We are also unsettled by the fact that just last Friday the President and Supreme Leader of Iran were busy shouting "Death to Israel" (and "death to the US"). We believe that they mean it and we are not that sure that the under 30 jeans wearing crowd that is supposed to influence the Iranian government as to the positive aspects of life as a friend of US does not mean it also. We are unsettled by BBC reporters, just to cite one example, who claim that Iran is not a threat to Israel. We are unsettled by a skewered view about the region and ignorance that may have dire consequences for us, not you.
It is our lives on the line, not yours. "We have your back", said President Obama. If you were we would you trust that? I don't.
So "historic mistake"? Quite likely.
Iran won big time today. Who will lose? Time will tell. But probably everybody that is not Iran.
13
The remaining radicals in Cuba and the diehard conservatives in the US probably railed against opening Cuba-US relations, which have been frozen even longer than US-Iran relations. But in the end, most people see it as an improvement over the status quo, which it most certainly is.
This lifelong pro-Israel supporter who has many family members and friends living there is thankful that we have a bold President who has been able to successfully change the status quo on some major big ticket items (US-Cuba, civil rights for homosexuals and for same sex couples, significant health care improvements allowing countless millions to enjoy health insurance for the first time, etc.).
It is more than high time we did that with Iran as well. Once we do that, Bibi and company will have no-one as a convenient distraction to avoid having to deal with the Palestinians in a respectful and constructive manner. Even without that, the Middle East political dynamic is certainly changing, something that Bibi and Israel had better get used to because try as it might you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
This lifelong pro-Israel supporter who has many family members and friends living there is thankful that we have a bold President who has been able to successfully change the status quo on some major big ticket items (US-Cuba, civil rights for homosexuals and for same sex couples, significant health care improvements allowing countless millions to enjoy health insurance for the first time, etc.).
It is more than high time we did that with Iran as well. Once we do that, Bibi and company will have no-one as a convenient distraction to avoid having to deal with the Palestinians in a respectful and constructive manner. Even without that, the Middle East political dynamic is certainly changing, something that Bibi and Israel had better get used to because try as it might you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
19
Perhaps it's time for Zionists to start learning to get along with the neighbors Zionists have insisted on having, and stop demanding others pay for Zionist intransigence.
36
Unfortunately Mr. Obama cannot put the genie back in the bottle either.
Mr. Obama shortly walks away and writes his memoirs.
Mr. Obama shortly walks away and writes his memoirs.
2
" ...no one can erase the knowledge Iranian scientists have acquired after working on nuclear projects for decades." Knowledge of this kind is cheap and readily available on the internet, and the NYT editors know that acquisition and enrichment of nuclear material is the important component that the deal failed to control adequately. Yet, they delude themselves into thinking that this is some kind of landmark piece of diplomacy.
3
This deal is very simple. If there were to be no deal then Iran would make
a bomb and find some way to use it. With this deal their bomb making
capability is greatly hindered and allows other nations to respond to any
attempt to make a bomb. In other words a decent deal is better than no
deal at all.
a bomb and find some way to use it. With this deal their bomb making
capability is greatly hindered and allows other nations to respond to any
attempt to make a bomb. In other words a decent deal is better than no
deal at all.
420
Either way they will make a bomb, if they so choose. The agreement is so full of loopholes on their ability to conduct "research," "resolve disputes" and "protect their sovereign rights" that the agreement is not an impediment to Iran making a bomb any more (and probably less) than the deal with North Korea had been an impediment to Kim Jung-il's production of a bomb. The difference is that with a deal, Iran gains legitimacy for their nuclear program and installations, $140b of immediate funding and future relief from sanctions.
How do you verify with an opaque regime? How are you so sure?
Yes, this way they can put the bomb-making on hold for 10 years or so while still free to "research" advanced centrifuges, and they can still develop their ICBMs and use at least part of the $150 billion windfall it gets once the sanctions are lifted, not to mention the hordes of European businessmen tripping over themselves for juicy deals with Iran, to fund and arm fund its terror proxies.
1
We know that the forces and power of Endless War, the Pentagon, the contractors, and the neocons in Congress, comfortably remunerated by the AIPAC lobby, will begin howling for rejection of the treaty outright.
They demand a false prosperity for themselves. The rest of the nation should suffer war or the imminent threat of war to ensure their cash flow as much as their world view. As this editorial points out clearly, they offer absolutely no viable alternative and their counsel is transparently for armed conflict.
If these Republicans and some Democrats think this is going to play well in Peoria, with just some disinformation and false propaganda to bolster their phony claims of exceptionalism, I think they're in for a rude surprise.
Americans are sick of throwing our blood and treasure away in the Middle East. We have lost patience with a Congress that can never make a deal without blowing billions through mindless obstinacy.
We certainly aren't accepting counsel on fair negotiations from a serial liar that recently dropped the nugget that he was negotiating in bad faith with the Palestinians all along. Bibi and Boehner are just going to have to sit down in the back seat and let Obama drive the bus. After a while, they'll figure out we're not going to the beach.
280
KUDOS to both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Zarif for their "Tireless Diplomacy" as they both "Deserve Noble Peace Prize" for their Brilliant Work.
I offer the Editorial Board the following Observations on the Deal:
I. IRAN Does NOT Have ANY Nuclear Weapons Program And Does NOT Believe In Having One Either.
II. P5+1 should be P5+7 as the US is negotiating on behalf of Israel and Five Arab Ruled Monarchies in the Persian Gulf.
II. THE P5+7 Deal With Iran Is "Too Big To Fail"; As "The Biggest Enemy Of A Good Deal Is the Illusion Of Getting A Perfect Deal".
IV. FOR over 2500 years, Iran has been the ONLY country that Matters from China to Morocco.
V. THE Deal would pull Iran back into the "Western Sphere of Influence" and Deny our "Geopolitical Foes/Rivals, Russia & China", the Luxury of Dominating from the Pacific Region to North Africa.
VI. THOSE who oppose the Deal have no Solution except an "All Out War".
VII. THOSE in Congress who are going to Fight this, know all the above and are just Fighting for their "Own Political Fortunes/Lives" so Donations keep flowing from the Usual Suspects.
VIII. AND Finally If The US Fails To Ratify This Deal, The Sanctions Regime Will Fall Apart And Iran Will Get What They Really Want: "No Sanctions And No Limits On Their Nuclear Program".
I offer the Editorial Board the following Observations on the Deal:
I. IRAN Does NOT Have ANY Nuclear Weapons Program And Does NOT Believe In Having One Either.
II. P5+1 should be P5+7 as the US is negotiating on behalf of Israel and Five Arab Ruled Monarchies in the Persian Gulf.
II. THE P5+7 Deal With Iran Is "Too Big To Fail"; As "The Biggest Enemy Of A Good Deal Is the Illusion Of Getting A Perfect Deal".
IV. FOR over 2500 years, Iran has been the ONLY country that Matters from China to Morocco.
V. THE Deal would pull Iran back into the "Western Sphere of Influence" and Deny our "Geopolitical Foes/Rivals, Russia & China", the Luxury of Dominating from the Pacific Region to North Africa.
VI. THOSE who oppose the Deal have no Solution except an "All Out War".
VII. THOSE in Congress who are going to Fight this, know all the above and are just Fighting for their "Own Political Fortunes/Lives" so Donations keep flowing from the Usual Suspects.
VIII. AND Finally If The US Fails To Ratify This Deal, The Sanctions Regime Will Fall Apart And Iran Will Get What They Really Want: "No Sanctions And No Limits On Their Nuclear Program".
70
Not sure about your V.
Another checklist for sheep. The deal will fail and Iran will develop nuclear weapons. Then the sheep will make excuses for Iran. Just kicking the can down the road. Obama and Kerry will look like chumps in retrospect. Saudi Arabia will buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan, and the Middle East will see a huge arms build up. Arabs will be emboldened to attack Israel even more. The sheep will still blame Israel and point fingers at the Palestinians. Meanwhile, Iran gets its money, gets its nukes, and laughs at Democrat gullibility. Same as it ever was.
3
thank you
"VIII" is by far THE most important item on your listing,
both for today,
and for the rest of this millennia ...
"VIII" is by far THE most important item on your listing,
both for today,
and for the rest of this millennia ...
"Inspectors will have access to suspicious sites “where necessary, when necessary..."
Without staking a position on the agreement, I'd point out this simply isn't true.
Without staking a position on the agreement, I'd point out this simply isn't true.
7
Yes, it is true. Even Faux News admits that.
"If international inspectors want to visit a site, they submit a request to Iran. Iran has 14 days to grant it. If not, the Joint Commission (P5+1/Iran/E.U.) would have a mechanism of 10 days to determine the outcome." ("Highlights of Iran nuclear deal", foxnews) (quoted from Sensi above, thanks)
"If international inspectors want to visit a site, they submit a request to Iran. Iran has 14 days to grant it. If not, the Joint Commission (P5+1/Iran/E.U.) would have a mechanism of 10 days to determine the outcome." ("Highlights of Iran nuclear deal", foxnews) (quoted from Sensi above, thanks)
7
It is a good day for America, when there is hope in the horizon, we have battled in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, and we have nothing to show for, what about a deal? with a nation whose people has more in common with us? Trying a new approach, "tearing down this wall", we talk to Russia, China, takes courage to say why not Iran? the pay off has potential to be immense.
93
The alternative is not war but a better agreement or continuing sanctions and putting pressure on Iran. The agreement is not with the people of Iran
but their repressive, fundamentalistic dictatorship
which tortures and executes ints domestic enemies
but their repressive, fundamentalistic dictatorship
which tortures and executes ints domestic enemies
3
The editorial would like to set this up as a purely partisan issue, and takes the opportunity to criticize Netanyahu and congressional Republicans. But how do they explain the fact that nearly the ENTIRE Israeli political spectrum opposes the deal, including left-leaning figures like Yair Lapid and Tzipi Livni and Herzog -- who are not known as particularity hawkish or Netanyahu lovers? Why would they oppose the deal if they had nothing to worry about? Why do many Democrats oppose the deal? Please don't frame this as a partisan issue (neo-cons vs. peacenicks) -- too many lives are at stake.
10
This is a great outcome for which the world owes the US, Iran and the other negotiators a vote of thanks. No need to be so cautious: that Iran "aspires to greater influence in the region" is surely their right. It IS their region, not ours. Similarly that Iran "considers Israel a sworn enemy" is understandable, as the converse is true. As again demonstrated by the elected lead of that country today. And "often condemns the United States"? Not surprising that given recent history, but hopefully this new development will change that as well. This is a time to celebrate, not mince words.
130
This is very eloquently put, BW, who has the good fortune of inhabiting one of the world's truly exceptional cities. Thank you. Please keep commenting.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
6
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said this morning that this treaty was a "historic mistake".
in my humble view, the election of Mr. Netanyahu was the historic mistake. The events and statements now place him - and the entire nation of Israel - in opposition of the civilized entire world.
in my humble view, the election of Mr. Netanyahu was the historic mistake. The events and statements now place him - and the entire nation of Israel - in opposition of the civilized entire world.
435
All Israeli candidates for PM were against this and the same is true today when the deal was attacked across the board by right-left-center of the political spectrum.
If the election of Mr. Netanyahu was a mistake, historical or else wise, it was not over this.
As for the civilized world, well ....
If the election of Mr. Netanyahu was a mistake, historical or else wise, it was not over this.
As for the civilized world, well ....
7
Really Israel is no longer part of the "civilized world" now? I suspect you rejected Israel's membership in the civilized world sometime ago. And what about other nations that have misgivings about this agreement, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt, etc.? Are they no longer part of your civilized world either?
6
"All Israeli candidates for PM were against this and the same is true today when the deal was attacked across the board"
That says more about Israel than it does about the deal, considering the opinions of Britain, France, and Germany who helped make this deal.
That says more about Israel than it does about the deal, considering the opinions of Britain, France, and Germany who helped make this deal.
9
The NYT is correct to note the self parody PM Netanyahu has been during this negotiation. This nuclear armed Chicken Little has basically said anything short of war against Iran is a terrible defeat. Iran has a lot to gain from this deal and the US has taken off the table a preemptive Israeli American strike that would be a tragic boondoggle. This deal leaves lots of room for the US and Iran to bump heads on other issues. But it could lead to more cooperation between Iran and the US on issues of mutual self interest. Like the civil war in Syria and ISIS in Iraq.
170
Only time will tell is this deal works. Israel may have to do some heavy lifting in
future. Greece fooled everyone for a long time. Iran may do the same.
future. Greece fooled everyone for a long time. Iran may do the same.
1
The difference between Iran and Israel is that Israel does not have an annual "Death to Iran day" the way Iran has a "Death to America and Israel Day" (or did you miss that, just four days ago ?).
When the leader of a country, which has been caught trying to clandestinely build a nuclear weapon, threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, why do you think he's kidding ?
When the leader of a country, which has been caught trying to clandestinely build a nuclear weapon, threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, why do you think he's kidding ?
5
g in Nj, did you miss the non-stop right-wing calls from the U.S. to bomb Iran? Or do you never try to see the other side?
16