While the agreement allows surveillance at enrichment and at centrifuge production and storage sites, military sites and others are not available to inspection on demand, but only after 24 days, which is time enough to cover up what actually happens. How does this equate to meeting the most important requirement for any agreement: that it be verifiable?
And, Iran will be able to obtain advanced centrifuges, and in a few years, “break-out time” to a nuclear bomb could possibly be only months! Iran will also get sanctions lifted, something it could not do as a nation on America’s terror list, yet it was not required to halt any of its overt actions to support terrorism, and as part of the sanctions being lifted, it will be free to re-engage in arms sales.
After the agreement was announced, when I saw a picture of Secretary Kerry, standing tall, but head down, solitary, Neville Chamberlain came to mind, the British PM until 1940, also a tall, slender figure, who bought into Hitler’s appeasement right up to the invasion of Poland. In too many ways, whether Iran abides or not, this agreement is structured upon dangerous appeasement.
And, Iran will be able to obtain advanced centrifuges, and in a few years, “break-out time” to a nuclear bomb could possibly be only months! Iran will also get sanctions lifted, something it could not do as a nation on America’s terror list, yet it was not required to halt any of its overt actions to support terrorism, and as part of the sanctions being lifted, it will be free to re-engage in arms sales.
After the agreement was announced, when I saw a picture of Secretary Kerry, standing tall, but head down, solitary, Neville Chamberlain came to mind, the British PM until 1940, also a tall, slender figure, who bought into Hitler’s appeasement right up to the invasion of Poland. In too many ways, whether Iran abides or not, this agreement is structured upon dangerous appeasement.
4
Was a correct agrement only the israelis did not liked it dificut to understand why. respect the usa vere corect inthis case .
Finally, we'll get access to the world's best pistachio nuts. ;-)
The best comment, and warning, on this deal was by Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff, on The Real News Network. Look for "Wilkerson: Iran Deal Creates World's Most Intrusive Inspection Regime." It highlights what will happen to US prestige if US political factions squirrel this deal in the next 60 days.
The best comment, and warning, on this deal was by Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff, on The Real News Network. Look for "Wilkerson: Iran Deal Creates World's Most Intrusive Inspection Regime." It highlights what will happen to US prestige if US political factions squirrel this deal in the next 60 days.
1
What nobody's talking about is that if Iran fails to abide by the agreement, there's no realistic way to re-instate the economic sanctions. Bottom line is that there's no punishment for non-compliance.
If Iran violates the agreement, it takes a unanimous 8 votes, including Russia and China, to put the sanctions back in place. Russia and China are expected to be among Iran's biggest trading partners and will never agree to sanctions again. So, what's stopping Iran from violating the agreement? Nothing.
If Iran violates the agreement, it takes a unanimous 8 votes, including Russia and China, to put the sanctions back in place. Russia and China are expected to be among Iran's biggest trading partners and will never agree to sanctions again. So, what's stopping Iran from violating the agreement? Nothing.
3
The U.S. has a shameful history with Iran. Because of the U.S., the Shah came to power in the 1950s over the will of the Iranian people. As a result, U.S. companies received a sizable portion of Iran's oil, free of charge, for the next 20+ years. The U.S. continued to prop up the Shah; Iran got access to US military technology. Some sort of penance on the part of the U.S. certainly would be appropriate.
However, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, making Hezbollah an unofficial arm of the Iranian government. Iran has built secret refinement facilities, thumbing its nose at the IAEA. If this agreement is to have value, it must be strictly enforced. Iran must really reduce its uranium stockpile and its centrifuges; it must stop enriching uranium at its existing sites. Given Iran's past behavior, I don't trust them to comply, and I'm not sure how much value inspections can have when they're announced 24 days in advance.
In exchange, the U.S. has agreed to lift economic sanctions against Iran. This is probably a good thing that needed to happen anyway: the Iranian people deserve the economic opportunity. The Iranian government, however, had better ensure that money from trade goes to the people, and not to the government.
If Congress accepts the agreement, it should be with the proviso that the United States increases its intelligence capability in Iran, and reserves the right to conduct its own inspections in addition to those from the IAEA.
However, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, making Hezbollah an unofficial arm of the Iranian government. Iran has built secret refinement facilities, thumbing its nose at the IAEA. If this agreement is to have value, it must be strictly enforced. Iran must really reduce its uranium stockpile and its centrifuges; it must stop enriching uranium at its existing sites. Given Iran's past behavior, I don't trust them to comply, and I'm not sure how much value inspections can have when they're announced 24 days in advance.
In exchange, the U.S. has agreed to lift economic sanctions against Iran. This is probably a good thing that needed to happen anyway: the Iranian people deserve the economic opportunity. The Iranian government, however, had better ensure that money from trade goes to the people, and not to the government.
If Congress accepts the agreement, it should be with the proviso that the United States increases its intelligence capability in Iran, and reserves the right to conduct its own inspections in addition to those from the IAEA.
2
ISIS, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, the taliban, the terrorist, the militant muslims, Sunni militants, Sadam Hussein, Osama Bin Ladin, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Fidel Castro, and others.....are merely small time homicidal street thugs. These street thugs are small time potatoes who will make noise and name call. The big nuke boys to worry about are the U.S., Russia and China. On Oct. 16, 1964, China detonated its first atomic bomb. Hopefully everyone is also convinced that after the October 1962 missile crisis between U.S. Pres Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union over Cuba's small time street thug fidel castro, that the real power was not fidel, but rather the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Kennedy and Khrushchev came within a hair from pushing the button on a world nuclear war. North Vietnam was nothing without the military backing of Russia.
The real threat is a nuclear holocaust. The main players are the U.S., Russia, and China. Please don't believe the nonsensical Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. If you do then you probably believe in the tooth fairy as well. As long as all countries of the world continue with their quest for power and control.....the threat of a nuclear holocaust is real...the only question is when.
In a war there has to be an undisputed winner and a loser....otherwise the war continues. Any time an outside arbitrator or mediator steps in and declares peace...it merely fuels the flames of war.
The real threat is a nuclear holocaust. The main players are the U.S., Russia, and China. Please don't believe the nonsensical Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. If you do then you probably believe in the tooth fairy as well. As long as all countries of the world continue with their quest for power and control.....the threat of a nuclear holocaust is real...the only question is when.
In a war there has to be an undisputed winner and a loser....otherwise the war continues. Any time an outside arbitrator or mediator steps in and declares peace...it merely fuels the flames of war.
1
MORE INCONVENIENT TRUTH: Many of us American are sick and tired of political game playing at the expense of our United States interests! So the political playing jerks in Washington, like the anti-west hardliners in Iran that both apparently lack literacy skill are already against the Nuke agreement before they even know the details of what is in deal? So is their only alternative to bomb to start another war that republicans do not to want to pay for and would only delay Iran from continuing nuke development. Let’s see, England, Germany, France, Japan as well as United Nations and other NATO allies including China and Russia are with us. So Netanyahu and minority racist in Israel and King in Saudi Arabia that wants us to pay for their wars are against us! Maybe Intelligent thinking Americans should have a reality check to find out what is in the agreement and ask those what are the alternatives? So just what is the most dangerous and irresponsible decision? We will vote accordingly next November. Hum..
Given that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, and will not renounce first use, and Israel has the only nuclear weapons in the Middle East while refusing to join internationl inspection regimes, the notion that the agreement with Iran is a danger cannot bear scrutiny, no matter how much the Times tries to suggest so in its headlines and reporting, or how much the truly dangerous Netanyahu shrilly demands that the agreement be derailed. It is time to understand our history and that of the region and take a stand for peace.
2
The Iran deal will be a death nail for Israel. Soon ; her monopoly of nuclear bomb in the middle east will end when not Iran but several other nations will start developing nuke bombs without any restriction from anyone. Until now; Israel was using her nuke bombs as the sole weapon to grab the Arab land and Palestinian humanity; but soon Israel will realize that now the time has come to make peace with Palestinian or her own existence will be in doubt !!!! Sooner is better if Israel and her protectors understand this fact.
2
Again, I am surprised to see such vast democrat support for the president when this agreement (an unbroken promise) does not require Iran to stop the practice of publicly executing homosexuals, by hanging them from truck cranes. Seems like it violates Obama's most evolved litmus test on human rights.
2
We have meddled in Iran's affairs with seeming impunity for decades.
Critics say this is a bad agreement. The alternative is no agreement at all. Perhaps this has the potential to be a new beginning in Iran vs. the rest of the world.
Critics say this is a bad agreement. The alternative is no agreement at all. Perhaps this has the potential to be a new beginning in Iran vs. the rest of the world.
2
Surely the unspoken drive behind this flawed "agreement" is the U.S. fear that in a weakened Iran ISIS could get their hands on the Iran nuclear cache.
1
So I have 15 years to build my bomb shelter.
3
Build it as fast as possible and stay there. The less close minded, ignorant fear mongers in the country, the better.
1
iran people are very smart,they have a history of culture,what do our leaders have,a history of speeches.
2
Though I strongly favor this deal, I must say (as a lawyer) that I've been amazed at how watered-down the Senate's treaty-approving authority has become. Presumably Obama knows what he's doing here, and has had several or many bright lawyers advise him that Senate approval is not required.
In any case, as I understand it, the deal Obama has struck with Congress essentially provides that this deal goes through UNLESS Congress makes some affirmative decision to block it. And if Congress does that, its affirmative decision can be vetoed by Obama, just like any other law passed by Congress. Obama has unequivocally vowed to exercise that veto.
This means that the Iran deal will go through unless Congress gets enough votes to override Obama's veto. The chances of that are slim to none, and Slim just left town. So, while we'll undoubtedly be subjected to 60 days of gnashing teeth and solemn vows to fight this agreement to the death, Congress ultimately won't do anything to block it.
Since I favor this deal, that's fine with me -- this time. But if I were NOT in favor of this deal, then I might well feel that Obama was over-reaching here. Call it what you will, but this sounds to me like a "treaty," and, last I heard, the US Senate has to approve treaties.
In any case, as I understand it, the deal Obama has struck with Congress essentially provides that this deal goes through UNLESS Congress makes some affirmative decision to block it. And if Congress does that, its affirmative decision can be vetoed by Obama, just like any other law passed by Congress. Obama has unequivocally vowed to exercise that veto.
This means that the Iran deal will go through unless Congress gets enough votes to override Obama's veto. The chances of that are slim to none, and Slim just left town. So, while we'll undoubtedly be subjected to 60 days of gnashing teeth and solemn vows to fight this agreement to the death, Congress ultimately won't do anything to block it.
Since I favor this deal, that's fine with me -- this time. But if I were NOT in favor of this deal, then I might well feel that Obama was over-reaching here. Call it what you will, but this sounds to me like a "treaty," and, last I heard, the US Senate has to approve treaties.
I'm confused. The most important element in this agreement is that it is not bilateral. The US is not alone. We are allied with the UK, France, Germany, China, and Russia. Why is this knowledge so often buried? It was difficult for me to find the names of the countries. Opponents believe that the agreement weakens our defenses, but surely this strong multilateralism strengthens us as a nation, allies us with some of (if not all) of the strongest nations on the planet. I would like to see this fact emphasized.
4
"Give Peace A Chance." John Lennon, circa 1969
"Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran." John McMcain, circa 2008
I prefer the idea expressed by a beatle more than I trust the judgement of an elephant.
"Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran." John McMcain, circa 2008
I prefer the idea expressed by a beatle more than I trust the judgement of an elephant.
2
Of course it's a 'bad deal' a 'Liberal' did it. Here's how the cows eat the cabbage, vunderkind.....you have to attempt negotiation and pin down some kind of conditions so that when they break them you can truthfully argue that you tried. Oh, and what if something other than extermination, worked?
1
It is so much easier to be a critic than author. My hat is off to the P5+1 team for their persistence and patience in altering the confrontational dynamic that has kept the middle east on a war footing, at no small cost to the United States, for generations.
7
We often read that "Iran is X months away from a nuclear bomb."
Two comments on that:
1. A blogger named Nima Shirazi (Wide Asleep in America) has catalogued numerous "reports" about how far Iran is away from a nuclear bomb. You can go all the way back to the 1980s and learn that Iran, even then, was just months away from a nuclear bomb.
2. More important is to keep in mind what is required to make a nuclear bomb -- two things:
1. Very highly refined uranium.
2. The actual bomb device.
The second one, apparently, isn't much of a hurdle. Several decades ago, for example, some Princeton student wrote his senior thesis on "How to Build a Nuclear Bomb." I'm not a scientist and have no idea whether his design would have worked, but several qualified nuclear scientists read his paper and said "Yep, this would work."
It's the first part that's hard: enriching uranium (or plutonium) to a very high purity -- well above 90%. That's generally done by running it through centrifuges -- many of them, multiple times. Any country that has a nuclear bomb has to have that capability – unless it can count on some foreign supplier of highly enriched uranium, and there aren't many nuclear-bomb countries that will be willing to do that.
Iran can do that -- that's what worries us most. So can several other countries, of course – but those other countries either have the bomb already or, for one reason or another, the US doesn't worry about them.
Two comments on that:
1. A blogger named Nima Shirazi (Wide Asleep in America) has catalogued numerous "reports" about how far Iran is away from a nuclear bomb. You can go all the way back to the 1980s and learn that Iran, even then, was just months away from a nuclear bomb.
2. More important is to keep in mind what is required to make a nuclear bomb -- two things:
1. Very highly refined uranium.
2. The actual bomb device.
The second one, apparently, isn't much of a hurdle. Several decades ago, for example, some Princeton student wrote his senior thesis on "How to Build a Nuclear Bomb." I'm not a scientist and have no idea whether his design would have worked, but several qualified nuclear scientists read his paper and said "Yep, this would work."
It's the first part that's hard: enriching uranium (or plutonium) to a very high purity -- well above 90%. That's generally done by running it through centrifuges -- many of them, multiple times. Any country that has a nuclear bomb has to have that capability – unless it can count on some foreign supplier of highly enriched uranium, and there aren't many nuclear-bomb countries that will be willing to do that.
Iran can do that -- that's what worries us most. So can several other countries, of course – but those other countries either have the bomb already or, for one reason or another, the US doesn't worry about them.
2
It is an insult to Israel and Saudi Arabia. We will lose allies in the Middle East. We gain one friend and lose two friend. Whole world knows Iran wants Nuclear bomb at any cost. They have lot of energy (Oil), Why do they want Uranium? we will pay very high cost than benefits. US is not learning from its past mistakes . I feel sorry for fellow American.
3
Wow! If you had asked me a year ago what Obama's legacy would have been, my answer would be less than enthusiastic.
This president has done more in his last year (or so!) than he has in his previous six. Somehow, it has all come together for Obama as he approaches his last year in office, and his high place in American history is assured, beginning with a great start with a national healthcare insurance program and now, getting an agreement done with Iran.
His patience and his dedication to talking rather than sending in the Marines has paid off. I'm convinced that in time Cuba and Iran both will be good friends of ours.
This president has done more in his last year (or so!) than he has in his previous six. Somehow, it has all come together for Obama as he approaches his last year in office, and his high place in American history is assured, beginning with a great start with a national healthcare insurance program and now, getting an agreement done with Iran.
His patience and his dedication to talking rather than sending in the Marines has paid off. I'm convinced that in time Cuba and Iran both will be good friends of ours.
2
FedupCitizen writes:
"it's not a treaty) does nothing other than give Iran virtually everything they want and nothing to protect the world..."
I'll give 100 to 1 odds that you have no clue what you're talking about. You could read the agreement – the actual text is available on-line. Even then, I doubt you would know what you're reading. Would you be impressed, for example, that Iran agrees to the Additional Protocol and modified Code 3.1? Those are very big deals. Wholly apart from the rest of the agreement, accepting the AP will subject Iran to far more extensive inspections than it is now subject to. Modified Code 3.1 will require much earlier disclosure of new nuclear facilities – essentially, when Iran makes the decision to build the facility, not merely 180 days before it places nuclear material in the facility. Contrary to critics' frequent assertions, Iran was NOT required, under the "old" Code 3.1 to disclose Natanz or Fordow before their existence was reported by others. Under modified Code 3.1, by contrast, Iran would have been required to disclose each of them much earlier.
These are big steps forward, all by themselves – and those two commitments appear in just two sentences of that very long agreement.
Before you say Iran isn't giving up anything, at least read the agreement and get enough background knowledge to know what it means.
It seems to me that Iran gave up a lot, which leads me to conclude the sanctions were hitting Iran harder than I'd thought.
"it's not a treaty) does nothing other than give Iran virtually everything they want and nothing to protect the world..."
I'll give 100 to 1 odds that you have no clue what you're talking about. You could read the agreement – the actual text is available on-line. Even then, I doubt you would know what you're reading. Would you be impressed, for example, that Iran agrees to the Additional Protocol and modified Code 3.1? Those are very big deals. Wholly apart from the rest of the agreement, accepting the AP will subject Iran to far more extensive inspections than it is now subject to. Modified Code 3.1 will require much earlier disclosure of new nuclear facilities – essentially, when Iran makes the decision to build the facility, not merely 180 days before it places nuclear material in the facility. Contrary to critics' frequent assertions, Iran was NOT required, under the "old" Code 3.1 to disclose Natanz or Fordow before their existence was reported by others. Under modified Code 3.1, by contrast, Iran would have been required to disclose each of them much earlier.
These are big steps forward, all by themselves – and those two commitments appear in just two sentences of that very long agreement.
Before you say Iran isn't giving up anything, at least read the agreement and get enough background knowledge to know what it means.
It seems to me that Iran gave up a lot, which leads me to conclude the sanctions were hitting Iran harder than I'd thought.
2
I wish I could believe that the absolute rage against this agreement in especially Republican quarters was based on principled belief but unfortunately I fear most is knee jerk political posturing. Does the opposition- R and D- really think that they could have accomplished more or are they just trying to make the president look bad without considering the consequences for the country? This is not perfect but it is surely better than war; that has worked so well in the MidEast.
4
Six world powers?
Gee whiz. Thanks to the corporate propagandists in this country, I was under the assumption that this deal was simply between the worst country ever in world history (Iran) and the biggest traitor ever in the history of the United States (Obama).
I had no idea more than just those two parties were involved in these discussions...
Oh well, where's my remote? Back to the corporate propaganda networks.
Gee whiz. Thanks to the corporate propagandists in this country, I was under the assumption that this deal was simply between the worst country ever in world history (Iran) and the biggest traitor ever in the history of the United States (Obama).
I had no idea more than just those two parties were involved in these discussions...
Oh well, where's my remote? Back to the corporate propaganda networks.
5
Let's not forget that Prime Minister Netanyahu relies heavily on playing the Iran card to maintain his hold on the Israeli electorate and stay in office. It would undermine his whole political standing to compromise on any issue that relates to Iran. Let's hope that enough US elected politicians have sufficient backbone to form an independent evaluation of the present agreement regardless of whatever Likud may have to say.
2
I look forward to seeing how soon, the Republican quasi-president, Netanyahu convenes a joint session of our Republican Congress to tell us that all we have to fear is Obama himself.
Congress is sure to endorse that idea a lot faster than do anything associated with the name Obama. Just look at the ACA.
Congress is sure to endorse that idea a lot faster than do anything associated with the name Obama. Just look at the ACA.
In theory.with the passage of times since the Iranian Revolution, the West, especially the USA should desire to normalise relations with Iran. In that narrative the deal reached is a wonderful achievement. However, the Iranian power structure at it's core, not the President or people of Iran, but the Ayatollahs, the mullahs and the Revolution Guards have no such desire for peace or to normalise relationships. Otherwise, the chants of death to the Little and Great Satin would have long since petered away. It is the Ayatollah and the mullahs which will decide if and how the pact will be observed, not President Rouhani. That of course means that the deal is hardly worth the paper it is written on. I think it is fair to say that from conversations with members of the Iranian community in London, they welcome the deal but fear that it will not be observed. If that is the case, what will Obama do? All he may have achieved was a lot of money transfering to Iran and then on to Hamas and Hezbollah. If I were Obama, this is not the peace deal I would like to base my legacy on.
3
- Republicans are crawling over each other to claim they will vote against the deal with Iran before even seeing the details. Didn't they make hay out of ridiculing such behavior regarding the ACA?
- The NY Times has a piece with quotes from "players" on this deal that does not include our allies who also were involved and have a stake (e.g. Britain, France, Germany). How disrespectful.
- I have Iranian friends who are temporarily in the US and American friends who have recently worked in Iran as part of scientific collaborations. From them, I see that that view of many Americans about Iran is very far off base. While there may be fanatics in Iran, they are a minority, and the majority of Iranians desire closer ties with the US and Europe. History has shown time and again that increasing contacts between people leads to increased understanding and compassion and is the best tool for defeating tyranny.
President Obama should be congratulated for opening new pathways to facilitate contact between the people of the US and the people of Iran (and Cuba). These are important steps towards a more prosperous and peaceful future.
- The NY Times has a piece with quotes from "players" on this deal that does not include our allies who also were involved and have a stake (e.g. Britain, France, Germany). How disrespectful.
- I have Iranian friends who are temporarily in the US and American friends who have recently worked in Iran as part of scientific collaborations. From them, I see that that view of many Americans about Iran is very far off base. While there may be fanatics in Iran, they are a minority, and the majority of Iranians desire closer ties with the US and Europe. History has shown time and again that increasing contacts between people leads to increased understanding and compassion and is the best tool for defeating tyranny.
President Obama should be congratulated for opening new pathways to facilitate contact between the people of the US and the people of Iran (and Cuba). These are important steps towards a more prosperous and peaceful future.
2
and yet its the fanatics who are in charge over there it would be akin to having a lunatic fringe republican presidential candidate as president in the White House.
1
While Netanyahu is ranting and raving, he refuses to admit that Israel has many, many times subtly sabotaged any Middle East negotiations. We can only guess why.
Prediction: Israel will now play victim again and instigate some other Middle Eastern crisis. It always takes 2 to tango...which means basically that since more Palestinians have been killed by Israeli warfare than the other way around, the Israeli tango is a solo dance routine.
The ball is now in Israel's court and they spotlight is on them. It's long past time these middle eastern countries get on with their lives and stop staring each other down spoiling for a fight.
Prediction: Israel will now play victim again and instigate some other Middle Eastern crisis. It always takes 2 to tango...which means basically that since more Palestinians have been killed by Israeli warfare than the other way around, the Israeli tango is a solo dance routine.
The ball is now in Israel's court and they spotlight is on them. It's long past time these middle eastern countries get on with their lives and stop staring each other down spoiling for a fight.
2
The point an Israeli observer made about whether the international inspection system can discover and inspect undeclared sites is an important one that needs clarification.
2
Leave it to the Times to appeal to those who would applaud this. We just went from containment to facilitation. What do you think you can do with 2% enriched uranium? A lot. What do you think happens in 15 years? What do you think they're doing in the mean time. You can have the erector set sitting in pieces and just assemble it, you know. I went to college with these people. They are not dumb and they are very patient. You have no idea. And they educate their best and brightest starting at an early age when our kids are still playing with sticks and they concentrate that education gaining the best knowledge they can find from anyone all over the world. We will rue the day. They must just laugh at the prospects of weak Democratic presidents helping them out.
2
I don't believe the agreement will turn positive for all sides!
At least Israel is suffering already! By the way, Netanyahu seems the only person with a strong understandable idea!
At least Israel is suffering already! By the way, Netanyahu seems the only person with a strong understandable idea!
2
Critics are vociferously saying that this is a sellout, a betrayal of Israel, that it will lead to a cold war type military escalation of the Middle East with everyone who has money to burn obtaining nuclear weapons. Could anyone prevent Saudi Arabia from having one? We know that with the large oil reserves they hold and the economic effects of their production output they are largely immune from any sanctions, etc.
Israel's Netenyahu says it is a betrayal of Israel and many US political figures, interested only in the Jewish vote (and political monetary contributions) likewise join the chorus, hypocrites all.
What could happen without the accord. As soon as Netenyahu decides the Iranians are on the verge of getting a bomb, he would act unilaterally to launch missiles and or air strikes to destroy them, launching a Middle East war, dragging the US into it (because of previous treaties) and causing untold destruction and death of many innocent people.
China, with its bellicose and provocative behavior everywhere in the disputed areas of the South China Sea is a greater threat to world peace than Iran is, and much more powerful in every way. They are the ones we need to worry about while at the same time containing Iran within certain political, diplomatic and economic boundaries. A Naval blockade of Iran would be easier to accomplish and devastating for its people.
Israel's Netenyahu says it is a betrayal of Israel and many US political figures, interested only in the Jewish vote (and political monetary contributions) likewise join the chorus, hypocrites all.
What could happen without the accord. As soon as Netenyahu decides the Iranians are on the verge of getting a bomb, he would act unilaterally to launch missiles and or air strikes to destroy them, launching a Middle East war, dragging the US into it (because of previous treaties) and causing untold destruction and death of many innocent people.
China, with its bellicose and provocative behavior everywhere in the disputed areas of the South China Sea is a greater threat to world peace than Iran is, and much more powerful in every way. They are the ones we need to worry about while at the same time containing Iran within certain political, diplomatic and economic boundaries. A Naval blockade of Iran would be easier to accomplish and devastating for its people.
So Obama is now in bed with Iran. Hope we still have a flag standing by the time this man who is only interested in his "legacy" is out of the White House. His Military Advisors ALL said "NO" to this deal but of course, the Big Community Activist is omnipotent.
2
How is this "deal" being reported to the Iranian people - this is our view, what is theirs?
2
It's difficult to believe a U.S. presidency could have affected so much damage. Every time he ends his addresses with "God bless America" he must be choking on the words.
3
While I fully concur with the laudable aspect of choosing talk over military actions, this document (that's all it is, it's not a treaty) does nothing other than give Iran virtually everything they want and nothing to protect the world. The inspection procedure is on "an approval basis" by the Iranians only after the world proves by evidence why they should be allowed to look., and then the 'Look" can only begin 3 1/2 weeks later. I suggest the document occured is that China and Russia said that they were going to pull out of the current sanctions which would have left Obama with an embarrassing situation. War was not an answer but his document simply gives Iran significantly more Cash flow very quickly.
3
, "this document (that's all it is, it's not a treaty) does nothing other than give Iran virtually everything they want and nothing to protect the world."....According to the experts, right now, today, Iran is less than a year away from a nuclear weapon. The negotiations moves that back at least ten years and maybe fifteen. A vote against the negotiations means you prefer that the international sanctions will be at least partially lifted and Iran has a bomb next year. A vote for the negotiations mean you prefer all the sanctions are lifted and Iran can build a bomb ten to fifteen years out. Which do you prefer?
1
Charlie in NYC asks:
"Thinker, ... how many reports from the IAEA detailing Iran's lack of cooperation and requesting access do you need to see?"
ANSWER:
One -- just one. But by "report," I mean an actual report, not just the 1,000th assertion about what some unspecified report says. An actual report that says, in essence:
"Iran is obligated to let the IAEA have access to X. Iran is not letting the IAEA have access to X."
Just one, Charlie. Not trying to be cute here -- just asking for a citation to an actual IAEA claim that Iran is blocking access. And not some statement that "Unless Iran lets us look at some things we're not entitled to look at but would like to see anyway, we won't be able to confirm that Iran has no undeclared nuclear material." The IAEA says that about many countries, after all. What I'm looking for is an actual IAEA statement that Iran is obligated to give us access to X -- whatever X may be -- and Iran is not doing that.
As you might expect, I probably wouldn't ask this question if I didn't already know what your (honest) answer will be: Nothing.
"Thinker, ... how many reports from the IAEA detailing Iran's lack of cooperation and requesting access do you need to see?"
ANSWER:
One -- just one. But by "report," I mean an actual report, not just the 1,000th assertion about what some unspecified report says. An actual report that says, in essence:
"Iran is obligated to let the IAEA have access to X. Iran is not letting the IAEA have access to X."
Just one, Charlie. Not trying to be cute here -- just asking for a citation to an actual IAEA claim that Iran is blocking access. And not some statement that "Unless Iran lets us look at some things we're not entitled to look at but would like to see anyway, we won't be able to confirm that Iran has no undeclared nuclear material." The IAEA says that about many countries, after all. What I'm looking for is an actual IAEA statement that Iran is obligated to give us access to X -- whatever X may be -- and Iran is not doing that.
As you might expect, I probably wouldn't ask this question if I didn't already know what your (honest) answer will be: Nothing.
3
It is always better to use positive incentives to create a desired goal, rather than punitive measures. The Iranian people, in large part, are for this accord, so that embargos can be lifted. The International Atomic Energy Agency will have the right to inspect, and, if violations are discovered, embargos immediately go back into place.
I do not believe, at this time, that Iran is in league with ISIS. However, once this accord is fully in effect, Iranian leadership, specifically their nuclear programs, could become targets for conquest by ISIS.
The Republicans are right to be concerned about this, but should not derail the accord, as it, in itself, is a good one. Congress should be prepared to defend any group or country against incursions by ISIS.
I am not in favor of war, death and torture. But, as ISIS uses these methods to achieve its ends, the U.S. must be ready to fight them if necessary.
I do not believe, at this time, that Iran is in league with ISIS. However, once this accord is fully in effect, Iranian leadership, specifically their nuclear programs, could become targets for conquest by ISIS.
The Republicans are right to be concerned about this, but should not derail the accord, as it, in itself, is a good one. Congress should be prepared to defend any group or country against incursions by ISIS.
I am not in favor of war, death and torture. But, as ISIS uses these methods to achieve its ends, the U.S. must be ready to fight them if necessary.
1
Part 2: the Persians have consistently negotiated in bad faith throughout the past decade, and will inevitably try to cheat on this interim deal. It's just theor nature. The only winner on our side will be our defense contractors who will get hundreds of billions of dollars from the orders that Israel and it's new Arab allies will have spend on advanced weapons to use against the Persian Empire that is rolling over the middle East.
2
I still can not see the economic benefits for the United States from this deal, what was it? American gesture of goodwill, which required 20 months of negotiation, the quarrels of the president and the Congress and debates of the world community?
1
lower prices at the pump of course
I've got news for those opposing this deal and for their reasons they are. 1. Our technology as such that we can view every site in Iran via satellite and via the intelligence agencies. 2. Their is a certain amount of trust one has to start before other concerns can be negotiated. 3. Iran is the only country fighting ISIS fully the rest Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Israel is just making it worse.
2
15 whole years...today's grade schoolers should be welcoming the birth of their children just about then, what a nice birth present, an unrestrained nuclear Iran with 15 unfettered years of stockpiling nuclear material under their belts, oh goody gumdrops.
This odorously offensive kick the can down the road deal not only falls way short of the euphoric and self-congratulatory rhetoric being bandied about, it solves nothing, it resolves nothing and it does nothing more than postpone the day of final resolution, which, obviously, is beyond the grasps of today's players, domestic or foreign. Therefore, am going to be leaning with the detractors on this one...
This odorously offensive kick the can down the road deal not only falls way short of the euphoric and self-congratulatory rhetoric being bandied about, it solves nothing, it resolves nothing and it does nothing more than postpone the day of final resolution, which, obviously, is beyond the grasps of today's players, domestic or foreign. Therefore, am going to be leaning with the detractors on this one...
2
Why does this remind of Neville Chamberlain waving a piece of paper and declaring to the world, negotiations with Hitler, had guaranteed "Peace in our times."
Is anyone listening to what Iran's mullahs are saying about the West and Israel? Certainly none of our Democrat media.
Is anyone listening to what Iran's mullahs are saying about the West and Israel? Certainly none of our Democrat media.
5
DANGER AHEAD? All life involves risk-taking. But the only way to improve relations with Iran is to seek a political resolution. In the US we should have learned our lesson in Iraq, where Dubya lied about the imperative to go to war. The world will feel the shock and awe of what was truly an historic mistake for many years to come. Proof of that is the upheaval in the Mideast. Obama is being accused of seeking to actively solve problems with Iran by the Republican Congress whose hallmark is to claim that their inaction, obstructionism and downright sabotage constitute effective governance. Clearly, they do not! The standards by which presidents are judged differ wildly. Dubya was cheered for lying, while Obama is pilloried for telling the truth. If Iran continues exporting terrorism, future US administrations may well use the conditions of the current accord as a reason to reinstate sanctions. There can be future talks to revise the conditions of the agreement. Hopefully the younger generation will replace the religious autocratic leaders with more rational, fair-minded views toward rejoining the community of nations. In the US we would do well to look into the negative impact of religious extremism in the very halls of Congress and its distructive impact on our nation. Let the person who is without guilt cast the first stone. None among the Republicans could pick up a rock according to that standard!
2
Time is the true test. In 20 years you and children will see the answer.
The Republican declarations opposing the deal will only force the Iranians to go ahead with enrichment. Who can trust a country whose leaders say one thing today and another tomorrow?
1
The deal is only an interim agreement. The problem with this deal us that it is such an overwhelming Iranian victory, it will not suvive Obama.
Now after learning of the terms of the agreement, it seems that the initial elation of many has been misplaced. Instead of Anytime Anywhere inspections and a dismantling of the nuclear program, we will have Managed Access that is easily circumvented by an unscrupulous Iran during the 2 to 3 week dispute period. Instead of continuing the conventional and ballistic weapons ban we have a 5 to 8 year maximum subject to attempts to circumvent, like claiming the s-300 missile defense system doesn't apply.
Instead of destroying the program, the unused equipment and materials will go into storage - readily available for future use. While Iran seems to have become worn out by making ever increasing demands that exceeded the April framework that Obama willingly caved on, the greatest concern is the preservation and storage of the nuclear arms program allowing it to be restarted at Iran's desire.
The next greatest concern is the destabilizing effect that rewarding Iran with $200 billion in funds sequestered by the sanctions will certainly destabilize the Middle East, where Iran is involved in numerous wars.
Even Hillary Clinton pointed out this obvious flaw by stating that this is only the start and enforcement must be vigorous; so this deal is not conclusive and the Iranian problem will persist for years to come.
Now after learning of the terms of the agreement, it seems that the initial elation of many has been misplaced. Instead of Anytime Anywhere inspections and a dismantling of the nuclear program, we will have Managed Access that is easily circumvented by an unscrupulous Iran during the 2 to 3 week dispute period. Instead of continuing the conventional and ballistic weapons ban we have a 5 to 8 year maximum subject to attempts to circumvent, like claiming the s-300 missile defense system doesn't apply.
Instead of destroying the program, the unused equipment and materials will go into storage - readily available for future use. While Iran seems to have become worn out by making ever increasing demands that exceeded the April framework that Obama willingly caved on, the greatest concern is the preservation and storage of the nuclear arms program allowing it to be restarted at Iran's desire.
The next greatest concern is the destabilizing effect that rewarding Iran with $200 billion in funds sequestered by the sanctions will certainly destabilize the Middle East, where Iran is involved in numerous wars.
Even Hillary Clinton pointed out this obvious flaw by stating that this is only the start and enforcement must be vigorous; so this deal is not conclusive and the Iranian problem will persist for years to come.
4
I keep remembering why I originally voted for this man, our President . I had
read an article about him by Farid Zaharian (spelling) which analyzed his
world view, his internationalism - for Americans , that exotic background of
schooling in Indonesia , his African father, etc. much of which lead to the
idiotic "birther" crowd,. It gave him a perspective and view of the world so
much broader than his opponents. I see this in context with the efforts toward
diplomacy he has sought throughout his presidency. The deal with Iran is a
culmination of his world view. It takes us truly into the 21st Century .
read an article about him by Farid Zaharian (spelling) which analyzed his
world view, his internationalism - for Americans , that exotic background of
schooling in Indonesia , his African father, etc. much of which lead to the
idiotic "birther" crowd,. It gave him a perspective and view of the world so
much broader than his opponents. I see this in context with the efforts toward
diplomacy he has sought throughout his presidency. The deal with Iran is a
culmination of his world view. It takes us truly into the 21st Century .
5
There you go: "Peace in our time."
a lot better than war in our time - been there, done that.
Possible correction: Perhaps Mr. Obama has the votes to sustain a veto, not "override" it. (See next to last paragraph.)
Besides the change brings hope My Congratulations to each nation involved in this diplomacy of peace Mainly The Iran the world is tired of wars Happy Sustainability 2015
2
The finest analysis I have heard on this subject was from an expert of conflict containment screened on TVE (Spanish TV) which frankly puts others to shame in its depth and scope. The points made are too numerous to to detail here but one that stuck in my mind was that there is absolutely no immediate necessity for Iran to have nuclear energy as its deposits of petroleum and natural gas are vast and for peaceful scientific research the scope of their even agreed activities was was far beyond that needed for such research. He stated that the greatest likelihood was their continuing one way or another their nuclear power ambitions for non-peaceful purposes and that the effort to achieve an agreement was motivated by eceonomic interests more than anything else. Please access TVE web site for more detailed coverage (the interview was in Spanish).
"Fools rush in where wise men fear to trread"!
"Fools rush in where wise men fear to trread"!
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.
Younger Iranians crave relations with the West according to what we are all fed through the media. A closer relationship through trade will open doors as it has with all of our former adversaries.
1
In 15 years' time, Iran may well have become the most trusted ally of the US in the Middle East. It's not a far-fetched thought. Iran indeed was US's closest ally during the late Shah's rule.
In politics, yesterday's adversary is today's bedfellow; today's friend is tomorrow's enemy. So, today's poll declaring the majority of Americans not trusting the Iranians may well become meaningless in the days to come.
Iran's younger generation is yearning for a better and improved relations with the US. That is a fact. Who knows, they may very well bring the Mullahs' regime to a close and usher in a democratically-elected people's government!
In politics, yesterday's adversary is today's bedfellow; today's friend is tomorrow's enemy. So, today's poll declaring the majority of Americans not trusting the Iranians may well become meaningless in the days to come.
Iran's younger generation is yearning for a better and improved relations with the US. That is a fact. Who knows, they may very well bring the Mullahs' regime to a close and usher in a democratically-elected people's government!
3
I voted for Obama. I hope congress blocks this deal. It's ridiculous, enforcement is a joke and president Obama is delusional.
2
I have been one of Obama's critic but on this I think he may be right.....I hope Congress looks at it the same way.....
4
I do not understand why people keep calling Israel 'warmongering'! If everyone would stop trying to steal land and resources from Israel and quit daydreaming of plans to anhialate Israel and the Jewish community them Israel might stop protecting themselves. If someone breaks into your house and tries to steal your belongings and kill your family would you consider retaliating with force 'murder'? No! It is self-defense. Israel is GOD'S chosen people whether Israel by heritage or Israel by salvation. Are you going to tell GOD "Your people just need to roll-over and die so we can have our cake in peace!" I am surely not going to say that! If I was President, and this is probably spoken out of ignorance, my comment to Israel's enemies would be "Leave Israel alone or reap the wrath of the United States and every military asset it owns!"
4
I hope your tongue is firmly in your cheek regarding your post. Otherwise it is 180 degrees out of touch with reality.
1
Intelligence information should be used with intelligence. Diplomacy worked in this case, so kudos to our President.
5
Congratulations to all the countries who had a hand in bringing about this deal. As far as Netanyahu is concerned, he is a warmongering thug. I cannot understand why we keep giving Israel money and weapons. And how about the hundreds of nuclear warheads that Israel has? Why have they not signed a nuclear non-proliferation agreement? What country represents the bigger danger?
8
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I remember that there is a clause in the US constitution that provides that treaties require the consent of the Senate.
However, with respect to Iran we have decided to use a new-fangled formula that tramples on the Constitution. Washington has decreed that the agreement will be Law unless two thirds of Congress oppose it.
This agreement is an egregious attack on the interests of all peace-loving peoples. It provides, according to what I have read in the Washington Post, that inspections can only occur at non declared nuclear sites if there is evidence of cheating. While the inspectors merrily tell us that everything is kosher at the declared nuclear sites, Iran can do anything it wants to in non declared sites. And Iran is a vast country. And so while the inspectors tell us that Arak is no longer making plutonium, somewhere, in the millions of square miles that is Iran, plutonium and all manner of genocidal agents will be crafted.
However, with respect to Iran we have decided to use a new-fangled formula that tramples on the Constitution. Washington has decreed that the agreement will be Law unless two thirds of Congress oppose it.
This agreement is an egregious attack on the interests of all peace-loving peoples. It provides, according to what I have read in the Washington Post, that inspections can only occur at non declared nuclear sites if there is evidence of cheating. While the inspectors merrily tell us that everything is kosher at the declared nuclear sites, Iran can do anything it wants to in non declared sites. And Iran is a vast country. And so while the inspectors tell us that Arak is no longer making plutonium, somewhere, in the millions of square miles that is Iran, plutonium and all manner of genocidal agents will be crafted.
3
With this kind of suspicion USA searched everywhere in Iraq. It even went to war on phony arguments. The result is empty treasury when recession hit us.
Let me put it this way Iran has the right to prosper and secure its border on its terms and even be an international power. Other countries should merely help its evolution and contain the mischiefs.
BTW USA and Iran were not the only parties in the negotiation. Other countries were also there. We should better think more about our welfare than Israel or Arab regimes.
Let me put it this way Iran has the right to prosper and secure its border on its terms and even be an international power. Other countries should merely help its evolution and contain the mischiefs.
BTW USA and Iran were not the only parties in the negotiation. Other countries were also there. We should better think more about our welfare than Israel or Arab regimes.
3
Mr. Gottfried: You're not old fashioned. If you were you would trust your President to have negotiated the best deal possible. You would support your country's position. And, you would have withheld criticism until you (and the conservative Washington Post) had read and fairly reported terms of the agreement.
Here is what a bi-partisan group of nuclear scientists said about provisions in the agreement for inspections: "Despite Tehran’s recent protestations, the accord laid out many details for enhanced monitoring, including to military sites, Mr. Einhorn said.
“They get access anywhere they have suspicions,” he said. He also noted that the full accord featured a mechanism for resolving inspection disputes that would allow Iran to be overruled."
Promoting false information places our country at greater risk.
Here is what a bi-partisan group of nuclear scientists said about provisions in the agreement for inspections: "Despite Tehran’s recent protestations, the accord laid out many details for enhanced monitoring, including to military sites, Mr. Einhorn said.
“They get access anywhere they have suspicions,” he said. He also noted that the full accord featured a mechanism for resolving inspection disputes that would allow Iran to be overruled."
Promoting false information places our country at greater risk.
Absent a deal, Iran would have been a nuclear weapon power by 2025 at the latest. The only way to prevent Iran a country with a redundant hardened multi-site nuclear development program is with 1. Nuclear attack 2. Land Invasion 3. diplomatic means. Obama correctly chose diplomacy even if he strongly suspected that the Iranians would cheat.
The US developed nuclear weapons in the early 1940's. Many of the calculations were done by using slide rulers or basically wooden sticks. Time magazine once had an article on the designs for the 2 weapons used on Japan. I repeat Nuclear weapons are 1940s technology. The small ones that can be put on small bombs are 1980's technology. Each year since 1940, the technical skill and cost to develop these weapons have dropped.
In my high school class we discussed the enrichment process, materials, and basic design. Low yield large bomb weapons are not advanced they are just expensive and take a long time to produce the highly enriched Uranium.
Obama faced a choice of the status quo that will mean a nuclear weapon capable Iran by 2025 at the latest or got to a land war that would dwarf the horrendous costs of the Iraq war or pre-emptively nuke a nation. So he had no real options but diplomacy. The Iranian nuclear program was specifically designed to resist bombing. BTW a land invasion of Iran would undoubtedly unite the Iranian people. Any other choice would have been foolish.
The US developed nuclear weapons in the early 1940's. Many of the calculations were done by using slide rulers or basically wooden sticks. Time magazine once had an article on the designs for the 2 weapons used on Japan. I repeat Nuclear weapons are 1940s technology. The small ones that can be put on small bombs are 1980's technology. Each year since 1940, the technical skill and cost to develop these weapons have dropped.
In my high school class we discussed the enrichment process, materials, and basic design. Low yield large bomb weapons are not advanced they are just expensive and take a long time to produce the highly enriched Uranium.
Obama faced a choice of the status quo that will mean a nuclear weapon capable Iran by 2025 at the latest or got to a land war that would dwarf the horrendous costs of the Iraq war or pre-emptively nuke a nation. So he had no real options but diplomacy. The Iranian nuclear program was specifically designed to resist bombing. BTW a land invasion of Iran would undoubtedly unite the Iranian people. Any other choice would have been foolish.
8
Does Jeb! recall that his brother allowed Pakistan to have nuclear weapons? At least Iran has a government. Who knows who's running Pakistan and who they are selling nuclear technology to?
9
Some comments are very hopeful and idealistic. Saying Iran will not use the bomb because the retaliation will be unsurvivable is assuming Iran is sane and level-headed. Obviously, they are anything but sane. It is a known fact that growing up in relative seclusion on a barren desert with no education, little technology, and only a local group of militant rebels to offer you a job and any kind of deprived love and acceptance you are seeking breeds people with warped sense of values(if any), false religion( cause really the only religion they have is tricking people into believing they are doing evil for the sake of their religion when really it is for greed and self-promotion), and no conscience or grasp on reality! Just compare gang-bangers function in the U.S.
1
Iran will not "use the bomb" because Iran does not have any nuclear bombs.
2
C writes:
"Even if that did not matter [Netanyahu's] country is fully armed with nukes and has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."
All true. But, while I think Netanyahu is a buffoon that we ought to ignore, I certainly can understand why Israel doesn't sign the NPT. Under the NPT, there are two categories of countries: those that have nuclear weapons (and are expressly permitted to keep them), and those that don't. Since Israel has nuclear weapons (or so most people believe – a belief which Israel certainly wants to encourage, whether it's true or not), and since no country will ever sign the NPT and get added to the list of nuclear-weapons "haves," for Israel to sign the NPT would require giving up its nuclear weapons.
That ain't going to happen, ever. And, frankly, if I were Israel, I'd never even consider giving up my nuclear weapons. My attitude would be: "Call me a hypocrite if you like. But I'm a hypocrite with nuclear weapons. Don't ever forget that."
"Even if that did not matter [Netanyahu's] country is fully armed with nukes and has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."
All true. But, while I think Netanyahu is a buffoon that we ought to ignore, I certainly can understand why Israel doesn't sign the NPT. Under the NPT, there are two categories of countries: those that have nuclear weapons (and are expressly permitted to keep them), and those that don't. Since Israel has nuclear weapons (or so most people believe – a belief which Israel certainly wants to encourage, whether it's true or not), and since no country will ever sign the NPT and get added to the list of nuclear-weapons "haves," for Israel to sign the NPT would require giving up its nuclear weapons.
That ain't going to happen, ever. And, frankly, if I were Israel, I'd never even consider giving up my nuclear weapons. My attitude would be: "Call me a hypocrite if you like. But I'm a hypocrite with nuclear weapons. Don't ever forget that."
2
"My attitude would be: "Call me a hypocrite if you like. But I'm a hypocrite with nuclear weapons. Don't ever forget that." "
So why should Iran not also have nukes. Israel and some in the USA Israel Lobby are often quoted as ready to nuke Iran.
So why should Iran not also have nukes. Israel and some in the USA Israel Lobby are often quoted as ready to nuke Iran.
1
"Yet, it left open areas that are sure to raise fierce objections in Congress. It preserves Iran’s ability to produce as much nuclear fuel as it wishes after year 15 of the agreement, and allows it to conduct research on advanced centrifuges after the eighth year"
But Jeb can claim that he will increase the GDP by 4% a year ad infinitum? What was the prediction about how fast we would succeed and win the ... name a war?
Indeed, when was the last time we fought a war and still liked the leader and political party and congress we spent billions of dollars and hundreds of our own lives, let alone theirs, after 3 or 4 years (or was it months)?
But Jeb can claim that he will increase the GDP by 4% a year ad infinitum? What was the prediction about how fast we would succeed and win the ... name a war?
Indeed, when was the last time we fought a war and still liked the leader and political party and congress we spent billions of dollars and hundreds of our own lives, let alone theirs, after 3 or 4 years (or was it months)?
3
Charlie in NY writes:
"Israel as you know is not a signatory of the NPT and therefore there is nothing illegal in having its arsenal. Iran is a signatory but has been defying the inspection regime, so it happens to be in breach."
Interesting post. The first sentence is correct. The second sentence is not. What's even more interesting, though, is that I sense you actually believe the second sentence is correct, that you're not trying to mislead anyone.
Nonetheless, your second sentence is flatly incorrect. Know how you can tell? The IAEA doesn't say Iran is in default. It receives continual pressure from the US to declare Iran in default, but it doesn't. Disagree? All you need to do is find some statement from the IAEA that says Iran has violated its Safeguards Agreement. Good luck in your search -- you'll need it!
"Israel as you know is not a signatory of the NPT and therefore there is nothing illegal in having its arsenal. Iran is a signatory but has been defying the inspection regime, so it happens to be in breach."
Interesting post. The first sentence is correct. The second sentence is not. What's even more interesting, though, is that I sense you actually believe the second sentence is correct, that you're not trying to mislead anyone.
Nonetheless, your second sentence is flatly incorrect. Know how you can tell? The IAEA doesn't say Iran is in default. It receives continual pressure from the US to declare Iran in default, but it doesn't. Disagree? All you need to do is find some statement from the IAEA that says Iran has violated its Safeguards Agreement. Good luck in your search -- you'll need it!
5
Thinker, what then would you call Iran's years long resistance to IAEA inspections? How many reports from the IAEA detailing Iran's lack of cooperation and requesting access do you need to see? Or is your point that until the IAEA gives up, closes the file and makes a definitive finding of breach, nothing counts? That's simply not the way the NPT regime works. IAEA will continue trying to gain access until, like Nirth Korea, Iran leaves the NPT and the IAEA loses jurisdiction.
Support for the Iran nuclear deal has to come from abroad -- from our European partners who were present during the negotiations and who have as much to lose as Israel from a bad deal.
3
The GOP doesn't even know the details and they are already vowing to try and derail the deal. Typical.
9
LOl...even a kid would summize that Iran can EASILY get fuel secretly from anti-WEstern sources such as Russia who already happiuly supply them with SAMS etc !
Obama may mean well but in trusting ANMY muslim country with WMD he is playing russian roulette with America's and the free World'security !
Has he forgottten that Iran seized the US Embassy violating ALL diplomatic rules...and the same government that is in power there today has long encouraged "DEATH TO AMERICA" ?
Obama may mean well but in trusting ANMY muslim country with WMD he is playing russian roulette with America's and the free World'security !
Has he forgottten that Iran seized the US Embassy violating ALL diplomatic rules...and the same government that is in power there today has long encouraged "DEATH TO AMERICA" ?
5
Unfortunately for the country and all of us, this agreement is all on the side of Iran and nothing for America. What we will get out of it is nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamist terrorists who will smuggle some of them into the US. The first knowledge that we will have of it is when they detonate one or more in our cities. Others will be used against Israel and still others against Arab nations. The Persian Shiites dislike the Sunni Arabs almost as much as they detest the Jews.
4
The only country that has so far used nuclear weapons is the US.
1
W/o an accord, it is war. Such a war will be very costly and not solve the issue: they still have the knowledge to make a weapon. And after such a war, they will hate us for another generation and will come at us endlessly. Indeed, after our meddling in their country for years, why should they trust us? So we talk.
I do assume they'll cheat and perhaps get the bomb: they desire hegemony, as do all countries, including us. To what end? How does N. Korea's bomb help it? No country can use the bomb and survive the retaliation. Iran knows this. It would be something of a useless victory to get the bomb. They know if they attack our allies, we will attack them in turn. It will not turn into an arms race because our allies will be under our nuclear umbrella.
Give it a chance and see. We have little to lose.
I do assume they'll cheat and perhaps get the bomb: they desire hegemony, as do all countries, including us. To what end? How does N. Korea's bomb help it? No country can use the bomb and survive the retaliation. Iran knows this. It would be something of a useless victory to get the bomb. They know if they attack our allies, we will attack them in turn. It will not turn into an arms race because our allies will be under our nuclear umbrella.
Give it a chance and see. We have little to lose.
7
This article is MISSING something extremely important. Maybe I read it too rapidly, but I did not see anything regarding one of the most important issues in contention: Whether or not we will be able inspect military sites.
If we can't inspect military sites, the agreement is an unmitigated disaster. My hunch: The Times did not tell us whether we can inspect missile sites because the agreement made by Kerry doesn't give us that right, and the Times wants to help sell this agreement to the American people
Before I go any further: Don't infer from the above that I am conservative. I'm redder than a beet. It's just that I'm also Jewish and I know a thing or two about Persia.
If we can't inspect military sites, the agreement is an unmitigated disaster. My hunch: The Times did not tell us whether we can inspect missile sites because the agreement made by Kerry doesn't give us that right, and the Times wants to help sell this agreement to the American people
Before I go any further: Don't infer from the above that I am conservative. I'm redder than a beet. It's just that I'm also Jewish and I know a thing or two about Persia.
6
Oh I think NASA and NORAD have all the bases marked even the tunnels. Curious how you would suggest Persians are unreliable.
Persians may turn the tables on that argument.
Saddam Hussein was a friend of the Americans. Iran remembers that. And what happened to Saddam again?
Careful who you call untrustworthy David.
Persians may turn the tables on that argument.
Saddam Hussein was a friend of the Americans. Iran remembers that. And what happened to Saddam again?
Careful who you call untrustworthy David.
7
The fact that Israel suffers from a very bad reputation in many countries around the world is hard to deny: In a January 2014 Gallup poll, Israel was voted one of the countries most “dangerous to world peace” — tied with North Korea and Iran .
A BBC poll from May 2014 found that “Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran came out worst in terms of how they are viewed globally
Close to 60 percent of Israelis were pleased with Mr. Netanyahu’s United Nations address, in which he protested, among other things, the fact that the United Nations Human Rights Council plans on “investigating Israel rather than Hamas for war crimes.”in the 2014 invasion/bombing of Gaza.
The rest of the world sees & understands that the Israel Lobby controls Congress & the American people have no say in US policy. It will remain so until the US election funding laws are changed so that AIPAC can no longer game the system & thereby control Congress
A BBC poll from May 2014 found that “Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran came out worst in terms of how they are viewed globally
Close to 60 percent of Israelis were pleased with Mr. Netanyahu’s United Nations address, in which he protested, among other things, the fact that the United Nations Human Rights Council plans on “investigating Israel rather than Hamas for war crimes.”in the 2014 invasion/bombing of Gaza.
The rest of the world sees & understands that the Israel Lobby controls Congress & the American people have no say in US policy. It will remain so until the US election funding laws are changed so that AIPAC can no longer game the system & thereby control Congress
1
Obama stole the march so the GOP is furious - with every late term POTUS victory the Republicans slip closer to the edge of complete irrelevancy.
8
The problems between Iran and the US are primarily at the level of government but for a few who are intransigent. I've never met an Iranian who harbored ill-will towards America or Americans. I've no reason to harbor any ill-will towards any Iranian. I hope this works out well for both our nations.
9
And what about Israel's hundreds of nuclear war heads? Israel that has not signed on to treaties including against chemical weapons? We are not allowed to speak about this?
I hope the diplomatic path is successful. Let's not demonize the Iranians.
I hope the diplomatic path is successful. Let's not demonize the Iranians.
11
People! This is not a done deal yet. The next 60 days will be crucial. Anyone who wants this deal to succeed should write their senators and and congress people voicing their full support for President Obama on this one. There is going to be a huge lobbying effort by the Israelis and Saudis—some of it in this newspaper— to scuttle this in Congress.
6
Thanks for this public service announcement. I will definitely contact the representatives in my district. We really need something in the 'win' column where the Middle East is concerned.
The Obama administration has said time and again that it wants to close all pathways for the regime to obtain nuclear weapons.
In order to close all pathways of the Iranian regime to the nuclear bomb the following steps are essential and they ought not to be negotiated away:
1• Immediate and unconditional access to all known sites (or sites to be determined later) that are suspect of being involved in the nuclear project, including all military, security or non-military sites;
2• Immediate and unconditional access for the IAEA to all scientists and experts involved in the nuclear program;
3• Complete and unambiguous addressing of all IAEA questions, and investigations by Tehran about the PMD of the nuclear program;
4• Disclosure of relations and transactions with other countries, including North Korea, on the nuclear and ballistic missiles programs;
5• Immediate removal of all enriched uranium from Iran (except for the 300 kg agreed upon) in any form or shape it may be;
6• Tehran should come clean by being transparent and it should provide all documents on previous work, including illicit networks and smuggling routes for purchasing nuclear equipment parts and technology;
7• Ratification and implementation of the Additional Protocol Plus;
8• Lifting of sanctions should be preconditioned to complete “transparency” and providing comprehensive answers and granting complete access to the IAEA;
9• Full implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions.
In order to close all pathways of the Iranian regime to the nuclear bomb the following steps are essential and they ought not to be negotiated away:
1• Immediate and unconditional access to all known sites (or sites to be determined later) that are suspect of being involved in the nuclear project, including all military, security or non-military sites;
2• Immediate and unconditional access for the IAEA to all scientists and experts involved in the nuclear program;
3• Complete and unambiguous addressing of all IAEA questions, and investigations by Tehran about the PMD of the nuclear program;
4• Disclosure of relations and transactions with other countries, including North Korea, on the nuclear and ballistic missiles programs;
5• Immediate removal of all enriched uranium from Iran (except for the 300 kg agreed upon) in any form or shape it may be;
6• Tehran should come clean by being transparent and it should provide all documents on previous work, including illicit networks and smuggling routes for purchasing nuclear equipment parts and technology;
7• Ratification and implementation of the Additional Protocol Plus;
8• Lifting of sanctions should be preconditioned to complete “transparency” and providing comprehensive answers and granting complete access to the IAEA;
9• Full implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions.
3
"The current stockpile of low enriched uranium will be reduced by 98 percent, most likely by shipping much of it to Russia."
Shipping it to Russia? That makes me feel so much better. What could possibly go wrong?
Shipping it to Russia? That makes me feel so much better. What could possibly go wrong?
2
Russia already has more nuclear warheads aimed at US than we have aimed at them. Giving Russia enriched uranium means nada in terms of our security.
The issue isn't Russian weapons. The issue is who will really be getting this fissionable material and what will be done with it, especially since Russia is a big supporter of Tehran.
This is MEANINGLESS!
Iran never follows thru on letting inspectors in, despite agreeing, after being paid off by our county/hemming & hawing.
Our government seems to be 'sidetracking us', from focusing on other things!
& when Iran (yet again) fails to comply,...we'll hit them with (yet AGIN), more meaningless sanctions (despite our government promising, that they are having an effect!
Over & over, playing us fools/wasting our money ande!
Iran never follows thru on letting inspectors in, despite agreeing, after being paid off by our county/hemming & hawing.
Our government seems to be 'sidetracking us', from focusing on other things!
& when Iran (yet again) fails to comply,...we'll hit them with (yet AGIN), more meaningless sanctions (despite our government promising, that they are having an effect!
Over & over, playing us fools/wasting our money ande!
4
People seems to forget what would pass if Congress succeeds to block approval:
As the other 4+1, EU, UN will approve it without doubt, they will Lift the sanctions for their countries and entities, and the US will be exposed to a gigantic ridiculein their self induced role a a ZERO ON THE LEFT SIDE!!
Comments??
As the other 4+1, EU, UN will approve it without doubt, they will Lift the sanctions for their countries and entities, and the US will be exposed to a gigantic ridiculein their self induced role a a ZERO ON THE LEFT SIDE!!
Comments??
3
This might also happen if the sanctions are lifted and Iran doesn't comply. Other countries are not going to rush to reinstate them while their businesses are busily investing. Then where will the US be?
And then,
"The accord allows continuous surveillance at existing enrichment sites and at centrifuge production and storage sites. The I.A.E.A. also has the right to visit suspicious sites “anywhere in the country,” -- BUT IRAN HAS 24 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH A REQUEST (and can still deny the request, which starts another clock on an appeals process)."
If I negotiated an agreement with you that includes the right for me to say "no" to what you consider a reasonable request -- and then also to extend the debate around my "no" answer to stretch the discussion out to weeks or even months, shouldn't you then assume I'm already planning to say "no"?
Because I clearly have something to hide from you? And at the very least, the drawing out of the "no" process buys me enough time to hide the lie that I'm hiding from you better?
Any lawyer will tell you to read an agreement with an eye towards the loopholes -- to discover that will create the biggest risk for you. These points are glaring risks -- and were specifically negotiated into the agreement by Iran. With a purpose.
There are no coincidences.
"The accord allows continuous surveillance at existing enrichment sites and at centrifuge production and storage sites. The I.A.E.A. also has the right to visit suspicious sites “anywhere in the country,” -- BUT IRAN HAS 24 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH A REQUEST (and can still deny the request, which starts another clock on an appeals process)."
If I negotiated an agreement with you that includes the right for me to say "no" to what you consider a reasonable request -- and then also to extend the debate around my "no" answer to stretch the discussion out to weeks or even months, shouldn't you then assume I'm already planning to say "no"?
Because I clearly have something to hide from you? And at the very least, the drawing out of the "no" process buys me enough time to hide the lie that I'm hiding from you better?
Any lawyer will tell you to read an agreement with an eye towards the loopholes -- to discover that will create the biggest risk for you. These points are glaring risks -- and were specifically negotiated into the agreement by Iran. With a purpose.
There are no coincidences.
4
How is it that a small percentage of Iranian people that screams, "Death to America and Death to Israel," now represents the whole of Iranian society? Have any of these readers been to a Tea Party rally? The multiple layers of hypocrisy revealed are staggering. I am still stunned that NYTimes put Netanyahu on the cover. His racists antics leading up to the election will not be forgotten by this Black woman. He has showed President Obama nothing but disrespect from day one. Even if that did not matter his country is fully armed with nukes and has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel is not some passive lamb to the slaughter. We did Netanyahus dirty work in Iraq, see how good that turned out (thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of injured Americans, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and ISIS). Stop giving this man a platform, enough is enough.
11
You're forgetting that the supreme leader of Iran is the leading those screams. Important point.
Carefully reading JUST the NYT COMMENTARY on the agreement's facts that THE NYT CHOSE TO FOCUS ON clearly illustrates the loopholes the Iranians will likely use to subvert the agreement. Take the time to read the specifics before you go off on an anti-Republican rant. My points below are based on direct quotes from THE NYT COVERAGE.
And I am an Independent ... who reads and thinks before he speaks ... or writes ...
"It is not clear whether the inspectors will be able to interview the scientists and engineers who were believed to have been at the center of an effort to design a weapon that Iran could manufacture in short order."
If you cant talk to the people actually doing the work -- you are very at risk of getting uninformed or misinformed information -- that quite likely is a method for obfuscating the truth.
And I am an Independent ... who reads and thinks before he speaks ... or writes ...
"It is not clear whether the inspectors will be able to interview the scientists and engineers who were believed to have been at the center of an effort to design a weapon that Iran could manufacture in short order."
If you cant talk to the people actually doing the work -- you are very at risk of getting uninformed or misinformed information -- that quite likely is a method for obfuscating the truth.
4
Since you are so well informed - What loopholes?
1
As other analysts have said, America bought a choice- no nukes (temporarily), but an increase in conventional warfare in the Middle East, with lots more meddling and terrorism sponsored by our "partners" in this agreement. Imagine if Iran agitates Hezbollah and Hamas to hasten coordinated attacks on Israel. Dare America complain to the Iranian government, and they'll respond back-either this, or we resume work on nukes. Very likely scenario.
1
So bombing Iran now is a better path to peace in the long term? you must be deluded!!
interested on heraing from you what should be done. Rosalie, will y0ou be asking your children to sign up to go to war?
interested on heraing from you what should be done. Rosalie, will y0ou be asking your children to sign up to go to war?
1
This is all about the Middle East and it's security. Iran is developing atomic weaponry and they want to use it on Israel. Israel knows this that is where this gets serious. If Iran get the atomic bomb there will be a nuclear out break in the Middle East. Israel has atomic weapons now and they are known for their strikes remember the 7 day war when she kicked a bunch of butt. Well this time it will be the 5 minute war with all their enemies in that area smoking. America knows this and is trying as hard as these diplomats can to avoid that. President Obama know this and if Iran was allowed to get the bomb Israel would strike first for what they think is self preservation and they may be right to think that way I mean how many times have the Iranians said Death to Israel as well as America.
4
Israel is holding all the cards. It can time its strike(s) against Iran such that Hillary will lose the election to Jeb. Nothing resonates more at the end of the day with Americans than national security - it will wash right over "the first female president," Hillary's sole qualification - and a nuclear showdown a la October 1962 will ensure a maximum voter turnout.
Iran poses no threat to US national security -
2
Any member of Congress voting against the Iran deal should be required to offer a detailed counter-proposal of their own. What would you do differently? I'm tired of elected officials hiding behind their tweets instead of engaging constructively.
5
Does anyone doubt that it's been made very clear to Iran's leaders that the U.S. would retaliate--emphatically--if Iranian forces were to attack Israel, Saudi Arabia or any other US ally? Almost certainly wouldn't apply to terror attacks by Iranian surrogates.
Me, thanks for the query.
1
Congress, Israel and Saudi Arabia will shout their opposition, but none of the opponents of this deal have ever laid out any viable alternative. Having no deal, which allows Iran to deal all the things they have done up to now without supervision or our inspection, simply poses unacceptable risks for us. In our present budget crunch, we cannot afford a new Middle East Arms Race, and, by the way, you'd have a three corner hat in that race (Israel, Saudi, and Iran) and the resulting volatility will be a killer for us in the long run (not to mention the ultimate impact on our stock market). The so-called hawks have no plan, and they don't care that their reckless posturing is more dangerous to us and our descendants (i.e., doing nothing) than seizing this moment. Will these hawks vote for more taxes or revenue sources to build up our military, and get ready to take on a Middle East conflict? Of course not. So their bombast is false and totally political.
4
Can one make a "deal" with ... a
Theocratic, genocidal, autocratic, totalitarian state?
I have major doubts. The original sanctions did cut into Iran's resources, thereby lessening Iran's ability to export supplies to other terrorists.
Deal or no deal? Is a good deal even possible?
Neville Chamberlain would say yes.
Theocratic, genocidal, autocratic, totalitarian state?
I have major doubts. The original sanctions did cut into Iran's resources, thereby lessening Iran's ability to export supplies to other terrorists.
Deal or no deal? Is a good deal even possible?
Neville Chamberlain would say yes.
5
Since we are bringing up infamous figures from history - how about the bush debacles - which created this mess? Do we rush in militarily again?
I thought you are pointing to Saudi Arabia!!
All I need to know about this weak, poorly negotiated deal is that Putin and China approved it. It can't be good for the West or for civilization.
5
Putin is on his knees financially. China, well you try and grapple with 1.3 billion people. United States seems you have enough on your plate internally.
In not reading the agreement there appears to be a lot of room for all countries involved to move if the Treaty is not met word for word.
In not reading the agreement there appears to be a lot of room for all countries involved to move if the Treaty is not met word for word.
Headline: Let's walk away from this deal because something might happen in 10 years that might not suit us completely. It's called "negotiations" for a reason.
4
Even with my doubts when people ask me why I always vote for a Democratic arty candidate for president I give them examples what we seen from President Obama today.
Because, just think for a moment and ask yourself what would have happened if we elected John McCain in '04 or Romney in '08.
Do you honestly think we would have this type for accord on hand or the more likely scenario of thousands and thousands of our troops dead in another needless and avoidable war?
Even in light of this likely scenario, it a sad fact is that it will require an act of political and moral courage to do the right but unpopular thing and choose peace with Iran, because so much of our electorate and elected representatives have chosen to march to the tune of Israeli puppet-masters and religious right demagogues who want nothing better to do than for our nation to and shed the blood of thousands more of our young men and women in uniform and to see carnage in the cities and villages of Iran.
Because, just think for a moment and ask yourself what would have happened if we elected John McCain in '04 or Romney in '08.
Do you honestly think we would have this type for accord on hand or the more likely scenario of thousands and thousands of our troops dead in another needless and avoidable war?
Even in light of this likely scenario, it a sad fact is that it will require an act of political and moral courage to do the right but unpopular thing and choose peace with Iran, because so much of our electorate and elected representatives have chosen to march to the tune of Israeli puppet-masters and religious right demagogues who want nothing better to do than for our nation to and shed the blood of thousands more of our young men and women in uniform and to see carnage in the cities and villages of Iran.
6
It's weird that the very same people who talk about de-linking in Congressional negotiations, want linkage at all costs in international negotiations. Even when we are only a single representative of a larger group.....pre-programmed fanatics.....someone should de-program them.
1
What does Congress plan to be doing for the next 15 years? I guess the answer is that they will continue to do nothing.
15 years is plenty of time to change the world. Don't count on Congress to do so.
15 years is plenty of time to change the world. Don't count on Congress to do so.
3
Not to worry.
.
Iran cheats cheats cheats cheats cheats cheats cheats
so, how good is it to 'strike a deal' with an entity that will
cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat
?
"Verification"
I'll believe that when I see it
I think what we are going to get is better characterized as
"The Runaround"
As our beloved leader George H.W. Bush said, way back in another era
"Read my lips"
and my lips are saying "cheat cheat / runaround runaround"
We'll see what happens......don't get your hopes up!
.
Iran cheats cheats cheats cheats cheats cheats cheats
so, how good is it to 'strike a deal' with an entity that will
cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat
?
"Verification"
I'll believe that when I see it
I think what we are going to get is better characterized as
"The Runaround"
As our beloved leader George H.W. Bush said, way back in another era
"Read my lips"
and my lips are saying "cheat cheat / runaround runaround"
We'll see what happens......don't get your hopes up!
.
4
You have to be pretty naïve to think Iran does not want a nuclear weapon. You also have to be pretty naïve to think they wont cheat on this deal. After all, it is only a political agreement, not a treaty. It is by nature, very weak. You have to be pretty naïve to think that the Iranians are just like us, that they share our values and belief system. Well, it looks like the president of the United States is just that naïve. O'Bama was just played for a chump. Putting nuclear weapons into the hands of religious fanatics who worship death, who chant "Death to America!', is like putting a loaded gun in the hands of a five year old and expecting them to be responsible. Thank you O'Bama for launching us into a very scary future.
6
Let’s see, Hal. You tell us that negotiating an agreement to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb in the near future is the equivalent of “[p]utting nuclear weapons in the hands of religious fanatics …” You say that President Obama (whose name you choose to misspell) is “naïve” for even sitting down to negotiate with the Iranians, and apparently you believe President Obama did not know the Iranians want a nuclear weapon.
Keep in mind, Hal, that there were senior representatives from four other countries who also participated in the negotiations and who, by your reckoning, must also be naïve. The question, therefore, arises: What information or wisdom do you possess, Hal, that was not available to the negotiators and which you are so sure should have put a quick end to such ill-advised negotiations?
While you’re at it, Hal, if you have an alternate solution to Iran’s growing nuclear capability and your solution is something other than an immediate all-out bloody war with Iran, please share that with us.
Keep in mind, Hal, that there were senior representatives from four other countries who also participated in the negotiations and who, by your reckoning, must also be naïve. The question, therefore, arises: What information or wisdom do you possess, Hal, that was not available to the negotiators and which you are so sure should have put a quick end to such ill-advised negotiations?
While you’re at it, Hal, if you have an alternate solution to Iran’s growing nuclear capability and your solution is something other than an immediate all-out bloody war with Iran, please share that with us.
Iranian are not like us!? You don't love Nukes? US owns thousands of them, and in the hands of a tea party fanatic..... Vow. Not less dangerous.
Yes! I am not ready to comment on President Obama just yet. But, giving people who clearly have plans to destroy Israel and the United States nuclear weapons is crazy! Some say Iran is equivalent to Biblical Persia. The scriptures say Persia will attack Israel( or the land where the people returned, which sounds like Israel to me) and cover it like a cloud. Even if Iran wanted to, and I do not think they do, they could not change their own destiny. If the logic claiming Iran to be that same prophetic Persia is true they will without a doubt attack Israel and anybody else prophecy states!
a qualitative break through in every sence need to move forward from this point onward
1
Congratulations President Obama for your tremendous courage and giving peace a chance. The war mongers are out in full-force and they have forgotten the mess they got us into Iraq and they now blame the President for the current mess in Iraq and creation of ISIS.
PS: Bibi Netanyahu - please note messing with our President is not a good idea.
PS: Bibi Netanyahu - please note messing with our President is not a good idea.
5
I am certain that history will be kind when looking back at this "What, Me Worry?" Diplomacy. And with Russia watching over the nuclear material, we can all sleep at night. Because they can totally be trusted. Maybe we should take advantage of the Alfred E.Newman Doctrine by cutting ISIS in on the deal--only if they promise to be good too, of course.
3
Russia already has plenty of nuclear warheads aimed at the US, even more than we have aimed at them. This deal does nothing to increase Russia's access to nuclear material, as I suspect most US citizens know.
This "deal" looks a lot like a treaty, and, according to the U.S. Constitution, treaties need to be ratified by the Senate.
2
24 days to hide your nukes is not verification.
8
Re: Hannah and other understandable cynics: The USA have capabilities unknown to us just as the engineered bugs, which were placed in Iranian computers without their knowledge.
Right off the bat the press is more interested in creating melodrama than laying out factual data. As usual.
5
Sanctions don't hurt the big and powerful. They hurt the small, the weak, the sick, the average person just trying to provide for their family. Sanctions are inhumane and shameful.
5
Choose one: boots on the ground, or sanctions. We made our choice. Sorry, Yemen! Sorry, Ukraine! Sorry, Syrians! It's time for another Apology Tour by Obama, a specialist.
2
It is scary. We really haven't been given true breakdown of what I ran is giving up. One report says we do not have unlimited access. Another says they don't have to close anything. Another report says they are actually still buying equipment for nuclear procession. I know it must b special for a reporter to be the fist to interview Mr. Obama. But the NYT serves its readers and not Obama, I hope. I read in one article that congress should step up and deal wit this agreement. So should news agencies like the NYT. Find the facts and truth about this deal. We deserve that.
5
WHY should Iran give up anything? They have not violated a single law. They have a legal right to enrich uranium because they signed the document Israel refused to sign: NPT.
8
They killed over 200 Americans in Lebanon and have been named as a state sponsor or terrorism by this administration for perpetrating and aiding numerous acts of terrorism. Their totalitarian theocracy hasn't let up on calls for the destruction of Israel and 'death to America.' Gee, why should we be concerned about a bomb in the Ayatollah's hands.
1
They've violated Human Rights laws thousands of times. It's well-documented. Do you admire their public beheadings, and stonings, too?
The signatories to the NPT had no contingencies pertaining to Israel, BTW. Nice try.
The signatories to the NPT had no contingencies pertaining to Israel, BTW. Nice try.
3
Nobody knows what will happen but this deal is promising because it does bring Iran into a nuclear weapons control agreement, which reduces the risk of nuclear confrontation due to lack of effective communications. For all states the use of nuclear weapons means the risk of ruination in hours, which does not make the usual purposes for war achievable, but fear of annihilation where an enemy might attack preemptively can lead to rash behavior and ruination. Agreements like this reduce some of the risks of war that are started by a series of miscalculations and misunderstandings.
Some fear that Iran is suicidal and is willing to destroy the world in order to achieve it's ends but that is probably not true. Iran may wish to achieve hegemony in the region but self destruction is unlikely to be a desirable option to them.
The alternative way for Iran's nuclear program to be done away with is massive attack and total war with such a massive conflagration that all countries in the region would be dragged into it. The reason is that the program is too big and complex for one surgical strike to accomplish it. Such a small strike would enable Iran to reconstitute the program in a few years, and in effect doing little more than what is can be achieved by this agreement. Only a massive invasion of Iran, deposing the current regime, occupying the country for years could have any chance of eliminating Iran's ability to process nuclear material which would be very problematic.
Some fear that Iran is suicidal and is willing to destroy the world in order to achieve it's ends but that is probably not true. Iran may wish to achieve hegemony in the region but self destruction is unlikely to be a desirable option to them.
The alternative way for Iran's nuclear program to be done away with is massive attack and total war with such a massive conflagration that all countries in the region would be dragged into it. The reason is that the program is too big and complex for one surgical strike to accomplish it. Such a small strike would enable Iran to reconstitute the program in a few years, and in effect doing little more than what is can be achieved by this agreement. Only a massive invasion of Iran, deposing the current regime, occupying the country for years could have any chance of eliminating Iran's ability to process nuclear material which would be very problematic.
1
Thank you for taking the time, Casual Observer, to sketch out the nightmare of trying to destroy Iran's nuclear capability by force. Iran's population is more than 77 million, which is far greater than Iraq and Afghanistan, combined. The land area of Iran is also far greater than Iraq and Afghanistan, combined. Next time you hear a Republican say we should simply use force immediately in Iran, ask him or her how things have worked out in the two Republican wars still being fought in two much smaller countries.
1
Every now and then, it would be helpful to readers if the NY Times would make reference to the LAW.
It states unequivocally that nuclear states are under OBLIGATION to make good faith efforts to reduce and eliminate their stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
America is UPGRADING its nuclear arsenal.
Israel's is not even worth talking about, since it is completely, utterly ILLEGAL and the law demands it be dismantled.
It states unequivocally that nuclear states are under OBLIGATION to make good faith efforts to reduce and eliminate their stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
America is UPGRADING its nuclear arsenal.
Israel's is not even worth talking about, since it is completely, utterly ILLEGAL and the law demands it be dismantled.
4
Exactly what "LAW" is this? Obviously not one that applies to Putin who recently boasted of 40 new missiles coming online.
1
Israel as you know is not a signatory of the NPT and therefore there is nothing illegal in having its arsenal. Iran is a signatory but has been defying the inspection regime, so it happens to be in breach.
2
Obama is a master is making lies sound like the truth. How can verification will be 24/7 when Iranian must get weeks of advanced notice. They have the option to refuse, and them a committee. etc. etc. etc., giving the Iranians ample time to remove any illegal activity. As an Obama voter, I am not a supporter of large military operation a la Bush et al, but deserting the great Iranian people who has been suffering under this regime for decades, and legitimizing a regime that is the largest supporter of terrorism is a mistake that can only be compared to the Munich agreement. It is clear, the world has deserted the Jews again, and without blinking. But oh, what a difference 70 years make. The Jews will no longer go to their death without fighting. If there was any doubt why Israel, the Jewish homeland after 2000 years of continuous hatred, pogroms and a Holocaust, should have nuclear devices, today it has become crystal clear. Israel will probably have to do it alone, once it has become clear that Iran is engaged in building a bomb. Like before, with Iraq and Syria, the Israeli genius will find the most elegant and sophisticated way, leaving the world with its jaw dropped. But when Israel does, it should destroy the Revolutionary Guard's bases, giving the Iranian people a chance to finally get rid pf the cancer which Obama and the West are nurturing.
9
Myanmar, Cuba, Iran! What about Zimbabwe? Why are the Bush administration sanctions still in force? Which American interests in southern Africa do the sanctions there advance, Mr. Obama?
1
Your question may be a good one, Bayou Houma, but Mr. Obama's plate is rather full right now. What did George W. Bush say when you posed your question in 2008?
Built on verification with a large time buffer. It would be fine if Iran was reliable to do what they agree to. They don't have any intention of doing what they agree to unless it is what they want.
3
It is good that the Republican and/or Israeli talking points have been handed out early for discussion. One might suggest, vulcanalex, that Iran, as is true of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China, will behave exactly like every other signatory to the nuclear agreement. Each nation will do what it believes, at any given point in time, is in its own best interests. The whole purpose of lifting sanctions with the constant threat of re-imposition is to make compliance be in the best interests of Iran.
What a rotten deal. The civilization that gave us codified law, ethnic diversity, religious freedom is being hold hostage by a theocracy that threatens to punish its people if it doesn't pay tribute.
1
They can't do anything right, right?
You're referring to us being held hostage by Israel?
Perhaps, as the Persian poet Hafiz said, we will now see '...the sword drop from men's hands, even at the height of their arc of rage, because we have finally realized there is just one flesh we can wound.' It's a start.
6
It was a long wait to get this deal but it was worth the wait.
Let the detractors say what they like but this deal ensures that Iran will never gets its hands on a nuclear weapon.
Netanyahu may scream that this deal is a historic mistake. Let him scream till kingdom come but the world breathes a sigh of relief today. A win for peace-lovers and a slap in the face for war-mongers and fear-mongers.
Three cheers to President Obama. Despite all the antics of the Israeli Prime Minister and his friends in the US Congress at the behest of AIPAC, President Obama showed the patience and perseverance in getting this deal without compromising the core values and principles.
Let the detractors say what they like but this deal ensures that Iran will never gets its hands on a nuclear weapon.
Netanyahu may scream that this deal is a historic mistake. Let him scream till kingdom come but the world breathes a sigh of relief today. A win for peace-lovers and a slap in the face for war-mongers and fear-mongers.
Three cheers to President Obama. Despite all the antics of the Israeli Prime Minister and his friends in the US Congress at the behest of AIPAC, President Obama showed the patience and perseverance in getting this deal without compromising the core values and principles.
8
It is so sad to watch republican after republican denounce the agreement without even knowing what's in it. All they know is that this agreement was negotiated by who they formerly thought of as the food stamp president, the president with the stereotypical domineering black woman in the White House and the "incompetent community organizer " in the White House, therefore nothing his administration says or does can be thought of as worthy of their attention or support. Yet this same so called community organizer managed to cap the BP oil well that was threatening the gulf coast. With his steady course and calm leadership he helped to stem the Ebola epidemic not only in America but in Africa. The devastating effects of hurricane sandy was mitigated by his policies. Finally the economy have steadily improved, however unevenly because of republican policies. The republican attitude toward this president is nothing short of the same virulent racism that helps to prevent black progress in many walks of life in America.
10
Marine Amir Hekmati, Washington Post Iran Bureau Chief Jason Rezaian, Christian pastor Saeed Abedini and ex-FBI Agent Robert Levinson are still in iranian prisons, where they will remain, despite 0bama promising Pastor Saeed's wife, face-to-face, that he would not be left behind; so much for the word of our illustrious leader, who has vowed to veto anything from Congress on his foreign policy legacy
2
....and WHICH of the lawmakers who are signing off on this treaty will still be around 15 years from now when we find that the agreement FAILED? What evidence do I have that these types of limits have historically failed? Ever heard of North Korea and Pakistan? If you sleep with the DEVIL (Iran) you're gonna get BURNED (USA).
3
Iran didn't drop 2 atomic bombs on CIVILIANS in one of the host horrifying mass atrocities in all of human history.
YOUR government did that.
Enough hypocrisy.
YOUR government did that.
Enough hypocrisy.
6
Japan was given the chance to surrender before the first bomb was detonated and refused. A lot of allied lives were saved by ending a war Japan started.
Sanity is a rare commodity to be found in doomsayers. The US was willing to help Iran obtain nuclear capability under its stooge, the Shah. Fifteen years from now the world will be singing praise for Iran for living up to world's expectation. You can bet on it.
We don't, or shouldn't, trust Israel or Pakistan anymore than we do Iran, so it's only fair that they have one or two, too.
3
So the fact that the largest Jewish population in the world, outside of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, is in New York City gives Israel no dog in the fight? And they're no different than hostage-taking, IED-making, nuke-craving Iran? Duh. Good luck with that.
2
Hey Charles: Largest Jewish population in ME outside of Israel .....Iran.
Those bashing the Obama deal are unserious and their preposterous arguments can be dismissed out of hand.
ANYONE actually concerned about a nuclear equipped Iran knows that the only hope for a long-term resolution of the standoff is a nuclear-free Mid East, with all parties subject to rigorous international inspection. The IAEA has proposed such a plan. Iran has agreed, while the US and Israel flatly reject this commonsense approach so that Israel can maintain a monopoly of terror in the region with its completely illegal arsenal of hundreds of weapons of mass dsretuction, irrespective of the obvious side-effect: a nuclear arms race in the region.
ANYONE actually concerned about a nuclear equipped Iran knows that the only hope for a long-term resolution of the standoff is a nuclear-free Mid East, with all parties subject to rigorous international inspection. The IAEA has proposed such a plan. Iran has agreed, while the US and Israel flatly reject this commonsense approach so that Israel can maintain a monopoly of terror in the region with its completely illegal arsenal of hundreds of weapons of mass dsretuction, irrespective of the obvious side-effect: a nuclear arms race in the region.
3
Not great! Obama has been seeking a legacy,(any legacy, it seems) and his legacy may just turn out to be the furtherance of nuclear proliferation, and potentially, a great deal of destruction. . Peace with Cuba? Whatever, they are no threat. Relations with Myanmar? Big deal, but no consequence. Giving in to superior Iranian negotiators? A giant threat to the entire region as well as to us. Who knows what Iran will be like in 10 years? Thirty eight years ago they broke all international agreements and invaded our embassy, holding out diplomats hostage for 444 days. That could be a cakewalk in comparison to their nuclear program.
There was an alternative to this deal....a more skillfully crafted deal, for one. Kerry come back with "Peace in our Time" just as Neville Chamberlain did. And the real problem is swept under the rug. I voted for the guy two times because there were no other decent alternatives, but I am underwhelmed by him, to say the least.
There was an alternative to this deal....a more skillfully crafted deal, for one. Kerry come back with "Peace in our Time" just as Neville Chamberlain did. And the real problem is swept under the rug. I voted for the guy two times because there were no other decent alternatives, but I am underwhelmed by him, to say the least.
5
If Obama was seeking legacy, the President would not waited this long and would not have engaged in such arduous talks lasting this many years. He would have done a deal by any means and on any terms.
Instead, he carried out these talks patiently and painstakingly in order achieve a deal in compliance with the basic principles and core values that governs and ensures lasting peace.
You mentioned Cuba. The previous policy lasting more than 50 years brought about no result nor did it topple the Castro regime. Instead, it only enhanced the tiny island's influence in the southern hemisphere at the expense of the US.
It is for history to determine Obama's legacy. In the meantime, Danny B, you can take pride in the fact that you voted for the right man. Because, he is doing all the right things for the good of you and future generations.
Instead, he carried out these talks patiently and painstakingly in order achieve a deal in compliance with the basic principles and core values that governs and ensures lasting peace.
You mentioned Cuba. The previous policy lasting more than 50 years brought about no result nor did it topple the Castro regime. Instead, it only enhanced the tiny island's influence in the southern hemisphere at the expense of the US.
It is for history to determine Obama's legacy. In the meantime, Danny B, you can take pride in the fact that you voted for the right man. Because, he is doing all the right things for the good of you and future generations.
President Obama is morphing into a Jimmy Carter lookalike, even before his term is over
7
I'm in favor of anything Netanyahu and Republicans oppose. Well played, Mr. President, well played. This is the Barack Obama I voted for twice. And I bet he's not finished yet.
13
"Don't run before your chickens to market," Richard III said. Iran will make a monkey of us, as Russia and China and Mexico and Venezuela have been doing. Iran makes no secret of this.
3
Over 7 Billion people in the world, almost 200 countries and some 60 territories means Iran will have already picked up some money from the deal. In all probability they are only out to get a few weeks of relief from the sanctions, but more importantly is they have already won the reputation of having achieved this deal. Who knows how many of the 200 countries and 60 territories have already decided to accept Iran. Even in a few weeks when they break the deal Iran will still be reaping bargains and trade advantages from the bogus agreement.
In plain language Iran only wanted a one-night-stand agreement and the handful of dollars they will get from it. The side money will come from the other "John Countries" that see America going up to the Iranian red-light room and figure it must be o.k. to do the Iranians again.
In plain language Iran only wanted a one-night-stand agreement and the handful of dollars they will get from it. The side money will come from the other "John Countries" that see America going up to the Iranian red-light room and figure it must be o.k. to do the Iranians again.
1
Be happy for Iran! It's an ancient civilization, wonderful people.
7
It's just too bad the Iranian people are not in power. Sham elections in which all candidates must first be approved is not a true democracy, it's last gasp at restoring people power withered in 2009 when the West was unable to offer even platitudes in support.
As they say in Minnesota-- not too bad a deal. Which means-- a pretty good deal. Actually, one could say it is a heckuva deal.
9
This non-binding Iranian nuclear agreement is a colossal historical mistake It will reap dangerous results. It will accelerate a nuclear arms race by the Middle Eastern countries. Iran still imprisons four American hostages. Iran still holds huge anti Israeli and American rallies. This agreement also ignores 20 years of Iranian cheating on nuclear inspections.
4
Yes and the only wrong thing left to do is for Congress by ratify what Obama has "built"...like voters did in 2012 when they doubled down on him...before he doubled back on them.
1
Thanks Obama - your woefully unpopular deal isn't just a naked gift for Iran, but also to whatever Republican candidate wins the primary.
9
Sometimes, AVR, calling a deal "unpopular" can make it so, but only among uninformed and easily manipulated people. One assumes from your comment that that is what you and the Republicans are hoping.
That's all right, don't bother to give the specific parts of the Iran nuclear deal which are defective, AVR. And, we'll also wait to hear the alternate solution to a negotiated agreement which the Republicans have been keeping secret for months.
That's all right, don't bother to give the specific parts of the Iran nuclear deal which are defective, AVR. And, we'll also wait to hear the alternate solution to a negotiated agreement which the Republicans have been keeping secret for months.
Re- AVR - I have yet to hear an alternative from President Obama's critics to reducing likelihood of Iranian Nuke 'Breakout'. Even Israeli security stated bombing would make matters worst and besides you cannot Kill Knowledge. Answer please!
Many seem to think it was diplomacy or war. In fact, we have diplomacy now and maybe war in the next ten years. Correct to choose diplomacy, but no great confidence that it will succeed.
1
Many salutes to Barack Obama for his wise decision, to John Kerry and all other negotiators involved for their arduous efforts. Kudos to all Iranians.
13
Obama couldn't have done a better job if he were negotiating for the Iranians.
Anyone who supports this deal and thinks Obama has done a wonderful thing hasn't read the terms and conditions of this "agreement". For those of you that have forgotten he couldn't get the votes needed for a treaty so he is calling it an agreement to once again circumvent the constitution.
Anyone who supports this deal and thinks Obama has done a wonderful thing hasn't read the terms and conditions of this "agreement". For those of you that have forgotten he couldn't get the votes needed for a treaty so he is calling it an agreement to once again circumvent the constitution.
6
As one of the generation of kids diving under the desk and doing civil defense drills, we had a stand off with the Soviet Union for almost 50 years. We didn't trust them, yet we talked to them and even were able to come to some agreements. So this Republican idea that we not talk to anybody and, per Tom Cotten, we can bomb them and the war will be over in three days, is beyond ridiculous. I would say forget the Neville Chaimberlin comparisons and think in terms of a complicated world and enforcement through verification. And we have allies in this program. And, finally, all this talk about Obama just being after a legacy. Is this a Fox talking point? If he was just sitting around waiting for 2016 they would criticize him for that. I prefer that he continue to work, as he has been doing.
16
Thank you! Most sane comment yet.
3
Remember when we saw only evil nuclear power hungry Communist Soviets and Republican Ronald Reagan struck a deal? Or when we saw only evil nuclear power and billions of Chinese Communists and Republican Richard Nixon struck a deal? Both Russia and China are still serious problems for world peace. We aren't always peaceful. But to expect a perfectly nuclear free Iran, when Russia and China two of the largest nuclear threats makes no sense.
3
"[The people] should know the truth. They . . . should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history . . . and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies:
"Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting."
"And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."
-- Winston Churchill, speech after Munich agreement
"Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting."
"And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."
-- Winston Churchill, speech after Munich agreement
4
This is simply absurd. Is that what you said when we signed a nuclear deal with the Soviet Union, or when Nixon went to China? Neither of those countries is particularly trustworthy either. It doesn't mean we can't negotiate with them.
8
The comparison you offer is "absurd." Among the many differences between the Soviet Union and China, on the one hand, and Iran. on the other, is this: the Soviets and Chinese communists, atheists by definition, did not and do not dream of Allah, the virgins that await, and Shari'a.
how many of the people in the USSR were screaming "death to America" or "death to Israel" as they do regularly in Iran? how many in China doing the same? yet you equate Iran with the USSR and China, as though their cultures were equivalent; the USSR, despite its efforts to eradicate the Church, remained Russian Orthodox (Catholic), and the Church there re-emerged when the walls came down; China is doing its best to be atheistic, or alternatively Buddhist; the other major religions there are Taoism and Confucianism, but has a thriving underground Christian (evangelical) Church; so, both the USSR and China actually do have religions that are peaceful; Iran, on the other hand is hard-line islamic, which is a system of (and i use the word loosely) government, masquerading as a religion; i have heard people talk about Islam being a "religion of peace" but what religion of peace has its adherents screaming in the streets "death to (fill in the blank)"? Iran will cheat on the "agreement" because taqqiya is a part of its system of government, have no doubt; the large question is, how long will it take them to gain the missiles they need, to deliver the warheads they are already so close to having? we do live in interesting times
1
Today's agreement legitimizes Iran's nuclear program while lifting the sanctions on it for kicking the can down the road, without any real lasting benefits to us. Obama and Kerry don't care because, like Chamberlain and other appeasers of Germany in the 30s, they believe only the Jews have to worry. As a result Kerry will get the Nobel Prize, Obama will get "an historical achievement" and Tel Aviv will quite possibly get nuked.
4
you do realize that Israel is sitting on a ton of nukes and could easily take out the whole region or just a part if they wanted to? how come you're not concerned about that given their aggressive behavior and occupation of land that's not theirs?
12
Probably because every reasonable observer recognizes that Israel's capacity is for deterrent purposes. Within Israel itself, there is ongoing discussion over the morality of a second strike if Israel has been effectively destroyed by a first strike. That is why with the exception of Iraq and Syria, no Arab country was particularly perturbed by Israel's undeclared arsenal.
The more interesting question you should be asking yourself is why the sudden Sunni hysterical reaction to Uran's attempt to go nuclear. The answer should give pause to certain commenters who need to believe in a cartoonish big, bad Israel.
The more interesting question you should be asking yourself is why the sudden Sunni hysterical reaction to Uran's attempt to go nuclear. The answer should give pause to certain commenters who need to believe in a cartoonish big, bad Israel.
I realize Balldog that nobody in the world is concerned about Israel's nukes other than chronic Jew haters who'd like Israel's enemies in the region starting with Iran to have an easier task with destroying it. Israel apparently has nukes from the 60s and hasn't used them. Because unlike Iran Israel isn't governed by Islamist apocalyptic messianic madmen who believe killing many Jews will hasten the coming of their version of messiah, the 12th Imam. Mutually Assured Destruction will not prevent the mullahs from nuking Tel Aviv and triggering a nuclear doomsday in the Middle East. They exalt individual suicide bombing and will likewise accept collective suicide of their own people to kill Jews. That's the main reason they want the bomb in the first place.
Sold down the river again. Obama gets to ride off into the sunset and allows his successors to deal with the many problems created just to improve legacy. Obama has succeeded in turning this country into a third world nation as fast as the probe passing by pluto.
7
The Iranians get 24 day notice for inspections. That's DAYS - not hours. This is complete insanity folks.
9
Makes you wonder which side he was negotiating for.
6
You never have been to war so to you it's a happy path
2
I can only applaud President Obama and Secretary of State , John Kerry, for their vision and hard work in negotiating this nuclear deal with Iran, which I hope will clear Congress. I think it will as it was planned that way. It is not a treaty so Congress doesn't have to approve it, which would be a difficult hurdle, but rather must only not disapprove it with veto proof legislation which is a very difficult hurdle for Congress and not for the President. The content of the deal was focused on preventing Iran from getting or developing nuclear weapons, an important objective, but I also think that if the deal is successful it will pay other dividends, such as helping to manage conflict in the middle east, and reducing the need for us to fight endless land and air wars there. Again , a hopeful congratulations to the Whi6e House and State Department.
12
The naivety is striking--as striking as when Obama pretended that his trip to Cairo in 2009 would calm the Middle East by diminishing the role of the United States in the Arab world when in fact it merely brought Morsi and ISIS. The key words of the usual amateurism of this White House are: "not built on trust--it is built on verification," which, Kerry went on to add, would be in place "permanently." But one needs to trust that the Iranians will allow verification permanently. Is this a reasonable expectation? The Iranians will allow verification as long as it profits them to do so: And the moment it no longer profits them to do, they will stop. Recall that Sinai in the early 1960's was monitored by the United Nations Emergency Force as a de facto peacekeeper between Egypt and Israel. But in May 1967, Nasser expelled UNEF, which set in motion what became the Six Day War. What is to stop Iran from doing likewise with the IAEA? Nothing at all, and even less so with time. This deal was pushed by China and Russia for economic and politlcal reasons: China wants the hard cash that a de-sanctioned Iran can provide with weapons purchases, and it wants an additional source of oil. Russia wants the weakening of the United States--which this deal achieves by strengthening Russo-Iranian joint proxies, such as Assad--as well as Iranian cash from weapons purchases. And it is all made possible by Obama: like Neville Chamberlain, the unwitting herald of war in our time.
7
Utter nonsense. The USA has thousands of nuclear weapons which are deployable within minutes. The USA is also the only country to have used nuclear weapons against a population. not once, but twice, in Japan.
The always grossly hypocritical right-wing politicians in Israel. particularly the venal Benjamin Netanyahu, are shamelessly putting the usual irresponsible pressure through AIPAC on the USA Congress, which it effectively controls with regard to any policy in the Middle East. Israel of course has had readily deployable nuclear weapons in the hundreds for many decades.
May this agreement enhance on-going rapprochement and co-operation with the Iranian government and people.
The always grossly hypocritical right-wing politicians in Israel. particularly the venal Benjamin Netanyahu, are shamelessly putting the usual irresponsible pressure through AIPAC on the USA Congress, which it effectively controls with regard to any policy in the Middle East. Israel of course has had readily deployable nuclear weapons in the hundreds for many decades.
May this agreement enhance on-going rapprochement and co-operation with the Iranian government and people.
10
" it merely brought Morsi"
You mean the first legitimately elected President of Egypt ever?
You mean the first legitimately elected President of Egypt ever?
5
Under Annex 1, paragraph 5, on " Nuclear-related measures," Iran is obligated not to produce, seek or acquire four out of the five fissionable materials known to be capable of making nuclear bombs --plutonium, highly enriched uranium-235, uranium-233 and neptunium-237. I would have been more comfortable if the agreement had also prohibited Iran from acquiring the fifth known bomb-making material -- the rare isotope californium-251, which is said to have a calculated critical mass of only 5.1 kilograms. I hope there is a good explanation of why it is not included. For unclassified details about californium-251, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californium.
2
Sorry I meant paragraph 25
In the corporate management concept there is a popular say that every successor would prove that "the predecessor is better than the successor". But Mr. Obama has proved the reverse. When Mr. Obama had received Nobel prize ,it was generally opined all over the world that the selection was premature before the credible achievement. The statement " The deal based on verification and not based on trust " is the bold and candid approach to the nucleus of the issue without ambiguity.
Now Mr.Obama deserves the Nobel prize not for the deal but for wiping out the deterioration of the peace in the middle east created by the wrong or zero diplomacy of his predecessors.
No doubt, Mr.Obama did his best to set right the deterrence originated by the "era of Two Bush " in the middle east. The volume of pollution created by the war declared by NATO (Iran Vs Iraq, Iraq Vs Kuwait, Syria, Libya ---) in the middle east is comparatively less during the tenure of Mr. Obama.
Will this deal destroy or diminish the activities of ISIS?
Will Iran silence the ISIS by this deal? What is next?
Now Mr.Obama deserves the Nobel prize not for the deal but for wiping out the deterioration of the peace in the middle east created by the wrong or zero diplomacy of his predecessors.
No doubt, Mr.Obama did his best to set right the deterrence originated by the "era of Two Bush " in the middle east. The volume of pollution created by the war declared by NATO (Iran Vs Iraq, Iraq Vs Kuwait, Syria, Libya ---) in the middle east is comparatively less during the tenure of Mr. Obama.
Will this deal destroy or diminish the activities of ISIS?
Will Iran silence the ISIS by this deal? What is next?
4
How can anyone be in favor of a deal without reading it?
2
and how can republicans say that at 100 pages it's too long and too much bother to read?
3
Simple.
There are 2 alternatives to the deal, both disastrous.
#1 we continue to punish Iran with crippling sanctions and they work to develop nuclear weapons without any oversight, because--why shouldn't they?
or B--we go the Bibi Netanyahu/Rick Santorum LUNATIC route and start a possibly world-ending war with Iran, (after our assault on Iraq ripped the country to pieces, delivered the region into the hands of ISIS and killed over a million people).
There are 2 alternatives to the deal, both disastrous.
#1 we continue to punish Iran with crippling sanctions and they work to develop nuclear weapons without any oversight, because--why shouldn't they?
or B--we go the Bibi Netanyahu/Rick Santorum LUNATIC route and start a possibly world-ending war with Iran, (after our assault on Iraq ripped the country to pieces, delivered the region into the hands of ISIS and killed over a million people).
4
ronnoco- How can anyone be against a deal without reading it?
I wonder if it is now time for congress to stand on it's two feet and stand behind America.
8
Seeing into the future is very hard, but, so is seeing the past clearly. There is a divide in this country as to what really brought down the Berlin Wall and ended the Cold War. The GOP believes it was Reagan's tough talk and massive Defense Dept. spending. Democrats may pay lip service to the shrine of the Great Communicator, but many believe that Peristroika and increased access to western media and information put intolerable pressure on Soviet leaders to open their society to western consumer goods. As the theory goes, where consumer goods go, so, goes increased openness and democracy. As with most of life, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Much of Obama's position on Cuba and Iran is based on the assumption that increased exposure to life outside sanctions will place intolerable pressure on leaders to open their societies to more than just consumer goods.
8
Consumer goods doesn't appear to have brought democracy to either Russia nor China so perhaps the theory, lacking evidence to support it, is actually wishful thinking.
How can we expect Iran to honor this agreement when its people are always chanting "Death to America?"
"Euphoria over this agreement is misplaced; even cautious optimism is misguided. ... Iran just concluded their annual week of of Death to America celebrations."
Not to worry. Iranian protester tend to chant "Death to ..." just about anything and everything – including their own Supreme Leader. This, for example, is from a NYT article published on December 27, 2009:
"In Tehran, thick crowds marched down a central avenue in midmorning, defying official warnings of a harsh crackdown on protests as they chanted “death to Khamenei,” referring to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
"Euphoria over this agreement is misplaced; even cautious optimism is misguided. ... Iran just concluded their annual week of of Death to America celebrations."
Not to worry. Iranian protester tend to chant "Death to ..." just about anything and everything – including their own Supreme Leader. This, for example, is from a NYT article published on December 27, 2009:
"In Tehran, thick crowds marched down a central avenue in midmorning, defying official warnings of a harsh crackdown on protests as they chanted “death to Khamenei,” referring to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
5
Dear "Thinker" -
I've read dozens of iterations of your comment already.
Here's the thing: Fox News isn't going to tell you why the Iranian people, especially the older ones, view both the US and Israel with disdain.
Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and periodic war crimes and murder of Iranian civilians and support for terror groups in Iran aside, you might consider the US-backed coup that brought in a dictator and secret police so US oil companies could virtually steal Iran's oil.
You also may not know that the US gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons to use against Iran.
Add to this the sanctions imposed on Iran merely for doing what it has every right to do under the NPT, at the urging of the only democracy in the middle east, which is busy building its own nukes when it isn't bulldozing Arab homes and building apartheid colonies on their ruins.
So, for the love of all that is good and decent, can people like you stop pretending that Iranians and muslims are all irrational hate filled monsters while the US and Israel are merely forces for peace and justice.
The body count tells quite a different story, and Iran has far more often been victim than victimizer.
I've read dozens of iterations of your comment already.
Here's the thing: Fox News isn't going to tell you why the Iranian people, especially the older ones, view both the US and Israel with disdain.
Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and periodic war crimes and murder of Iranian civilians and support for terror groups in Iran aside, you might consider the US-backed coup that brought in a dictator and secret police so US oil companies could virtually steal Iran's oil.
You also may not know that the US gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons to use against Iran.
Add to this the sanctions imposed on Iran merely for doing what it has every right to do under the NPT, at the urging of the only democracy in the middle east, which is busy building its own nukes when it isn't bulldozing Arab homes and building apartheid colonies on their ruins.
So, for the love of all that is good and decent, can people like you stop pretending that Iranians and muslims are all irrational hate filled monsters while the US and Israel are merely forces for peace and justice.
The body count tells quite a different story, and Iran has far more often been victim than victimizer.
6
Oh no! The shout death to America, huh?
I'm so scared.
I'm so scared.
No one in the government will admit it but Iran is currently our best ally in the war against ISIS. They have committed troops. How about our ISIS-loving buds, the Saudis?
13
You're presupposing, it seems that the US and Israel are not actually backing ISIS.
Don't assume so much...
Don't assume so much...
1
I am amazed at the vitriolic from the influential section of the American politics, seemingly paralyzed by fear of peace breaking out in region. Healthy debate, yes! But out right negativity even before the ink has dried on the deal, smacks on rank political immaturity.
With the looming of ISIS threat, it stands to reason that American and its allies gains as much as Iran from the deal.
I believe that the most significant outcome of the historic accord is the real probability of Iran coming board to fight jointly with International community the menace posed by rampaging ISIS forces. Even if Tehran does not join the Washington-led coalition, the rise of ISIS has become an important factor in the relations between the United States and Iran.
It's hard to imagine a resolution of the ISIS crisis without some form of coordination between the United States and Iran, and also between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The mobilization of international players with divergent ideologies and strategic interests shows how gravely they all view the threat posed by ISIS.
ISIS represents a great threats to Iranian national security. Unlike others in Middle East, the territorial integrity and stability of Iraq are not optional for Iran. Consequently, Tehran is a key stakeholder in the crisis.
There is little doubt that America needs Iran's help to ward off ISIS and by refusing to go with the President the myopic politicians are ridiculously cutting their nose to spite the face.
With the looming of ISIS threat, it stands to reason that American and its allies gains as much as Iran from the deal.
I believe that the most significant outcome of the historic accord is the real probability of Iran coming board to fight jointly with International community the menace posed by rampaging ISIS forces. Even if Tehran does not join the Washington-led coalition, the rise of ISIS has become an important factor in the relations between the United States and Iran.
It's hard to imagine a resolution of the ISIS crisis without some form of coordination between the United States and Iran, and also between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The mobilization of international players with divergent ideologies and strategic interests shows how gravely they all view the threat posed by ISIS.
ISIS represents a great threats to Iranian national security. Unlike others in Middle East, the territorial integrity and stability of Iraq are not optional for Iran. Consequently, Tehran is a key stakeholder in the crisis.
There is little doubt that America needs Iran's help to ward off ISIS and by refusing to go with the President the myopic politicians are ridiculously cutting their nose to spite the face.
13
Iran allies with Syria . Syria is the birthplace for ISIS. Where are your reasoning skills?
1
I am glad to hear that some resolution was reached on limiting the creation of nuclear weapons. Hopefully this works out for the best.
5
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.
7
No no - you see, when you're the chosen people, and God Herself gave you the land, you don't have to adhere to the other laws of the goyim.
Not unless they inure to your benefit, of course.
Not unless they inure to your benefit, of course.
1
What a relief.
You would think half of congress (and you know which half) actually WANTS to avoid any accord ever. Pretending to stand for America's security, these masochists secretly fantasize about an American invasion of Iran to fulfill their distorted nationalistic pride. War is exciting, and diplomacy is boring.
Thank you Secretary Kerry, Minister Zarif, President Rouhani and President Obama for standing above the calls for escalation and division on both sides.
This is truly a historic day.
You would think half of congress (and you know which half) actually WANTS to avoid any accord ever. Pretending to stand for America's security, these masochists secretly fantasize about an American invasion of Iran to fulfill their distorted nationalistic pride. War is exciting, and diplomacy is boring.
Thank you Secretary Kerry, Minister Zarif, President Rouhani and President Obama for standing above the calls for escalation and division on both sides.
This is truly a historic day.
5
At the time of the 2014 Midterms, when Obama was under DNC sanction in the White House lest he jeopardize more Democrat candidates, a leading poll showed that "73% of voters think America is on the wrong track." But at least we had one less global threat then, 8 months ago. Now we have one just as maniacal as Japan and its Divine Wind mentality that almost cost us the Pacific war. Herman Kahn-style MAD does not work against crazed religious fundamentalists who want a global Jonestown, via a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Israel ("a rain of fire from the sky") to invoke the Return of the Twelfth (Hidden) Iman, and the caliphate. They are nihilists. As usual, America once again has to grabs its ankles, and hope for the best. Read the books by Gates and Panetta to see where this leads.
4
A commenter has quoted criticisms of the deal voiced today by several Presidential candidates, and undoubtedly there will be many more.
But I'll confidently venture this prediction:
When the time comes for Congress actually to take some action to reject the bill, it won't. Obama has threatened to veto any such action, of course, and so Congress could (and probably will) say that it didn't take action because it didn't have enough votes to override a veto – but, gosh darn, Senators and Representatives were mightily upset. In reality, though, they won't even muster a majority. They'll posture and preen, and then back down. The deal will go through, and a year from now nearly everyone will be wondering what all the fuss was about. Netanyahu, of course, will still be waving his arms and claiming the sky is falling (as he insisted would happen if we didn't invade Iraq), but very few people will be paying attention to him.
But I'll confidently venture this prediction:
When the time comes for Congress actually to take some action to reject the bill, it won't. Obama has threatened to veto any such action, of course, and so Congress could (and probably will) say that it didn't take action because it didn't have enough votes to override a veto – but, gosh darn, Senators and Representatives were mightily upset. In reality, though, they won't even muster a majority. They'll posture and preen, and then back down. The deal will go through, and a year from now nearly everyone will be wondering what all the fuss was about. Netanyahu, of course, will still be waving his arms and claiming the sky is falling (as he insisted would happen if we didn't invade Iraq), but very few people will be paying attention to him.
8
At last !! Mission Accomplished without drones and war ? Saudi Arabia, Israel, we have given up being your lackeys. Kudos to President Obama and his team. Kudos to President Rafsanjani and his team.
9
Putting aside the fact, NI, that Rafsanjani has not been president of Iran for 18 years, we get your drift and agree.
1
Rumania is the current President. Funny you confuse him with the former President Rafsanjani as he was the one who said publicly that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would destroy Israel but Iran could survive Israel's counter-strike.
I am very happy that Israel does not get a vote in congress.
11
Israel likes it that way too. Less gridlock for it.
4
Our Congressmen simply vote on Israel's behalf. Either that, or they're out.
7
We've seen him in action, and have seen the proof of his strength and leadership!!
Now we need John Kerry for president! He has the respect of the world stage. He has major, historic achievements as Secretary of State. He's the strong, articulate statesman we've been looking for, and if we give him a a couple terms as president, he'll continue to achieve and be around to ensure the Iran deal.
Now we need John Kerry for president! He has the respect of the world stage. He has major, historic achievements as Secretary of State. He's the strong, articulate statesman we've been looking for, and if we give him a a couple terms as president, he'll continue to achieve and be around to ensure the Iran deal.
6
I believe that President Obama continues to demonstrate to the world why he was nominated for and chosen to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. He favors diplomatic efforts before bombs. He favors diplomacy when 50 years of economic sanctions don't work. I thank God every day that Barack Obama---a man with great integrity, a social conscience, compassion, and a supreme intellect---became our American president and influential world leader.
7
However this turns out, it's a great leap forward for humanity and civilization. Bravo, Mr. President.
6
The willingness of so many people commenting here to trust Iran reveals their naivete. The president of Iran participated in an anti-American rally in Tehran just 3 days ago. "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" were chanted continuously, and the American flag was burned. Demonstrators and the president of Iran himself refused to back off their pledge to destroy Israel. Are those the actions of a regime that you can trust to keep their word not to develop nuclear weapons? Neville Chamberlain comes to mind. Some people refuse to learn from history.
5
Grant takes the bait:
"Actually I seem to recall that IAEA has frequently said that the Iranians have restricted their inspection efforts. I expect nothing less going forward."
The IAEA nearly always says it wishes Iran would let it look at more places – military sites, for example. But what the IAEA DOESN'T say, Grant, is that Iran ever blocks the IAEA from looking at any place the IAEA has a right to look under Iran's Safeguards Agreement.
The IAEA typically says it can't verify that Iran has declared all nuclear material unless Iran lets the IAEA look at more places. Iran's usual response (paraphrased) is this:
"There are quite a number of countries for which you refuse to confirm that all nuclear material has been declared. Brazil, for example. We can live with that, just as all those other countries seem to live with it, if you're going to insist on the right to poke around our military sites in order to issue that confirmation."
Speaking of military sites, I'll bet Grant didn't know that Iran let inspectors poke around its Parchin military site a few years back. Iran said: "You can check out any facility you want at Parching, and you don't have to tell us which one until you get there. But just one." The IAEA picked one, looked around to its heart's content, and reported finding nothing. Then the US told the IAEA it should have asked to inspect a different facility at Parchin. The IAEA asked if it could come back and check that one out too. Iran said no.
"Actually I seem to recall that IAEA has frequently said that the Iranians have restricted their inspection efforts. I expect nothing less going forward."
The IAEA nearly always says it wishes Iran would let it look at more places – military sites, for example. But what the IAEA DOESN'T say, Grant, is that Iran ever blocks the IAEA from looking at any place the IAEA has a right to look under Iran's Safeguards Agreement.
The IAEA typically says it can't verify that Iran has declared all nuclear material unless Iran lets the IAEA look at more places. Iran's usual response (paraphrased) is this:
"There are quite a number of countries for which you refuse to confirm that all nuclear material has been declared. Brazil, for example. We can live with that, just as all those other countries seem to live with it, if you're going to insist on the right to poke around our military sites in order to issue that confirmation."
Speaking of military sites, I'll bet Grant didn't know that Iran let inspectors poke around its Parchin military site a few years back. Iran said: "You can check out any facility you want at Parching, and you don't have to tell us which one until you get there. But just one." The IAEA picked one, looked around to its heart's content, and reported finding nothing. Then the US told the IAEA it should have asked to inspect a different facility at Parchin. The IAEA asked if it could come back and check that one out too. Iran said no.
2
If that's the best you can do ....
1
Grant,
Do you think Iran should let the IAEA inspectors look at more of its military sites? Do you think we should? Israel? Other countries?
Keep in mind that, despite all the arm-waving accusations, the IAEA has only once found Iran to have violated its Safeguards Agreement. That happened in early 2006, and the IAEA said that the violation had ended in late 2003. Even that violation was a disclosure violation (Iran has never been accused of using any nuclear material for a non-peaceful purpose – bet you didn't know that), based on Iran's failure to disclose a very small amount of nuclear material it had acquired from China in 1991. I happen to think the IAEA was right about that, though I also believe Iran believed (albeit mistakenly) that it wasn't required to disclose that material.
That's it, Grant. The rest is just accusation. Whenever the US is asked to come up with evidence, it just makes more accusations, and then insists that there must be "fire" because the US has created so much "smoke."
But don't take my word for it. Cite some contrary examples. By all means.
Do you think Iran should let the IAEA inspectors look at more of its military sites? Do you think we should? Israel? Other countries?
Keep in mind that, despite all the arm-waving accusations, the IAEA has only once found Iran to have violated its Safeguards Agreement. That happened in early 2006, and the IAEA said that the violation had ended in late 2003. Even that violation was a disclosure violation (Iran has never been accused of using any nuclear material for a non-peaceful purpose – bet you didn't know that), based on Iran's failure to disclose a very small amount of nuclear material it had acquired from China in 1991. I happen to think the IAEA was right about that, though I also believe Iran believed (albeit mistakenly) that it wasn't required to disclose that material.
That's it, Grant. The rest is just accusation. Whenever the US is asked to come up with evidence, it just makes more accusations, and then insists that there must be "fire" because the US has created so much "smoke."
But don't take my word for it. Cite some contrary examples. By all means.
This deal is a step in the right direction.The deal does stop/slow down the inevitable that Iran would/will eventually have nuclear capabilities,in all of it's aspects.There are other countries involved being on both sides of this issue.No country involved wants a nuclear holocaust,nor does this deal do this.This adds one more country to the nuclear age,it does not take out the players already in the game.India and Pakistan are not shooting at each other. Neither USA Russia China are either.Let's also wait and see what is actually in the deal before we the people or Congress decide it's not a step in the right direction.
Now ... If only we could find a way to get Israel to agree to the same conditions for their nuclear weapons.
I really can't see how Netanyahu can say the hypocritical things he says with a straight face. Practice, I guess.
I really can't see how Netanyahu can say the hypocritical things he says with a straight face. Practice, I guess.
16
Israel doesn't threaten to destroy other countries like Iran does. But you knew that right?
1
The sanctions increased the power of the Revolutionary Guard within Iran since they have been the only ones with the resources to get around them.
3
What strange bedfellows! I'm proud that we assembled a coalition that included China and Russia. I would like to know about their interactions during this process. Most of us want peace, which is harder to obtain than war. This multi-national effort gives me hope.
This must be terrifying to the MCI to see so many disparate interests at the table, hashing it out for years, in an effort to prevent war rather than winding one down and dividing the spoils as is the usual cause for such gatherings.
This must be terrifying to the MCI to see so many disparate interests at the table, hashing it out for years, in an effort to prevent war rather than winding one down and dividing the spoils as is the usual cause for such gatherings.
2
"... Iran is expected to develop and use advanced centrifuges for which Iran has no need except for creating bomb grade uranium."
Poor old Iran – it just can't seem to please some people. If it uses advanced centrifuges, critics complain about that. But if it uses old centrifuges, it needs a lot more of them, and then critics complain about how many it has.
On the merits, the critic's complaint is baseless. Any centrifuge – advanced or not – can be used to refine uranium to bomb-grade, or to refine it far less for use in a power-plant reactor, or to refine it somewhere in between for use, say, in a reactor that makes medical radioisotopes. No matter what type of centrifuge you use, you're going to have to run the nuclear material through it several times. Advanced centrifuges are more efficient, as one might expect (after all, why would anyone choose them over the old model if they weren't any better?), but any centrifuge can all be used for the same permissible or impermissible purposes.
I'm impressed that Iran agreed to keep so many of its old centrifuges operating. The only reason I can see for that is to provide some additional assurance to the US that a "break-out" would take longer.
Poor old Iran – it just can't seem to please some people. If it uses advanced centrifuges, critics complain about that. But if it uses old centrifuges, it needs a lot more of them, and then critics complain about how many it has.
On the merits, the critic's complaint is baseless. Any centrifuge – advanced or not – can be used to refine uranium to bomb-grade, or to refine it far less for use in a power-plant reactor, or to refine it somewhere in between for use, say, in a reactor that makes medical radioisotopes. No matter what type of centrifuge you use, you're going to have to run the nuclear material through it several times. Advanced centrifuges are more efficient, as one might expect (after all, why would anyone choose them over the old model if they weren't any better?), but any centrifuge can all be used for the same permissible or impermissible purposes.
I'm impressed that Iran agreed to keep so many of its old centrifuges operating. The only reason I can see for that is to provide some additional assurance to the US that a "break-out" would take longer.
First Cuba, now Iran!
Does this guy want to be friends with everybody??
Does this guy want to be friends with everybody??
2
Great News. Nobel Peace Prize, justified.
16
Thank you. The check is in the mail.
Barack "Neville Chamberlain" Obama.
This will lead to nuclear war, not peace.
This will lead to nuclear war, not peace.
4
This Nuclear Deal is far superior to another war in the Middle East and I applaud the President for getting it done.
11
The historic nuclear deal with Iran shows us that Peace, who was walking in the shadow of death, is now becoming bright-eyed as she walks by the very side of her handsome champion, Barack Obama.
4
"The United States is now seen in the region not only as a weak power but also as an unreliable one. For kidnapping and destruction of a neighboring regime, Iran is rewarded while Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel are sent away."
If nothing else comes of this agreement, it will have been worthwhile if at least one of those last-three-mentioned countries thinks of the US as a less reliable ally.
If nothing else comes of this agreement, it will have been worthwhile if at least one of those last-three-mentioned countries thinks of the US as a less reliable ally.
3
The same people that do not like this deal are usually the same that do not believe in Climate Change.
pesky facts
pesky facts
10
On shipping the nuclear fuel: How about shipping to a country that will not use it like Sri Lanka. Never give Putin an opening.
1
How come there was no GOP alarm of North Korea abrogating all treatiers and building Nukes when George W was in office with US still technically at war with North Korea? And why was the Nuclear threat of Iran to Israel not a GOP concern when George W was still in office?
10
First it is Cuba. Now it is Iran. Next Kashmir? If he could resolve that, it would be an icing on the cake. He could get a second Nobel peace Prize. May be it is already in the works. For the first time in the history of India and Pakistan, they issued a joint statement without mentioning Kashmir. Obama showing the world, the American diplomacy at its best. May be finally, Republicans fall in-line and support this president in his efforts to bring peace around the globe.
9
“It will be remembered as one of America's worst diplomatic failures." Scott Walker
"The nuclear agreement announced by the Obama administration today is a dangerous, deeply flawed, and short sighted deal." Jeb Bush
“The deal would ensure a nuclear arms race in the Mideast and create "a possible death sentence for Israel." Lindsay Graham
“The agreement would make an arms race in the region more likely.” Carly Fiorina
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said in a statement that, "based on what we know thus far, I believe that this deal undermines our national security."
"The deal threatens Israel, it threatens the United States, and it turns 70 years of nuclear policy on its head," Chris Cristie
“The deal would "empower" Iran to destroy Israel.” Huckabee
Always good to know you have the support of folks back home. “It will be remembered as one of America's worst diplomatic failures." Scott Walker
"The nuclear agreement announced by the Obama administration today is a dangerous, deeply flawed, and short sighted deal." Jeb Bush
“The deal would ensure a nuclear arms race in the Mideast and create "a possible death sentence for Israel." Lindsay Graham
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said in a statement that, "based on what we know thus far, I believe that this deal undermines our national security."
"The deal threatens Israel, it threatens the United States, and it turns 70 years of nuclear policy on its head," Chris Cristie
Where did we get these turkeys? They can only cause fear and war.
"The nuclear agreement announced by the Obama administration today is a dangerous, deeply flawed, and short sighted deal." Jeb Bush
“The deal would ensure a nuclear arms race in the Mideast and create "a possible death sentence for Israel." Lindsay Graham
“The agreement would make an arms race in the region more likely.” Carly Fiorina
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said in a statement that, "based on what we know thus far, I believe that this deal undermines our national security."
"The deal threatens Israel, it threatens the United States, and it turns 70 years of nuclear policy on its head," Chris Cristie
“The deal would "empower" Iran to destroy Israel.” Huckabee
Always good to know you have the support of folks back home. “It will be remembered as one of America's worst diplomatic failures." Scott Walker
"The nuclear agreement announced by the Obama administration today is a dangerous, deeply flawed, and short sighted deal." Jeb Bush
“The deal would ensure a nuclear arms race in the Mideast and create "a possible death sentence for Israel." Lindsay Graham
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said in a statement that, "based on what we know thus far, I believe that this deal undermines our national security."
"The deal threatens Israel, it threatens the United States, and it turns 70 years of nuclear policy on its head," Chris Cristie
Where did we get these turkeys? They can only cause fear and war.
14
If you only knew the history of the world, you would understand that weakness and capitulation leads to war and enslavement.
2
Sharman views this deal with deep skepticism:
"While many here are lauding the agreement, I view this with deep skepticism."
Fair enough, Starman. Each of us is entitled to his prediction. All I ask is that, 6 months from now, you not slink away quietly if you were wrong. Stand up like a man and say it. I'll do the same. Deal?
"While many here are lauding the agreement, I view this with deep skepticism."
Fair enough, Starman. Each of us is entitled to his prediction. All I ask is that, 6 months from now, you not slink away quietly if you were wrong. Stand up like a man and say it. I'll do the same. Deal?
5
If we are going to turn away from an overly militaristic state, we must use diplomacy. Maybe we should use some long-term, slogging diplomacy in Congress as well.
6
The GOP has a long-term policy in place. It began with a historic Midterm rout in 2010, followed by an even-larger one in 2014, culminating in a GOP Senate, too, and about 37 governorships. Thus the GOP was able to tell Iran to go sit on it a few months ago, and will soon do so again.
2
Sad day for the Pentagon, CIA, Halliburton and US weapons contractors, drooling for another war.
10
Don't worry Americans can be gullible enough to be fooled by GOP politicians and neocons.
It seems to me that many of the comments are evidence of confirmation bias more than anything else. There is little evidence in them that their authors have read, let alone can explain the modus operandi and implications of the various specific provisions of this agreement.
Not infrequently, articles and columns function not so much as a source of information for Commenters but as a Rorschach blot, readers seeing either what hey hoped would be there or what they were afraid they would find there. This seems true on "both sides" of the issue, supporters taking rhetoric at face value and opponents who accepted "trust but verify" from Reagan, rejecting it here.
Not infrequently, articles and columns function not so much as a source of information for Commenters but as a Rorschach blot, readers seeing either what hey hoped would be there or what they were afraid they would find there. This seems true on "both sides" of the issue, supporters taking rhetoric at face value and opponents who accepted "trust but verify" from Reagan, rejecting it here.
5
True, but there is a big difference between Reagan and Obama. The problem is the lack of trust in Obama and his perceived weakness from being too eager.
2
I haven't read the details of the provision but reject the premise of the "agreement" out of hand.
The United States has absolutely NO RIGHT to browbeat a nation that is a signatory of the NPT, has NO identified nuclear weapons program, has not attacked a neighboring state in 1000 years and has more justification for a nuclear deterrent to aggression than any other state on the face of the earth, given the fact it is threatened on a weekly basis by Israel's illegal nuclear arsenal and its other neighbor Iraq was obliterated by United States aggression, causing the deaths of over 1 million people.
The whole thing is outrageous.
The United States has absolutely NO RIGHT to browbeat a nation that is a signatory of the NPT, has NO identified nuclear weapons program, has not attacked a neighboring state in 1000 years and has more justification for a nuclear deterrent to aggression than any other state on the face of the earth, given the fact it is threatened on a weekly basis by Israel's illegal nuclear arsenal and its other neighbor Iraq was obliterated by United States aggression, causing the deaths of over 1 million people.
The whole thing is outrageous.
3
Who are the enemies of peace? The enemies of the U.S? Don't be coy. Tell us who you think they are, and how you measure their status. Is it Republicans? Israel? Democrats who dare not to follow the party line? Anyone who disagrees? At least have the courage of your convictions and identify what you're getting at. I can't believe the number of commenters who swallow this shallow attempt at innuendo, to make anyone who dares to think this is a dangerous rather than a commendable agreement into an enemy of the US and peace. Sounds just the like those who accused anyone who opposed the Iraq invasion as traitors-- an accusation I strongly suspect you found repulsive, just as I did. I find yours equally so.
5
Obama is the weakest foreign policy president in the history of the United States. And that is saying a lot since the list includes Jimmy Carter. Shame will accumulate to Obama's legacy as the ramifications of this capitulation to Iran become self evident. His successors will have a deep black hole from which to extricate our country. Thank goodness that process will begin in 18 months.
9
nice not-so-veiled reference to Obama's skin color. have you no shame or an ounce of tolerance Paul? given your comments these past years i guess not. but i can be hopeful even if you and your kind are anything but.
This the typical Republican myth, Paul, that Democrats are weak on foreign policy. Republican presidents -- typically draft dodgers, back in the day we had a draft, although George H.W. Bush was an exception -- talk tough and get America into mess after mess overseas. It is no coincidence that George H.W. Bush was the only recent Republican Commander-in-Chief who went to war very reluctantly and extricated our country as soon as the limited mission was completed.
If North Korea can build nuclear bombs and ICBMs then surely Iran, a country three times as large, that possesses an educated technocratic class, a history of science going back thousands of years, and vast reserves of the world's most valuable commodity, will be able to do the same, sanctions notwithstanding. We can't stop them from building a nuclear weapon if they really want to without a war, and we are still coming out of a severe depression and can not afford to fight a war at this time. Russia and China would only be too happy to see us sap our strength with another middle-eastern conflict, and this deal will buy us some time. A fifteen year pledge not to build a nuke is better than a nuclear armed Iran in the year 2017, which is right where we were headed without this agreement. This is a good deal. Fighting Israel's wars for her will hand the world to Chinese and the Russians.
11
We'll probably have a quiet period now -- plenty of time for Iran's critics to come up with examples of these:
"Iran’s history of evasions, stonewalling and illicit procurements..."
If time permits, maybe someone can also explain why the IAEA, whenever it issues a report on Iran, forgets to mention that Iran has breached its Safeguards Agreement. That strikes me as sufficiently important that it can't just be an oversight. Might there be some other explanation?
"Iran’s history of evasions, stonewalling and illicit procurements..."
If time permits, maybe someone can also explain why the IAEA, whenever it issues a report on Iran, forgets to mention that Iran has breached its Safeguards Agreement. That strikes me as sufficiently important that it can't just be an oversight. Might there be some other explanation?
1
Actually I seem to recall that IAEA has frequently said that the Iranians have restricted their inspection efforts. I expect nothing less going forward.
2
Iran has in fact overwhelmingly adhered to an inspection regime which Israel refuses to allow at all.
Got hypocrisy?
Got hypocrisy?
Israel and Saudi Arabia ought to cheer this political deal. It leaves Israel keeping its nukes. It removes a reason for the Saudis to develop them. At the least, it shows that the Iranians prefer peace to war----- a war almost certainly involving the deployment of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists. But this deal does little to achieve a United Nations ban on all nuclear weapons development, nuclear arms possession and sales of nuclear weapons technology. Iran still is free to buy ready-to-operate nuclear weapons on the black market. And they don't have to tell us if the Iranian buyer is not the Iranian government.
2
Iran Triumphs say the headlines. So why is Iran celebrating? Obviously because Iran's mullahs got everything that they were asking for and even more including an implicit acknowledgement that Iran will be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. According to Obama, breakout time might shrink "almost down to zero" as Iran is expected to develop and use advanced centrifuges for which Iran has no need except for creating bomb grade uranium.
So why are Iran's long-term plans to expand its enrichment capability to be shared with the I.A.E.A. and other parties to the accord but kept confidential from the American people? Could it be because the deal, like the secretive TPP, is a bad deal for the American public?
So why are Iran's long-term plans to expand its enrichment capability to be shared with the I.A.E.A. and other parties to the accord but kept confidential from the American people? Could it be because the deal, like the secretive TPP, is a bad deal for the American public?
3
Alas, peace in the Middle East will be seen in our time. Not because of this deal but in spite of it. The United States is now seen in the region not only as a weak power but also as an unreliable one. For kidnapping and destruction of a neighboring regime, Iran is rewarded while Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel are sent away. Recall that this démarche began when Obama backtracked on his own hollow "red line" declaration against Syria's use of chemical weapons, for which Iran was magically called in (with the equally magical connivance of the Russian Federation). The President then allowed himself to be charmed by the bazaar merchants of Tehran, who now have won But perhaps there is a silver lining. Cooperation between Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel will predictably increase. Maybe they will even conduct joint exercises in the battle against ISIS. Overland oil traffic via Haifa should increase. Of course, the price will be a diminished world role for the United States and little trust in its already flimsy promises. But that is what President Obama, at the outset of his first term, said he wanted. And with this accord, whether it achieves its stated objective or not, that is the result he and we most certainly will get.
3
"For kidnapping and destruction of a neighboring regime, Iran is rewarded..."
I guess I must have missed this: Who did those bad Iranians kidnap and destroy this time?
I guess I must have missed this: Who did those bad Iranians kidnap and destroy this time?
4
OK, I'll go out on a limb that I'm confident is about two feet thick:
1. Numerous Senators, Congressmen and others will rail against this deal, pointing out that Iran doesn't honor its obligations now and will continue that bad behavior (but pay close attention: they won't cite any examples, since they will have just made this up).
2. After all this railing, Congress won't block the agreement. Obama will not have to exercise his threatened veto because there will be nothing to veto.
3. Six months from now, 12 months from now, and so on, Iran will have been scrupulously complying with all of its obligations under the agreement, and those who predicted otherwise will have split into three groups:
A. Those who recognize they were wrong to predict that and frankly admit it. (This group will be very small.)
B. Those who recognize they were wrong to predict that but are unwilling to admit it to anyone and so just keep quiet. (This group will be fairly large.)
C. Those who recognize they were wrong to predict that but are unwilling to admit this to anyone, and who insist that Iran has breached its promises but that the inspectors are too stupid or naive to have noticed. (Hard to estimate the size of this group, but its members will be highly vocal.)
1. Numerous Senators, Congressmen and others will rail against this deal, pointing out that Iran doesn't honor its obligations now and will continue that bad behavior (but pay close attention: they won't cite any examples, since they will have just made this up).
2. After all this railing, Congress won't block the agreement. Obama will not have to exercise his threatened veto because there will be nothing to veto.
3. Six months from now, 12 months from now, and so on, Iran will have been scrupulously complying with all of its obligations under the agreement, and those who predicted otherwise will have split into three groups:
A. Those who recognize they were wrong to predict that and frankly admit it. (This group will be very small.)
B. Those who recognize they were wrong to predict that but are unwilling to admit it to anyone and so just keep quiet. (This group will be fairly large.)
C. Those who recognize they were wrong to predict that but are unwilling to admit this to anyone, and who insist that Iran has breached its promises but that the inspectors are too stupid or naive to have noticed. (Hard to estimate the size of this group, but its members will be highly vocal.)
6
It's a question of money, Obama has finally realized that containment of Iran is no longer able to continue. America loses this money too. Back in January, it became clear that the USA will make any concessions to Iran, and even in spite of Netanyahu's visit and the protests of Republicans, the U.S. was forced to adopt many of the clauses, mostly economic, which allowed Iran to fully return to the world scene.
I am a big believer in putting diplomatic solutions before military operations. Having listened to our President, and having actually read the text of the agreement, I can't help feeling that this is 1938 all over again except that it is President Obama saying "I believe it is a 'peace for our time'. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep" instead of Neville Chamberlain.
Our President has told us that this is a deal "built on verification". Has anyone read the verification provisions? I have, and they are a joke. I urge everyone to stifle their euphoria over the fact that an agreement has been signed and read the Agreement. Section Q of Annex I to the Agreement, entitled "Access" is a revelation. The agreement does not allow for any surprise inspections.
If the IAEA has concerns or suspicions about a particular site it may submit a written request to Iran setting forth its reasons as to why an inspection is needed. Iran is not then obligated to grant access and allow an inspection; it can propose "alternate means of resolving the IEAE's concerns" and the Iranian proposal should be given "due consideration". If the IAEA and Iran can't work out a deal in 14 days then the "Joint Commission" has 7 days to pass, by majority vote, a plan that Iran must act upon within an additional 3 days. I essence, once Iran is suspected of doing something wrong it has 3 weeks to dispose of the evidence.
The Agreement does not call for "verification" it calls for "conscious avoidance".
Our President has told us that this is a deal "built on verification". Has anyone read the verification provisions? I have, and they are a joke. I urge everyone to stifle their euphoria over the fact that an agreement has been signed and read the Agreement. Section Q of Annex I to the Agreement, entitled "Access" is a revelation. The agreement does not allow for any surprise inspections.
If the IAEA has concerns or suspicions about a particular site it may submit a written request to Iran setting forth its reasons as to why an inspection is needed. Iran is not then obligated to grant access and allow an inspection; it can propose "alternate means of resolving the IEAE's concerns" and the Iranian proposal should be given "due consideration". If the IAEA and Iran can't work out a deal in 14 days then the "Joint Commission" has 7 days to pass, by majority vote, a plan that Iran must act upon within an additional 3 days. I essence, once Iran is suspected of doing something wrong it has 3 weeks to dispose of the evidence.
The Agreement does not call for "verification" it calls for "conscious avoidance".
6
Too bad W removed the regional counterweight to Iran, thus necessitating this kind of dickering
8
Obama would likely be pursuing a deal with Saddam today had Bush not acted. He is hell-bent on a deal, perhaps finally trying to earn his Nobel Prize. How can we tell? When he's driven to succeed, he'll pretty much make a deal with the devil and say anything.
5
I can’t wait. The prospect of building Cuban and Iranian Casinos, peep shows and exotic dens of debauchery fueled by American tourism dollars is alluring. Obama has opened up the wonders fandango and belly dancing, rum and the hookah in a single year. Donald Trump and Sheldon Adelson should be in hog heaven at their juicy business prospects. Life is a cabaret, my friend. Come watch the show.
Peace is always a hard sell. Our history and heritage is that we're always more comfortable at war, or with the threat of war hanging over us. So, politically and culturally, this agreement makes us anxious. And, the craven and obstructionist Congress is already mobilized to exploit those fears. Blowing up this deal would be disgraceful, and would recklessly expose our children and their children to decades more conflict and danger. Pray for wisdom, pray for peace.
5
Saudi Arabia has said several times that it will pay $20 million to Pakistan for each nuclear missile Pakistan supplies it. Along with Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Djibouti, U.A.E. and Dubai, Iran is going to face well-armed adversaries, esp. Qatar, which has stockpiled way over 3,000 bunker busters for years now to use against its cross-straits adversary, Iran. MAD is back.
2
If Iran really wants to develop a nuclear weapon, it has potential pathways toward that end that the IAEA will not be able to detect from inspections conducted wholly within Iran. One might recall the words of a former CIA analyst re the Soviet Union, "We have never found things that the Russians have successfully hidden." Also, one should consider the fact that a nuclear weapons arsenal composed of many weapons as opposed to a single nuclear device is best developed using plutonium and not uranium. There are good reasons why the Hiroshima bomb was uranium-based and the Nagasaki bomb and all U.S. nuclear weapons thereafter were and are plutonium-based. Iran knows this and will have the resources to pursue whatever pathway they choose IF they really want to develop nuclear weapons, and that something that the U.S. and its allies cannot know.
I was most impressed during the debates leading up to the 2008 election when Mr. Obama reiterated that he would negotiate with Iran. Senator McCain was apoplectic.
Obama's campaign themes of "hope" and "change" would come to be mocked in many ways…perhaps rightfully so, simplistic as they were. But at the time those themes contrasted starkly with McCain's inflexibility and boiling anger.
My feeling about this agreement is that it's good for the American people and the Iranian people. I'm basing this assessment on the fact that right wing fanatics in both countries are upset by it.
Obama's campaign themes of "hope" and "change" would come to be mocked in many ways…perhaps rightfully so, simplistic as they were. But at the time those themes contrasted starkly with McCain's inflexibility and boiling anger.
My feeling about this agreement is that it's good for the American people and the Iranian people. I'm basing this assessment on the fact that right wing fanatics in both countries are upset by it.
4
A nay-sayer warns us:
"Now the future of nuclear world war, thanks to Obama's stupid deal with Iran depends on an "if.""
Doesn't a great deal of good and bad in the world depend on "if?"
"Now the future of nuclear world war, thanks to Obama's stupid deal with Iran depends on an "if.""
Doesn't a great deal of good and bad in the world depend on "if?"
3
I love Boehner's assessment that he hasn't read any of it yet but he doesn't like what he has read so far.
9
It's a great day for humanity, peace, and diplomacy.
It's a very sad day for the zionist neo-cons,FIX News ,GOP war mongers ,WSJ editorial ,and every phony macho in the Senate. Yes you John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
It's a very sad day for the zionist neo-cons,FIX News ,GOP war mongers ,WSJ editorial ,and every phony macho in the Senate. Yes you John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
8
It is great to see that diplomacy can work, and hopefully this have a positive impact on the turmoil in the middle east - despite the dire predictions of Republicans and Israel. When Iran becomes integrated with the rest of the world economy, and if they use the funds that have been impounded to help their own economy, it will improve the lives of Iranian citizens, and make it much less likely that they would want to cause sanctions to return (either from violation of the agreement or through other destabilizing actions in the region). This deal could open up more cooperation in fighting ISIS and lowering oil prices, which would have a positive impact around the world.
4
A brilliant outcome from a difficult negotiation.
Contrary to the spin here, I believe it was the EU negotiators who led the negotiations and got the final deal on terms that actually make sense. Four of the eight members on the panel are from Europe. Decisive control over future developments.
This signals a slip in US dominance.
Certainly the US military record in the region, along with its diplomatic bias, eliminates any possibility of continued exceptional status in the region.
Failure does have consequences, even for the exceptional nation.
Contrary to the spin here, I believe it was the EU negotiators who led the negotiations and got the final deal on terms that actually make sense. Four of the eight members on the panel are from Europe. Decisive control over future developments.
This signals a slip in US dominance.
Certainly the US military record in the region, along with its diplomatic bias, eliminates any possibility of continued exceptional status in the region.
Failure does have consequences, even for the exceptional nation.
2
What do each of these statements have in common:
"Wait and See"
"Give it time"
"Only time will tell"
"It's a good deal, trust me, I'm Barack Obama"
They're all the wrong answer when dealing with an Islamic Republic whose Supreme Leader finishes every speech and prayer with "Death to America" while signing checks to fund global Islamic terrorist groups.
"Wait and See"
"Give it time"
"Only time will tell"
"It's a good deal, trust me, I'm Barack Obama"
They're all the wrong answer when dealing with an Islamic Republic whose Supreme Leader finishes every speech and prayer with "Death to America" while signing checks to fund global Islamic terrorist groups.
7
DCBarristers:
People want desperately to believe. It is the single greatest failing of progressives. They cannot distinguish between reality and wishful thinking.
People want desperately to believe. It is the single greatest failing of progressives. They cannot distinguish between reality and wishful thinking.
4
I harbor no love for the Iranian political leadership, but Iran has at least been able to keep a functioning government in place for years. Iraq and much of the Middle East seems to have lost the ability to maintain an organized functioning society. Without at least order in the Middle East, where would peace and progress come from? I think we need to have the descendents of the ancient Persians become constructive participants in the region. I hope this can be a first step. If we don't take risks, peace can never happen.
4
A nuclear free zone may happen long before than LGBT rights happen in the Middle East.
1
I think the Middle EAST should be a nuclear free zone. I believe in Israel's right to exist and believe in peace, but why doesn't ISRAEL support Nuclear Non-proliferation inside of Israel and sign on to IAEA inspections? The real issue is why the US does not promote Human Rights in the Middle East? People should be free to change their religion, men and women should be equal, and we should respect LGBT rights. I support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This would include living free from the threat of nuclear weapons.
2
The POTUS has finally earned his Nobel Peace Prize. He has decisively shown that it is more productive to negotiate and try getting results rather than engage in senseless bombing without any strategy. What did President Bush achieve in Iraq except plunging the country into greater chaos and ensuring the revival of a vicious religious war starting in the fields of Karbala? We can now hold the Mullah's feet to the fire and monitor the accord. And the lifting of sanctions will give some hope to the millions of Iranians who are suffering from the mullah's misrule. Young Iranians will be watching guard over the accord lest they lose the new freedoms.
5
Obama, along with the European powers, imposes an agreement on a war-torn region against the will of the locals (or at least those not under the direct control of Iran) who are told that this is really for their own good even if they don't understand all the details. Once upon a time, this would be called Colonialism. I'm sure the President would look dashing in a pith helmet and jodhpurs.
1
Whether this deal would stick or not, one real positive aspect about these nuclear talks is that China, Russia and the US being divided on many issues, like the conflict in Ukraine and territorial disputes in the South China Sea – have still been able to come together to resolve a shared problem.
If only Israel, Saudi Arabia would sit together with Iran at a table, there would be less tensions in the region.
If only Israel, Saudi Arabia would sit together with Iran at a table, there would be less tensions in the region.
7
Dear Sarah Palin,
A few years ago, you asked us how that hopey-changey thing was working out for us.
Between the ACA, the recovery of the auto industry, the economic recovery from near Depression, the withdrawl of ground troops from Iraq, the opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba and half a dozen other things you and your proclaim mark the end of America, I'd say it's worked out pretty well for us.
Sincerely,
Citizens.
A few years ago, you asked us how that hopey-changey thing was working out for us.
Between the ACA, the recovery of the auto industry, the economic recovery from near Depression, the withdrawl of ground troops from Iraq, the opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba and half a dozen other things you and your proclaim mark the end of America, I'd say it's worked out pretty well for us.
Sincerely,
Citizens.
11
Amazing how people can delude themselves. Parts of the ACA were ruled unconstitutional, the auto industry - unlike the hated bankers - never paid the government back its loans, there was just an increase in the number of US soldiers in iraq, and the floodgates have been opened to the illegal alien poor of the 3rd world.
Unfortunately, the facts do not align with your fantasies about obama's "greatness"...
Unfortunately, the facts do not align with your fantasies about obama's "greatness"...
4
Dear Stephen,
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there are more Black children living in poverty and starving in America under the Obama presidency, than lived as slaves in the United States in 1855.
Barack Obama, in an NBC interview, apologized to the 12 million Americans who lost their health insurance so Obamacare could provide free coverage to 6 million Obamacare enrollees. (Twice as many people LOST their health insurance than enrolled in Obamacare)
Obama proclaimed Iraq free, secure, stable and self-reliant when he withdrew the troops from Iraq. Obama promised no boots on the ground in Iraq. It's 2015. Iraq is not free, secure or stable, and President Obama sent US troops BACK into Iraq, starting Iraq War part III.
Cuba now has diplomatic status and world power, and did not agree to end any of the human rights abuses that got them sanctioned and marginalized by the United States.
Can you help me understand how any of Obama's lies and epic failures have worked out pretty well for anyone who isn't named Barack Obama, or living off government entitlements or as an undocumented illegal?
Sincerely,
Sane, U.S. Citizens who work, pay taxes and love our country.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there are more Black children living in poverty and starving in America under the Obama presidency, than lived as slaves in the United States in 1855.
Barack Obama, in an NBC interview, apologized to the 12 million Americans who lost their health insurance so Obamacare could provide free coverage to 6 million Obamacare enrollees. (Twice as many people LOST their health insurance than enrolled in Obamacare)
Obama proclaimed Iraq free, secure, stable and self-reliant when he withdrew the troops from Iraq. Obama promised no boots on the ground in Iraq. It's 2015. Iraq is not free, secure or stable, and President Obama sent US troops BACK into Iraq, starting Iraq War part III.
Cuba now has diplomatic status and world power, and did not agree to end any of the human rights abuses that got them sanctioned and marginalized by the United States.
Can you help me understand how any of Obama's lies and epic failures have worked out pretty well for anyone who isn't named Barack Obama, or living off government entitlements or as an undocumented illegal?
Sincerely,
Sane, U.S. Citizens who work, pay taxes and love our country.
2
What a wonderful day! A major PEACE agreement, sponsored in part at least by the United States, has been signed for the first time in decades with Iran.
President Obama spent plenty of political capital to make this happen. Regardless of how much or how little anyone thinks that President Obama did, he championed this to the American public and Congress and both supported his continued efforts to make it happen.
How fortunate the USA is to have the wisdom to pursue peace and to turn away from confrontation and war.
Well done President Obama!
Well done Secretary Kerry!
President Obama spent plenty of political capital to make this happen. Regardless of how much or how little anyone thinks that President Obama did, he championed this to the American public and Congress and both supported his continued efforts to make it happen.
How fortunate the USA is to have the wisdom to pursue peace and to turn away from confrontation and war.
Well done President Obama!
Well done Secretary Kerry!
16
Yes, it's Peace in Our Time.
1
The cat with the longish grey hair needs a hair cut; that style might have been groovy when he was young, but now its unbecoming, especially for a "diplomat."
2
Now that it has got the deal, Iran should now officially recognize the state of Israel, Denounce holocaust, and Iran and Israel should open negotiations (back channel if need be) to Iron out their basic differences. It takes more than just the Deal to integrate fully in the international community.
5
The U.S. detonated a nuclear bomb in the Middle East by invading Iraq under George W. Bush that opened the Pandora Box of sectarian and religious conflict as well as terrorism. Hundreds of thousands are dead and maimed from that bomb that we as a country are responsible for.
At least now we are taking a responsible path of diplomacy, like Nixon, Carter and Reagan did with the USSR and China, and have reached a deal that will hopefully keep the lid on the box of nuclear conflagration. If Hundreds of thousands of people do not die and are not maimed as a result of this agreement, than the peacemakers have done their job and we can all be thankful for a safer and less destructive Middle East.
At least now we are taking a responsible path of diplomacy, like Nixon, Carter and Reagan did with the USSR and China, and have reached a deal that will hopefully keep the lid on the box of nuclear conflagration. If Hundreds of thousands of people do not die and are not maimed as a result of this agreement, than the peacemakers have done their job and we can all be thankful for a safer and less destructive Middle East.
8
Somehow I find myself not caring what Benjamin Netanyahu thinks about this deal.
19
This is a major win for diplomacy over war, my hope is that after 15 years of normalized relations, the Iranian people will no longer want to pursue a nuclear weapon. Having said that it sounds like we will be able to verify everything anyway... this beats war by far!
7
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, called it a “historic mistake” that would create a “terrorist nuclear superpower.”
”If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region,” Benjamin Netanyahu to the US congress, September 12, 2002.
”If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region,” Benjamin Netanyahu to the US congress, September 12, 2002.
15
Yes this man is a terrorist.
2
Ask the iraqis who got to vote in an election for the first time in their lives. When you dole out the blame for the problems since, make sure you keep iran and its terrorism front and center.
1
Just because Netanyahu was dead wrong last time is no reason he shouldn't get the attention he deserves this time.
Do you think he deserves much attention?
Do you think he deserves much attention?
1
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.
3
"Built on Verification" ???
Per the NYT (7/14/15) :
"More than twice the size of Texas in area, Iran poses many challenges for atomic inspectors who have to police the agreement and gain access not only to scientists, labs and factories, but also to many underground sites and military bases. Western allies say the new inspections must be far more intrusive than those in the past, given the deal’s sweeping terms as well as Iran’s history of evasions, stonewalling and illicit procurements. The principal concerns are how to detect cheating and covert sites." ...
Also Per NYT ( 7/14/15) -"Crucial Provisions of the Accord" --- ..."But Iran can delay requested inspections for 24 Days, more than enough time, critics say, for Iran to clean up any evidence of illegal nuclear activities."
---------------------------------------------------------
Once Again, ( see above) straight from the NYT "given Iran’s history of evasions, stonewalling and illicit procurements. The principal concerns are how to detect cheating and covert sites." ...
and all the while that Iran's slogans remains: "death to Israel" -- "death to America"
No country such as Israel, and the Sunni Countries( Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Countries, Egypt ) will trust Iran or feel safe which means that Nuclear Proliferation will abound ... and the Middle East will be 10 minutes from Armageddon...
Maybe this is a good deal for Obama - but it is a Terrible Deal for the Mid East, America or the World..
Neville Chamberlain
Per the NYT (7/14/15) :
"More than twice the size of Texas in area, Iran poses many challenges for atomic inspectors who have to police the agreement and gain access not only to scientists, labs and factories, but also to many underground sites and military bases. Western allies say the new inspections must be far more intrusive than those in the past, given the deal’s sweeping terms as well as Iran’s history of evasions, stonewalling and illicit procurements. The principal concerns are how to detect cheating and covert sites." ...
Also Per NYT ( 7/14/15) -"Crucial Provisions of the Accord" --- ..."But Iran can delay requested inspections for 24 Days, more than enough time, critics say, for Iran to clean up any evidence of illegal nuclear activities."
---------------------------------------------------------
Once Again, ( see above) straight from the NYT "given Iran’s history of evasions, stonewalling and illicit procurements. The principal concerns are how to detect cheating and covert sites." ...
and all the while that Iran's slogans remains: "death to Israel" -- "death to America"
No country such as Israel, and the Sunni Countries( Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Countries, Egypt ) will trust Iran or feel safe which means that Nuclear Proliferation will abound ... and the Middle East will be 10 minutes from Armageddon...
Maybe this is a good deal for Obama - but it is a Terrible Deal for the Mid East, America or the World..
Neville Chamberlain
8
Trust, but verify. Reagan was denounced as an out of control nuclear cowboy, but he was right. Yet, some folks still refuse to credit Reagan, Bush, Thatcher, and Kohl with the greatest foreign policy success of the 20th century. I hope the Right will not be as dumb as the Left and give this treaty a chance. I hope Obama is as successful as Reagan, etc.
3
What does that even mean: trust and verify? If you trust your spouse, do you verify whether he/she is cheating on you? If you do, do you really trust him/her? One of these vacuous sentences one of the most damaging Presidents this country ever had. bringing up other disastrous political figures such as Thatcher really adds credibility to your argument!
This "so-called" negotiation process with Iran reminds me a lot of former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Neville Chamberlain, negotiations with Hitler's Germany right before the start of World War II. We are following in Mr. Chamberlain's foot steps of "Appeasement". Today Iran is the cause for the majority of the unrest in the Middle East. So what do we do? We ignore all the killing that Iran is perpetrating in the Middle East, We ignore the slogans of "Death to America", we ignore the principle of no nuclear weapons for Iran and instead say no nuclear weapons for Iran for the next 10 years. What happens after the 10 years no one really knows or cares. Iran is still set on the "destruction of Israel". Iran even gets to sell its oil on the open markets, they get to sell weapons to groups they support throughout the world. Who were the parities to negotiated this one-sided agreement: China. Russia, France, Great Britain and the United States with Germany's participation. I would say that if this agreement is approved by the United States, that Israel will cease to exist over the next 15 years, and the United States will continue its decline on the World Stage and will be fighting terrorism here within the United States and the freedoms we have all enjoyed and cherished will be lost all in the name of protecting all of us. It's is a sad day for all Americans, a sad day for the rest of the world.
5
A truly great accomplishment. It is important to remember that outside of the Republican party, the only people in the world who oppose this deal are the Israelis and a Gulf monarchy or two. Additionally, the Republicans who so wholeheartedly condemn this deal wholeheartedly supported the second Iraq war. They were so right about that one too.
7
Upside: Obama's deal with Iran is a great accomplishment.
Downside: A great accomplishment if you chant "Death to America" after every political speech and look to build an Islamic Caliphate.
Downside: A great accomplishment if you chant "Death to America" after every political speech and look to build an Islamic Caliphate.
2
"the only people in the world who oppose this deal are the Israelis and a Gulf monarchy or two..." Where do you get your facts from, a cereal box?
Most americans expect iran to cheat and not follow the agreement, and most sunni arab muslims - there's 500 million of them - oppose iran and this agreement as well. Please do not lie on public forums.
Most americans expect iran to cheat and not follow the agreement, and most sunni arab muslims - there's 500 million of them - oppose iran and this agreement as well. Please do not lie on public forums.
1
I have a different view which I think is supported by the simple fact that a US president always needed a support at the back or the right in order to stand-up and deliver a speech. The all laughing Iranian negotiators have bought their country the biggest trouble ever- and I am not fond of that regime at all. They have been pushed to make enemies with their natural allies- their neighbors to make this deal possible. They will be pushed to do even more of this dirty work after the deal. This will in turn, give the excuse to the neighbors to spend their last penny to sir troubles in their sticks stuck with wax sort of Islamic Republic, which will make them even weaker and more hated. Finally when the maps of all the defense institutions are known and ready, Israel will feel fed up of all the waiting and will deliver the hit that it could not do before, because of the fear of retaliation. Everyone around will now clap, because all the friends have gone. This is not my invention story.. it has happened before to their nothing but ruins neighbor.
2
Over the years I've continuously been impressed by the consistency of the Right. As far back as I can remember, it has opposed "talking with the enemy". The enemy, they always say, (a) will gain undeserved recognition, (b) can't be trusted, and besides (c) are much cleverer than we and, hence, will clean our clock. They criticized Nixon's "going to China", Reagan's discussions with Gorbochev, and more recently Obama's steps toward Cuba.
Thus, the current objectors, as anticipated, are following a well-worn and unimaginative path of negativity, which, not insignificantly, mostly has turned out to be on the proverbial wrong side of history.
Thus, the current objectors, as anticipated, are following a well-worn and unimaginative path of negativity, which, not insignificantly, mostly has turned out to be on the proverbial wrong side of history.
7
"So all of you that think this is such a great move, I assume you will support unilateral military action against Iran when it's found that they aren't adhering to the accord?"
Nope, though I doubt seriously that situation will arise.
Tell me, though: If Iran DOES adhere to the accord, is there some other country you think we should bomb?
Nope, though I doubt seriously that situation will arise.
Tell me, though: If Iran DOES adhere to the accord, is there some other country you think we should bomb?
5
Oh this is awesome.
Now the future of nuclear world war, thanks to Obama's stupid deal with Iran depends on an "if."
Can we impeach yet America?
Now the future of nuclear world war, thanks to Obama's stupid deal with Iran depends on an "if."
Can we impeach yet America?
7
So there's my point, you don't really care about the agreement. You just flat out hate an America that, heaven forbid, doesn't want a nuclear Iran.
Obama is a lion - i'm glad we don't have to fight another useless expensive bloody war. Obama will go down in history as the greatest president humanity has ever seen.
1- 1st black president - check
2- save the world economy - check
3- save the middle east by preventing a nuclear attack on Iran - check
4- save America's middle class - check
5- insure the sick and give them the right to see a Doc - check
all in 6 years & change
1- 1st black president - check
2- save the world economy - check
3- save the middle east by preventing a nuclear attack on Iran - check
4- save America's middle class - check
5- insure the sick and give them the right to see a Doc - check
all in 6 years & change
12
I have to assume this post is a joke of some sort. Saving America's middle class? Giving the sick he right to see a doc (what does it even mean?). Saving the world economy. I am still laughing.
2
Blowing up infrastructure also often doesn't work. Same with kingpin drone assassinations. Give this a try. No guarantees. Just like life. Perhaps we should rethink things. Make Short head of construction for the new Mexico City subway.
1
When did "Bibi" Netanyahu win election to OUR Congress? I remember that Boehner snuck him in to rail at Congress in hopes of scoring Republican political points against President Obama. That plot flopped like a speared flounder. Still, Bibi chimes months later with with his narrow, self-interested critique of OUR president's treaty with Iran. I can't resort to the words I would prefer to describe Netanyahu's ongoing harangue, so I'll go with "off-putting."
14
I'm not sure how you define the word "flop". The Republicans had scored all the points they needed when they took control of the Senate in November. Bibi won re-election the week after the speech; so how was it a flop?
Additionally, I think the Head of State of any country that would be within striking distance of a nuke has the inherent right to voice an opinion on the subject. How would you feel if a distant country was negotiating of the United States?
Finally, before lauding the signing of the treaty, I suggest that you read it. All it accomplishes is the lifting of sanctions in exchange for a "promise" not to develop nuclear weapons. The verification provision is an absolute sham.
Additionally, I think the Head of State of any country that would be within striking distance of a nuke has the inherent right to voice an opinion on the subject. How would you feel if a distant country was negotiating of the United States?
Finally, before lauding the signing of the treaty, I suggest that you read it. All it accomplishes is the lifting of sanctions in exchange for a "promise" not to develop nuclear weapons. The verification provision is an absolute sham.
6
Israel is sitting on a wealth of nukes and could take out the entire region if they chose to do so. Why are you so worried about verification? Bibi is a sham and simply wants to keep American $$$$ flowing in. That's all he cares about while all the republicans and hawks care about is making more war and consolidating more power. Why not take a chance on peace for once? We can always nuke em later if we need to right?
1
"I can't resort to the words I would prefer to describe Netanyahu's ongoing harangue, so I'll go with "off-putting.""
For one with such vivid memories, that closing comes real close to faculty floundering confabulation.
For one with such vivid memories, that closing comes real close to faculty floundering confabulation.
1
So what about Israel's hundreds of nuclear weapons?
Israel's ultra orthodox population is growing - in numbers and belligerence.
Israel keeps putting nukes on subs, and keeps developing longer and longer range missiles.
The way I see it - Israel is much more of a threat, particularly as it lurches more and more rightward...
http://www.alternet.org/world/how-israel-covers-its-ugly-racial-holy-war
...than is Iran. A nation, by the way, whose democracy was toppled by the US and UK, and replaced with a brutal dictator and CIA-trained secret police, all so US and UK oil companies could pay pennies on the dollar for Iran's oil.
It's also worth bearing in mind that Israel has supported terrorism in Iran for years - even posing as Americans, in fact, when meeting with them
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/13/false-flag/.
This idea that Israel is an ally rests on a number of misconceptions. Netanyahu et al only care about Israel - they seek only to use American strength.... they are perfectly willing to lie and cheat, even engage in "false flag" attacks in order to have the US destroy Iran.
Israel's ultra orthodox population is growing - in numbers and belligerence.
Israel keeps putting nukes on subs, and keeps developing longer and longer range missiles.
The way I see it - Israel is much more of a threat, particularly as it lurches more and more rightward...
http://www.alternet.org/world/how-israel-covers-its-ugly-racial-holy-war
...than is Iran. A nation, by the way, whose democracy was toppled by the US and UK, and replaced with a brutal dictator and CIA-trained secret police, all so US and UK oil companies could pay pennies on the dollar for Iran's oil.
It's also worth bearing in mind that Israel has supported terrorism in Iran for years - even posing as Americans, in fact, when meeting with them
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/13/false-flag/.
This idea that Israel is an ally rests on a number of misconceptions. Netanyahu et al only care about Israel - they seek only to use American strength.... they are perfectly willing to lie and cheat, even engage in "false flag" attacks in order to have the US destroy Iran.
10
The winners are the American people who will see $20 a barrel oil in a year or two. Imagine the surge in our economy. The loser in the deal is big oil. They'll forego an uncertainty premium in the price of oil that they've enjoyed for twenty five years.
Look for the every politician who is beholden to big oil to start screaming about end times, the bible, and Israel's place in God's plan to desperately scare Americans.
Look for the every politician who is beholden to big oil to start screaming about end times, the bible, and Israel's place in God's plan to desperately scare Americans.
10
One thing that has been lost in this entire conversation is why we would be supporting the building of a nuclear power plant when Iran sits in one of the most ideally solar-suited regions on the planet. It seems we are still locked into old-world energy outlook. Solar has radically reduced in price just in the years we have been in negotiations, and by almost all accounts, will continue to go down in the future. Nuclear power may have a role in the new clean energy infrastructure, but in this case, given the dire concerns about fuel being diverted to weapons, it seems solar would be a sensible solution.
5
" The current stockpile of uranium will be reduced by 98% by shipping it to Russia. " To Russia ? We do not trust the Iranians but can we trust Russia? Of all the countries on our Planet we chose Russia, definitely not our well wisher. As they have so many centrifuges, how long would it take for Russia to produce weapon grade plutonium? It's mind boggling! Who is the real, direct threat to us? It most certainly is not Iran.
3
And we trust Obama ? I trust Russia more than Obama. Those who voted for him twice can have all they deserve good and hard and more !
1
The only decision and treaty that would ensure worldwide peace would be the elimination of ALL nuclear weapons and programs. Until that happens, any deal made today will be broken tomorrow or down the road. All we garnered from this decision is a false sense of security and hope.
1
Just wait. Within days, Iran will supplant illegal immigrants as the biggest, scariest threat facing our country. Be prepared to do your patriotic duty and "be afraid!" Or not.
8
I am more worried about Israel attacking the US in some way, and counting on a heavily pro-Israel and thoughtless media to immediately blame Iran to get a war going....
than I am worried that Iran might one day decide to try to build a nuke as a deterrent to USraeli aggression.
And while so saying makes it less likely my comment will get published... I know that I am not alone in fearing an Israeli "false flag" more than non-existent Persian nukes.
than I am worried that Iran might one day decide to try to build a nuke as a deterrent to USraeli aggression.
And while so saying makes it less likely my comment will get published... I know that I am not alone in fearing an Israeli "false flag" more than non-existent Persian nukes.
16
Those scenarios are certainly not out of the realm of possibility. The attack on the USS Liberty (June '67) comes to mind.
I don't know to be for this agreement or against it.
There are reasons to think a agreement will not work.
Clinton made a agreement with North Korea and that agreement didn't stop them from getting the bomb.
Before I denounce or approve this agreement I need to hear from experts who are objectives and then can decide based on what they say.
That's why the Congress wanted the right to reject this agreement after looking at it for 60 days.
I hope they find this agreement acceptable but if not then the agreement should be rejected.
There are reasons to think a agreement will not work.
Clinton made a agreement with North Korea and that agreement didn't stop them from getting the bomb.
Before I denounce or approve this agreement I need to hear from experts who are objectives and then can decide based on what they say.
That's why the Congress wanted the right to reject this agreement after looking at it for 60 days.
I hope they find this agreement acceptable but if not then the agreement should be rejected.
2
There are risks to all things in this real world. If the standard is to be "no risk" then it is hopeless.
There is far more risk in resort to war, which is why it is a last resort.
There is far more risk in resort to war, which is why it is a last resort.
7
The agreement is supported by three major US allies an two world powers. No doubt many more nations will support it in the days to come making it an agreement supported to be the vast majority to humankind and nations. The alternative appears to be another unsustainable go-it alone policy. The last such choice was the invasion of Iraq, trashing UN reports citing no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and ultimately unleashing an active Sunni-Shite conflict threatening world peace. Much of this new agreement depends on new UN agency reports. Will there now be another attempt at go-it-alone and the ignoring the will of much of the world and international reporting. And with what further consequences?
10
This agreement is opposed by the only "ally" the United States has in the region--Israel.
The two world powers supporting the deal are China and Russia (why are you trying to use half truths, they're whole lies). China and Russia are ALLIES with Iran AGAINST the United States. Explain how a nuclear Iran, supported by Russia and China makes America safer?
The "US allies" supporting Obama's deal are major recipients of US aid, and trade partners, which Obama dangled like a carrot. Not sure if bribery equals caution and reason.
The only person going it alone here is Obama, who thumbed his nose in Congress' face again and came up with this Obamacare website version of foreign policy to drop on the carpet like a dog that couldn't hold it.
The two world powers supporting the deal are China and Russia (why are you trying to use half truths, they're whole lies). China and Russia are ALLIES with Iran AGAINST the United States. Explain how a nuclear Iran, supported by Russia and China makes America safer?
The "US allies" supporting Obama's deal are major recipients of US aid, and trade partners, which Obama dangled like a carrot. Not sure if bribery equals caution and reason.
The only person going it alone here is Obama, who thumbed his nose in Congress' face again and came up with this Obamacare website version of foreign policy to drop on the carpet like a dog that couldn't hold it.
1
forgot to add it is also supported by the representative of the whole European Union
With the sanctions lifted, there's even less than nothing to stop Iran from remaining the leading state sponsor of global Islamic terror and becoming a nuclear superpower ready willing and able to align with Russia and China.
Obama's "change" clearly means the USA becoming a victim of a regional caliphate.
Obama's "change" clearly means the USA becoming a victim of a regional caliphate.
10
"stop Iran from remaining the leading state sponsor of global Islamic terror"
It isn't. That would be the Sunni Gulf States in Syria and Iraq, and Pakistan in Afghanistan.
It isn't. That would be the Sunni Gulf States in Syria and Iraq, and Pakistan in Afghanistan.
7
If you are against this agreement, you are for war with Iran. Please send your own children there, not mine.
4
A complete Dick Cheney scenario. This President is way beyond that. If the Iranians mess around, we put the sanctions back. But, believe it or not, it's worth it to try an agreement.
The Iranians continue to be state sponsors of terrorist groups all over the world in the name of Islam. By lifting the sanctions we are making it much easier for them to provide even more support and arms to these groups. This is not a trade off that we should or need to make. We get nothing, they get everything. If they ever had the temerity to actually test a bomb we are in a position to destroy their capability within weeks. They have no delivery system worth the name and if they test one we can shoot it fown. They're as likely to hit Gaza with a missile as they are Tel Aviv with what they have today. We cannot/should not remove sanctions without a guarantee that they will stop sponsoring terrorists. Sanctions have nothing whatsoever to do with nuclear armaments and we are now deep into a policy of appeasement. Kerry is the new Chamberlain going to Hitler and giving him Austria in return for peace. He's given their brutal dictatorship legitimacy, a terrible mistake for which we will pay dearly.
9
I read this on my office elevator a few hours ago, and so it must be true:
1. 55% of Americans believe Iran won't honor its commitments. I'm in the 45% group; let's all pay close attention and see how turns out to be right.
2. An oil analyst predicted the agreement will cause a 20-cent drop in gasoline prices by year-end. Doesn't that imply that US motorists have been paying an extra 20 cents per gallon up till now? We've been told that sanctions only hurt Iran, not us. Looks like that's not the case, eh?
1. 55% of Americans believe Iran won't honor its commitments. I'm in the 45% group; let's all pay close attention and see how turns out to be right.
2. An oil analyst predicted the agreement will cause a 20-cent drop in gasoline prices by year-end. Doesn't that imply that US motorists have been paying an extra 20 cents per gallon up till now? We've been told that sanctions only hurt Iran, not us. Looks like that's not the case, eh?
8
Gas in San Jose is about 35 cents cheaper than gas in San Diego area, where we just spent a week. Here: $3.03/gal. cash-only on Sunday. 475 miles away for previous 6 days: $3.39/gal, at Costco and just a few others, if you sought out the stations with it. Highest price there: $4.19/gal.
So if we will not have unrestricted access to Iran's military sites, how can anyone say with a straight face that this deal is 'built on verification'? Iran will have weeks to move stuff around while a bunch of beaurocrats at the UN decide whether, and when, to allow inspections. While this isn't the only hole in the deal, it sure seems to me to be a gaping one.
7
The stuff in question can't be moved in weeks. Thus, no problem by your own terms.
1
They moved the stuff away in weeks before, and are now prepared in advance to do so again. Well I remember those UN inspectors standing outside the gated facilities, pleading to be let in, day after day. Now it's back to the future.
2
Since 2013, all Iranian nuclear sites are under IAEA close supervision through cameras and investigation without warning. All nuclear materials are weighted and devices are tractable with GPS. So don't be worried about it. All this propaganda about Iran's nukes come from Israel dominance of US media. They made you believe that lie by repeating it day and night. They wanted to curb Iranian influence in the region, so they are angry now, because the nuclear issue is settled, but their worries not!
1
While many here are lauding the agreement, I view this with deep skepticism.
Obama seems, frankly, desperate to get a deal through regardless of the cost. I worry that his concerns about his "legacy" outweigh his concerns out the safety of the United States and it's allies. This seems to benefit Iran much more than it does the US (or Israel, to say the least).
Call me cynical, but I find it very, very hard to trust the Iranians when it comes to nuclear weapons, centrifuges, plutonium, and uranium. Their interests are not our own.
Obama seems, frankly, desperate to get a deal through regardless of the cost. I worry that his concerns about his "legacy" outweigh his concerns out the safety of the United States and it's allies. This seems to benefit Iran much more than it does the US (or Israel, to say the least).
Call me cynical, but I find it very, very hard to trust the Iranians when it comes to nuclear weapons, centrifuges, plutonium, and uranium. Their interests are not our own.
7
The International Atomic Energy Agency is tasked with ensuring the agreement is kept to, but there are concerns funding could limit its powers of scrutiny. President Obama along with the United Nations needs to address the issue.
1
Those wringing their hands about this seem to believe that without this agreement, Iran would not build a bomb. This is ridiculous. For China and Russia, the big theme was engagement. Whether right wingers accept it or not, this also holds for Iran.
6
Wrong. For China and Russia, they get the opportunity to build nuclear reactions for "peace".
1
Sanctions over all have never worked and in a true sense are nothing but black mail for some power full nation to impose their will on to others. Nuclear weapons and arsenals are a menace to mankind and overall health and welfare of this planet earth, a tiny speck in the universe. Build up nuclear weapon as a deterrent is all one big misguided facade. When in fact it cost more in the maintenance and eventual dismantling and destruction. So called diplomacy is just another harbinger in any real real amicable resolution. War mongering itself and en-masse killing and destruction that follows is the most heinous crime against humanity it self.
The only viable solution for any real peace on this this earth is to eliminate and ban all killing and and destructive machines implements of war.
The only viable solution for any real peace on this this earth is to eliminate and ban all killing and and destructive machines implements of war.
2
So the end outcome of Oedipus Complex-afflicted man-child George W. Bush's decision to have American armed forces unilaterally invade Iraq and overthrow its government in 2003 is EXACTLY what so many back in 2003 were predicting: The sudden destabilization of Iraq would remove a huge obstacle to the relative increase in power of Iran and ultimately compel the USA to recognize such changed geopolitical circumstances.
And there are literally tens of millions of Americans ready to vote to elect Bush's younger brother as president of the United States in 2016? Really? I wouldn't hire a Bush family member to bag groceries at a supermarket.
And there are literally tens of millions of Americans ready to vote to elect Bush's younger brother as president of the United States in 2016? Really? I wouldn't hire a Bush family member to bag groceries at a supermarket.
16
With the passage of time the demographics of Iran - young, well-educated, western oriented - will bring about internal change there. This agreement anticipates that change. It looks to the future, not a past where there was plenty of blame to go around on all sides.
The sanctions and bellicose rhetoric resulted in a "rally 'round the flag" situation, where the internal opponents of the Iranian regime had no alternative but public support, despite their opposition.
Finally, despite the opposition of some in the Israeli and Saudi leadership, this agreement will help secure a more peaceful future for their people and the others in the region.
The sanctions and bellicose rhetoric resulted in a "rally 'round the flag" situation, where the internal opponents of the Iranian regime had no alternative but public support, despite their opposition.
Finally, despite the opposition of some in the Israeli and Saudi leadership, this agreement will help secure a more peaceful future for their people and the others in the region.
9
We've rid ourselves of George W Bush and John F Kerry was still around to shepherd this deal through. Strange how things work out. The wrong people in the right place at the turn of the century and the right people in the right place at the right time now. Hallelujah
11
Bravo! Another Obama victory. Let's hope Menendez and Schumer don't help Republicans ruin it.
9
Another Obama victory! Yay!!!
Unfortunately, its an even bigger victory for the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose leader finishes every sentence with "Death to America."
Hey ya'll the next round is on Kevin, he's happy!
Unfortunately, its an even bigger victory for the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose leader finishes every sentence with "Death to America."
Hey ya'll the next round is on Kevin, he's happy!
8
So some Iranians cannot stand Americans or American foreign policy, get over it. Clearly there are many Americans who are Islamaphobic (like yourself) and spout hateful comments too. Perhaps they are still smarting from 1953? Regardless, our alliances with Israel and Saudi Arabia has brought us nothing but grief and engagement is correct course of action until events prove otherwise.
1
What a day in history.
I belong to the side of people - and nations - who believe this is a bad deal that makes the world a far more dangerous place
but what a day in history.
I belong to the side of people - and nations - who believe this is a bad deal that makes the world a far more dangerous place
but what a day in history.
7
Then why has your government refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Two observations. 1) If a Republican President had negotiated this agreement, Congressional Republicans and Presidential Candidates would be proclaiming the second coming of Reagan. 2) Those same Republicans, and a few Democrats, should not be willing to cede U.S. foreign policy to Benjamin Netanyahu.
No one, not even those, like John McCain and Bob Corker, yet knows exactly what is in this historic rapproachment, even as they reject it out of hand. This was not a bilateral negotiation, it is a compact involving five nations and the U.S. forging an agreement with Iran. To make this enforceable, we need those five co-sponsors. We cannot enforce a sanctions regime without them. If we walk away, exactly what do those in opposition think will happen to the current sanctions enforceability?
Congress can take a long view and support our President in this, or they can appear to our allies and the rest of the world as small-minded parochials unable to see beyond the next election cycle and unworthy of America as force in the world. They will destroy the very greatness they say needs to be restored.
No one, not even those, like John McCain and Bob Corker, yet knows exactly what is in this historic rapproachment, even as they reject it out of hand. This was not a bilateral negotiation, it is a compact involving five nations and the U.S. forging an agreement with Iran. To make this enforceable, we need those five co-sponsors. We cannot enforce a sanctions regime without them. If we walk away, exactly what do those in opposition think will happen to the current sanctions enforceability?
Congress can take a long view and support our President in this, or they can appear to our allies and the rest of the world as small-minded parochials unable to see beyond the next election cycle and unworthy of America as force in the world. They will destroy the very greatness they say needs to be restored.
9
A Republican would NEVER have "negotiated" this agreement. Or bent over...forward or backward.
1
Devastated to learn today that longtime foreign policy and one-man international events human think-tank Scott Walker is against the deal. This is a blow . How will Obama survive without Scott's blessing? Or Sean Hannity's and Fox News' for that matter? these are indeed trying times. Suggest we all hold our collective breath (best done by holding one's nose ) and hope for the best.
6
Holding our breath and hoping for the best does not seem to be the best plan for foreign policy when nuclear weapons are involved.
6
I agree.
That's why the US must demand the complete dismantlement of Israel's illegal weapons of mass destruction and her submission to international inspections of precisely the sort agreed to by the NON-nuclear state of Iran!
That's why the US must demand the complete dismantlement of Israel's illegal weapons of mass destruction and her submission to international inspections of precisely the sort agreed to by the NON-nuclear state of Iran!
Now we will see the "war machine" protest in the form of political gyrations from Republican Congressmen. Will the oil and military industries be able to stop this in Congress? Only time will tell. I think it is time anyone who loves peace should email their members of Congress.
Let's not forget that the definition of foreign policy is to improve your nation's standing in the world. One country's standing in the world is determined by the rest of the world, not conservatives (or any one group) or nationalists. There is no doubt that the world is very impressed and happy that this deal came to fruition, with very, very few exceptions. (It must be surprising to many in the Middle East to see that conservative hawks in Israel don't have too much influence over our foreign policy.)
Let's not forget that the definition of foreign policy is to improve your nation's standing in the world. One country's standing in the world is determined by the rest of the world, not conservatives (or any one group) or nationalists. There is no doubt that the world is very impressed and happy that this deal came to fruition, with very, very few exceptions. (It must be surprising to many in the Middle East to see that conservative hawks in Israel don't have too much influence over our foreign policy.)
3
The US of 320 million citizens is now evidently ruled by two men, our new emperors:
Barack Obama.
Anthony Kennedy.
So dies democracy, one decision at a time.
Barack Obama.
Anthony Kennedy.
So dies democracy, one decision at a time.
11
We have a Congress -for all the talk and worry about corporate influence in elections - that is absolutely bought and paid for by what I'll call the Israel First Lobby - which is AIPAc, and the ADL, as well as "Christian" Zionists and a number of militarist think tanks
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/
Every single candidate for higher office, if they are not actually at the wailing wall, has to bend over backwards to show how loyal they are to a small foreign country of 8 million people.
I don't think anyone on this board not regurgitating neocon talking points wants to see Iran with nukes.
But we are also aware that Israel has hundreds, and that Zionist/Jewish money is the single most important factor for our Congress critters as they worry first and foremost about their own re-election and the cushy job they can get afterward.
Iran's leadership doesn't want to be destroyed.
Israel and the US have gone around bombing countries and murdering civilians and engaging in regime change, from Chile to Ukraine to recent attempts in Macedonia... for decades.
The "death to America" thing people keep bringing up is always robbed of substantial context- the fact the US overthrew Iranian democracy and installed a puppet dictator, training his brutal secret police, so US and UK oil companies could absolutely rob the Iranian people.
The US also gave chemical weapons to Saddam to use in a brutal war he started.
The US and Israel are not the good guys. It is absurd to pretend so.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/
Every single candidate for higher office, if they are not actually at the wailing wall, has to bend over backwards to show how loyal they are to a small foreign country of 8 million people.
I don't think anyone on this board not regurgitating neocon talking points wants to see Iran with nukes.
But we are also aware that Israel has hundreds, and that Zionist/Jewish money is the single most important factor for our Congress critters as they worry first and foremost about their own re-election and the cushy job they can get afterward.
Iran's leadership doesn't want to be destroyed.
Israel and the US have gone around bombing countries and murdering civilians and engaging in regime change, from Chile to Ukraine to recent attempts in Macedonia... for decades.
The "death to America" thing people keep bringing up is always robbed of substantial context- the fact the US overthrew Iranian democracy and installed a puppet dictator, training his brutal secret police, so US and UK oil companies could absolutely rob the Iranian people.
The US also gave chemical weapons to Saddam to use in a brutal war he started.
The US and Israel are not the good guys. It is absurd to pretend so.
10
Well then you probably shouldn't be living in such a bad country ! Free to go !
1
I've hesitated to comment all day because I'm still reviewing and thinking about the deal. But here are my preliminary thoughts:
1. As Iran shows complicity with the terms of the agreement, sanctions will be lifted by the US, EU, and the UN, releasing $100 million in frozen Iranian assets. In addition, a mechanism is in place should Iran violate the deal that would put sanctions back in place over a period of 65 days. That's good.
2. In exchange, Iran has agreed to curb the amount of time they can produce a nuclear weapon from a few months to over ten years. That's good, although I would have preferred that Iran never produce a nuke.
3. Iran said it will not enrich uranium over 3.67% for at least 15 years and will sell or dilute all uranium under its possession that is already enriched. That's good.
4. UN inspectors can demand access to nuclear facilities on Iranian military sites, though not immediately. A predetermined joint commission — made up of one member from each negotiating side – will then have to approve the inspection. That's not good - there should be free, complete and unfettered access.
5. Five years from now, Iran will be allowed to buy and sell conventional arms on the international market. Not Good.
6. Eight years from now, Iran can buy and sell ballistic missiles. Not Good.
For me, Item 4 is the deal-breaker: contrary to what President Obama has stated, verification is not 100% guaranteed because there's not 100% access.
1. As Iran shows complicity with the terms of the agreement, sanctions will be lifted by the US, EU, and the UN, releasing $100 million in frozen Iranian assets. In addition, a mechanism is in place should Iran violate the deal that would put sanctions back in place over a period of 65 days. That's good.
2. In exchange, Iran has agreed to curb the amount of time they can produce a nuclear weapon from a few months to over ten years. That's good, although I would have preferred that Iran never produce a nuke.
3. Iran said it will not enrich uranium over 3.67% for at least 15 years and will sell or dilute all uranium under its possession that is already enriched. That's good.
4. UN inspectors can demand access to nuclear facilities on Iranian military sites, though not immediately. A predetermined joint commission — made up of one member from each negotiating side – will then have to approve the inspection. That's not good - there should be free, complete and unfettered access.
5. Five years from now, Iran will be allowed to buy and sell conventional arms on the international market. Not Good.
6. Eight years from now, Iran can buy and sell ballistic missiles. Not Good.
For me, Item 4 is the deal-breaker: contrary to what President Obama has stated, verification is not 100% guaranteed because there's not 100% access.
8
Thanks for this thoughtful comment. As to #4, I think the reply is fairly straightforward: Iran is a sovereign nation. The kind of 'free, complete, and unfettered access' is just inconsistent with Iran's sovereign rights. We would never allow such access, and European countries wouldn't either. Provided the access is permitted within a reasonable amount of time, we should have no complaints.
3
Most experts agree that it is tremendously difficult, if not impossible, to "put sanctions back in place." The very idea suggests that the president has no intention of doing this or is incredibly ignorant of how sanctions are put in place.
Today's deal proves the only things more dangerous than a nuclear Iran are Obama's arrogant ignorance and a lazy, complicit mainstream media cheering an agreement that legitimizes Iran as a global threat, not diminishes it.
14
Obama's legacy will be his name on the first nuclear bomb that Iran manufactures.
15
Ha, and the irony, President Obama has belatedly earned that Nobel Peace Prize. Congratulations Mr. President and our fellow Americans; no more war unless the 'USA is directly threatened.'
The alternative to this deal is to bomb Iran over and over and in turn; they will bomb our allies over and over and terrorize our cities over and over, but we will still be where we left off. Let us give peace a chance - Thank you President Obama and Sec Kerry.
The alternative to this deal is to bomb Iran over and over and in turn; they will bomb our allies over and over and terrorize our cities over and over, but we will still be where we left off. Let us give peace a chance - Thank you President Obama and Sec Kerry.
5
And it should be remembered that Barack Obama is the president of the Unitrd States, not Benjamin Netanyahu, not John Boehner, and not Tom Cotton. This historic agreement is every bit as cutting-edge as Richard Nixon's rapprochements were with China and the Soviet Union in 1971-1972.Only a president can steer affairs of state. This major event, plus the new opening to Cuba, will shape the 2016 calculus because everyone now running is playing catch-up. Those who criticize this had better have a viable alternative and waiting on a call from Bibi won't do it. Iran had everything to gain by acquiescing. They deserve credit, too, for turning away from the abyss.
11
Neither China nor Russia declared Holy War and annihilation, and Chinese and Russian leaders did not end their speeches with "Death to America"
Iran's Supreme Leader does.
Only a president can steer affairs of state? The Constitution of the United States begs to differ. And Obama making Iran a legitimate nuclear threat and world power is more than a historic blunder and its certainly not 2016 election year calculus the GOP has to catch up with.
Now we will need a President who can tell the truth, won't surrender to an Islamic Republic and can do more than take selfies in the Oval Office and do podcasts in a basement.
Iran's Supreme Leader does.
Only a president can steer affairs of state? The Constitution of the United States begs to differ. And Obama making Iran a legitimate nuclear threat and world power is more than a historic blunder and its certainly not 2016 election year calculus the GOP has to catch up with.
Now we will need a President who can tell the truth, won't surrender to an Islamic Republic and can do more than take selfies in the Oval Office and do podcasts in a basement.
7
You've got it half-right, the China part, but you fail to mention the engineer of it: Henry Kissinger.
You're totally off-base re: Russia, which in return for a Mediterranean naval base in Syria, supported Syria and its other proxy, Egypt, in their 1973 war on Israel, and remained our Cold War nemesis right thru its occupation of Afghanistan in 1979, followed by the collapse of what Regan termed "The Evil Empire" and the Berlin Wall. The entire motivation for Reagan's Star Wars missile program was to keep Russia under its rock, as we did.
You're totally off-base re: Russia, which in return for a Mediterranean naval base in Syria, supported Syria and its other proxy, Egypt, in their 1973 war on Israel, and remained our Cold War nemesis right thru its occupation of Afghanistan in 1979, followed by the collapse of what Regan termed "The Evil Empire" and the Berlin Wall. The entire motivation for Reagan's Star Wars missile program was to keep Russia under its rock, as we did.
The deal could potentially open the 70 million+ strong Iranian markets to American businesses. IF IT GOES THROUGH as desired!
Chinese and Russians are eagerly waiting to get the chunk..no matter whether we support the deal or oppose it...
Chinese and Russians are eagerly waiting to get the chunk..no matter whether we support the deal or oppose it...
4
Thank you! Now keep reporting the facts -- as the dissemblers are already at the microphones trying to distort the truth.
3
The United States of America has a nuclear stockpile numbering in the thousands. We have delivery systems in the air, on land and sea. Combined with our European allies, notably England and France, we individually, collectively, and indisputably have the nuclear capability to destroy life on Earth; as we know it, and as would be unimaginable. This is all known and undeniable. As such, those voices who fear our ability to negotiate with any world entity on matters nuclear or otherwise are playing a fool's game with counterfeit funds. The pejorative clap-trap to be afraid of others is rooted in contempt for ones own capability. A faulty pretext that suggests a fly swatter should for some reason be fearful of the fly. The sanity of the Iran v. the World nuclear agreement is acknowledgement by both that mutually assured destruction was likely between nuclear peers with hundreds or thousands of warheads. Iran will have no nukes. But if they were to move in the creation of even a single warhead, then its fly meet fly swatter. Intelligent people on both sides know that. The bleacher bums cat calling from the sidelines also are afraid of their own shadows in their own houses.
6
People are saying the world is tired of wars. True. Who isn't? Who isn't always tired of wars?
The world is tired of wars on the advent of 1914. The world was really tired of wars in 1938. What we got in return were WW One and WW Two, respectively.
Those who are tired of wars are condemned to repeat them.
The world is tired of wars on the advent of 1914. The world was really tired of wars in 1938. What we got in return were WW One and WW Two, respectively.
Those who are tired of wars are condemned to repeat them.
1
O.K. Mr.President-now you've earned that Nobel Peace Prize! Good job! Better to risk peace than risk war-nobody dies, and everybody gets to keep their arms and legs.
3
Vincent, did you know Obama's drone strikes killed over 700 civilians in 2009, the year he "won" the Nobel Peace Prize?
Now you want Obama to get another Nobel Peace Prize for making Iran a credible nuclear threat globally?
This is why I can't be a Democrat. Sanity prevents it.
Now you want Obama to get another Nobel Peace Prize for making Iran a credible nuclear threat globally?
This is why I can't be a Democrat. Sanity prevents it.
4
I am submitting my comments again because they have not made it on to your comments section:
This remarkable deal must be followed by the engagement and welcome that will bring Iran fully into the international community. If that is allowed to happen, and actively encouraged to happen, it will not matter what the particulars of the deal for 15 years out will be. Iran will be a vested and fully integrated member of an international political and economic community and order that no Iranian will permit its government to turn its back on.
America's strongest reaction to the Soviet Union's far-thinking President Gorbachev, allowing communism to collapse without a fight, was to foolishly expand NATO. Nothing was done to integrate Russia as a fully participatory member of the world's and Europe's economic and political community.
America should learn from its failures and mistakes from losing the once in a lifetime opportunity to pro-actively pull post-communist Russia into the international economic/political community, to pull out all the stops in ensuring that this historic agreement is not wasted, and that Iran is made a fully vested part of an international order that any Iranian government will fight to support and maintain because of the benefits the Iranian people get from it.
If economic/political engagement and integration worked for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, why would they not for Iran, the most socially progressive country in the Muslim Middle East?
This remarkable deal must be followed by the engagement and welcome that will bring Iran fully into the international community. If that is allowed to happen, and actively encouraged to happen, it will not matter what the particulars of the deal for 15 years out will be. Iran will be a vested and fully integrated member of an international political and economic community and order that no Iranian will permit its government to turn its back on.
America's strongest reaction to the Soviet Union's far-thinking President Gorbachev, allowing communism to collapse without a fight, was to foolishly expand NATO. Nothing was done to integrate Russia as a fully participatory member of the world's and Europe's economic and political community.
America should learn from its failures and mistakes from losing the once in a lifetime opportunity to pro-actively pull post-communist Russia into the international economic/political community, to pull out all the stops in ensuring that this historic agreement is not wasted, and that Iran is made a fully vested part of an international order that any Iranian government will fight to support and maintain because of the benefits the Iranian people get from it.
If economic/political engagement and integration worked for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, why would they not for Iran, the most socially progressive country in the Muslim Middle East?
2
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.
1
So many comments from readers opposed to the nuclear agreement with Iran speak of “trust” or “distrust” that it is apparent most of the people making those comments have little or no experience in negotiating.
Yes, trust is an important factor in negotiations, but it has absolutely nothing to do with trusting the word or ethics of the person across the table. The only thing a negotiator must trust – and “assume” is a better word – is that his opponent is smart enough to understand his client’s best interests.
The key is to incentivize compliance with the negotiated terms of an agreement and to dis-incentivize non-compliance. If this is done correctly, you then “trust” that your opponent is intelligent enough to understand the consequences of future behavior.
The lifting of sanctions and the threat of re-imposing those sanctions provide the carrot and stick in the nuclear agreement with Iran, and clearly we have opponents who are smart enough to know their country’s best interests.
Whether or not we like Iran is irrelevant. Whether or not we condone its behavior is irrelevant. If we liked and admired Iran, there would not be a situation requiring these negotiations
Yes, trust is an important factor in negotiations, but it has absolutely nothing to do with trusting the word or ethics of the person across the table. The only thing a negotiator must trust – and “assume” is a better word – is that his opponent is smart enough to understand his client’s best interests.
The key is to incentivize compliance with the negotiated terms of an agreement and to dis-incentivize non-compliance. If this is done correctly, you then “trust” that your opponent is intelligent enough to understand the consequences of future behavior.
The lifting of sanctions and the threat of re-imposing those sanctions provide the carrot and stick in the nuclear agreement with Iran, and clearly we have opponents who are smart enough to know their country’s best interests.
Whether or not we like Iran is irrelevant. Whether or not we condone its behavior is irrelevant. If we liked and admired Iran, there would not be a situation requiring these negotiations
5
If we accept the view that seemingly intractable challenges are best handled by painstaking work-- contrast the work of 20 months of careful negotiations with the bluster of Republican presidential candidates in their rush to condemn the deal even before apprising themselves of the details.
To be fair-minded-- where does the greater credibility lie?
To be fair-minded-- where does the greater credibility lie?
3
I wonder how much of the success of this, in terms of the big picture of Iran not becoming a bigger problem for other countries in the region, depends on how engaged Iran wants to become now that it is losing pariah status. Even if the deal's structure to restrict its nuclear program works, Iran's access to conventional military means of making its power felt by others could mean Iran just uses a different tool to achieve similar goals. So I think we won't know how helpful this deal is until we see how engaged in the world community Iran becomes and what that engagement looks like. Of course, if the constraints on conventional weapons were going to fall away anyway, even without a deal on the nuclear issues, it's hard to know how we can measure the success or problems of this deal by what happens in the future regarding conventional military weapons. But I think how this will go will depend on Iran's willingness to be more a more cooperative player in general.
People are saying the world is tired of wars. True. Who isn't? Who isn't always tired of wars?
The world was tired of wars on the advent of 1914. The world was really tired of wars in 1938. What we got in return were WW One and WW Two, respectively.
Those who are tired of wars are condemned to repeat them.
The world was tired of wars on the advent of 1914. The world was really tired of wars in 1938. What we got in return were WW One and WW Two, respectively.
Those who are tired of wars are condemned to repeat them.
3
The real risk to security is being "afraid" of war. Too many are so afraid that they have reduced the possible outcomes to only two -- annihilation or acquiescence. This myopia has driven a large part of the support for this deal.
Lost in all of this is the fact that there is not a shred of evidence Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon.
Even were they to cobble together a bomb or two - you are asked by the Zionists and Fox News crowd to believe that they [but not the religious Zionists- who believe God gave them land and they are "chosen..."] are so irrational and hell bent on killing Jews [but not the ones living in Iran somehow] that they would use these nukes on Israel though it would mean the death of Shia Lebanese, and their own total destruction.
So you have:
a country with hundreds of nukes busy engaging in actually wiping a country off the map claiming, for 2 decades, to be threatened by a country which has no nukes, and claiming that the Iranians, as Persians and Muslims, unlike the good and holy and totally rational Zionists, are so nuts that they would use a nuke on Israel though it invites their immediate total destruction.
It is absolute nonsense that rests on Islamophobia and Zionist dominance of the news media and our own government.
Even now the Kristols and Adelsons and Perles contemplate how to use Americans as sword and shield to kill hundreds of thousands, again, so that Israel has a freer hand in once again invading Lebanon to steal its water and gas, and to engage in a second massive ethnic cleansing of Palestine....
http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553
The nuclear issue is a ruse.
This is about Israel's desire for regime change in Iran.
Even were they to cobble together a bomb or two - you are asked by the Zionists and Fox News crowd to believe that they [but not the religious Zionists- who believe God gave them land and they are "chosen..."] are so irrational and hell bent on killing Jews [but not the ones living in Iran somehow] that they would use these nukes on Israel though it would mean the death of Shia Lebanese, and their own total destruction.
So you have:
a country with hundreds of nukes busy engaging in actually wiping a country off the map claiming, for 2 decades, to be threatened by a country which has no nukes, and claiming that the Iranians, as Persians and Muslims, unlike the good and holy and totally rational Zionists, are so nuts that they would use a nuke on Israel though it invites their immediate total destruction.
It is absolute nonsense that rests on Islamophobia and Zionist dominance of the news media and our own government.
Even now the Kristols and Adelsons and Perles contemplate how to use Americans as sword and shield to kill hundreds of thousands, again, so that Israel has a freer hand in once again invading Lebanon to steal its water and gas, and to engage in a second massive ethnic cleansing of Palestine....
http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553
The nuclear issue is a ruse.
This is about Israel's desire for regime change in Iran.
10
Excellent news.
Now can we do something about the criminal state next door before they switch from blowing up hospitals and UN shelters to using their 200-400 illegal nuclear weapons to destroy the earth, as they have repeatedly threatened?
Now can we do something about the criminal state next door before they switch from blowing up hospitals and UN shelters to using their 200-400 illegal nuclear weapons to destroy the earth, as they have repeatedly threatened?
7
Next door, eh? Someone needs a geography lesson.
1
History will show who was wise and who naïve, during nuclear deal with NO trusted Iranian liars. Iran will CHEAT (they already played their cards very well: as I know, Iran already increased 20% nuclear capacity during this negotiations)??? Did Obama Adm. already forget N.Korea fiasco, since 1994???
4
North Korea's deal was made by W Bush, did you forget?
5
They did not increase their stockpile, which, by the way they are allowed to have under the NPT.
what happened was they used a bunch - clearly in non-military use, then enriched more to replace what was used.
The right wing and Fox News crowd deliberately misrepresented this as somehow breaking the rules.
what happened was they used a bunch - clearly in non-military use, then enriched more to replace what was used.
The right wing and Fox News crowd deliberately misrepresented this as somehow breaking the rules.
5
I wonder if the NY Times remembers the last time a similar situation happened. And does the Times remember how they supported the deal back then as well? How soon we forgot.
"After the signing today, North Korea's chief negotiator, Kang Sok Ju, described it as "a very important milestone document of historic significance" that would resolve his country's nuclear dispute with the United States "once and for all."
He said the agreement, once put into effect, would resolve "all questions of the so-called nuclear weapons development by North Korea" that have raised "such unfounded concerns and suspicions."
"We have neither the intention nor the plan to develop nuclear weapons," Mr. Kang said."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/22/world/us-and-north-korea-sign-pact-to-...
"After the signing today, North Korea's chief negotiator, Kang Sok Ju, described it as "a very important milestone document of historic significance" that would resolve his country's nuclear dispute with the United States "once and for all."
He said the agreement, once put into effect, would resolve "all questions of the so-called nuclear weapons development by North Korea" that have raised "such unfounded concerns and suspicions."
"We have neither the intention nor the plan to develop nuclear weapons," Mr. Kang said."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/22/world/us-and-north-korea-sign-pact-to-...
6
Good thing Republicans weren't leading these negotiations, it would have turned into a nuclear Waco by now.
8
We would seem to have a deal fraught with risk & danger and plenty of unknowns. The alternative most likely has fewer unknowns - and considerably more risk & danger.
A country with a nuclear capability feeling isolated & threatened with no outside oversight is not something the rest of the world needs.
We know not exactly where this new path will lead but we do know the people of Iran want a better relationship with the west. We can hope their leaders are responsive to that reality in a world becoming ever more interconnected by technology, but whether or not such hopes are met, at least we will know (along with the rest of the civilized world) and be in a position to respond accordingly.
A country with a nuclear capability feeling isolated & threatened with no outside oversight is not something the rest of the world needs.
We know not exactly where this new path will lead but we do know the people of Iran want a better relationship with the west. We can hope their leaders are responsive to that reality in a world becoming ever more interconnected by technology, but whether or not such hopes are met, at least we will know (along with the rest of the civilized world) and be in a position to respond accordingly.
Thank God we finally have a president that acts like one. We need to overcome the obsticles of the last 30 years with Iran and bring the world closer to real peace. Hiding our head in the sand and pretending they are not a world power is just stupid. Great first step to peace
5
Would that guarantee be on the same level as the "red line" Obama promised if it was "verified" that Assad in Syria was using chemical weapons in the country's civil war?
7
Better to ask Hillary Clinton that.
1
"Where necessary, when necessary." Obama expression on inspections.
What does that mean? Military facilities?
What IS the meaning of "is"?
What does that mean? Military facilities?
What IS the meaning of "is"?
4
Much of the credit needs to go to John Kerry! If it wasn't for his persistent faith in diplomatic negotiation and its relentless pursuit, the deal with its almost unsurmountable difficulties — and the stubborn opposition of republicans and some democrats in Congress — would have collapsed a long time ago.
9
Kerry falling off his bicycle, aided by channeling Cruella De Vil and Peter Tork. Show us just what it was that you say was "built", President Obama.
3
Very convincing counter-argument. I am floored.
A simple observation. Once both feet are lower than than your brain, resume assumption as Obama's remote peace and stability sycophant. Have a nice day.
Based on this article, it doesn't seem so much like a non-proliferation deal as a 15-year plan for Iran to become a nuclear power.
9
Let's hope so. Iran needs to defend themselves from the neighborhood wackos who think nothing of dropping bombs on hospitals and UN shelters.
1
When ISIS and Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and Hamas use their fellow Muslims as human shields, then collateral damage is the unavoidable result. In the recent Gaza War mosques, hospitals, and schools were used as weapons depots by Hamas. Bombs away.
Your reporting is not clear about sanctions lifting.
What has to happen before the bank transfer ban is lifted?
For instance, the inspections needed to make sure
that centrifuges are shut down will take a considerable time.
And, this is only an "agreement" not a treaty. Nice, but just an
excuse for politicians to keep "fiddling while Iran burns the
Middle East".
What has to happen before the bank transfer ban is lifted?
For instance, the inspections needed to make sure
that centrifuges are shut down will take a considerable time.
And, this is only an "agreement" not a treaty. Nice, but just an
excuse for politicians to keep "fiddling while Iran burns the
Middle East".
5
I'm a supporter of Obama but let's call out this deal for what it is-- a deal that kicks the can down the road so as to avoid conflict now.
At the end of the deal, Iran will achieve the exact nuclear capability that they want today. The US bought time while Iran achieved sanction relief and kept alive their nuclear aspirations. How much time? Perhaps 10 years and maybe less depending on the rate of technological evolution that could quickly reduce breakout time to zero.
In an ideal world, the time gained will result in a less hostile Iran that's willing to forego its nuclear weapon capabilities. In a less than ideal world, the end of the deal creates a demarcation point where all the key actors will use the time to fortify themselves so as to be ready for any and all eventualities (including Iran). In that world, destabilization and higher stakes and consequences are a real possibility.
If approved, this deal represents a truly audacious foreign policy gambit--if it works, it's inspirational and pure genius. If it doesn't, the 10 or so years of peace the deal bought may seem like a very high price to pay in retrospect.
Here's hoping for the former.
At the end of the deal, Iran will achieve the exact nuclear capability that they want today. The US bought time while Iran achieved sanction relief and kept alive their nuclear aspirations. How much time? Perhaps 10 years and maybe less depending on the rate of technological evolution that could quickly reduce breakout time to zero.
In an ideal world, the time gained will result in a less hostile Iran that's willing to forego its nuclear weapon capabilities. In a less than ideal world, the end of the deal creates a demarcation point where all the key actors will use the time to fortify themselves so as to be ready for any and all eventualities (including Iran). In that world, destabilization and higher stakes and consequences are a real possibility.
If approved, this deal represents a truly audacious foreign policy gambit--if it works, it's inspirational and pure genius. If it doesn't, the 10 or so years of peace the deal bought may seem like a very high price to pay in retrospect.
Here's hoping for the former.
3
Make no mistake this deal is important, but I want to make a comment on the NSA still collecting meta data and keeping the ones already collected. What happened NYtimes? Why can't I comment?
And and why is it bad when FBI says what evidence of wrong doing?
FBI says I don't know of any investigations. Do you?
And and why is it bad when FBI says what evidence of wrong doing?
FBI says I don't know of any investigations. Do you?
Everyone hailed the Munich agreement in 1938. Peace in our time. Witha 2 week time interval to get into the facility , everything could be covered up or hid.
Peace at any cost is no peace at all.
Peace at any cost is no peace at all.
5
Can we trust Iran? Probably not. But I don't trust Pakistan (where Osama bin Laden was found) especially either, and we consider them an ally. And 16 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis -- Saudi Arabia is another ally.
The naive people are the ones insisting that we have to completely trust Iran to deal with them. The naive people are the ones insisting that war is going to be more stabilizing than an awkward peace. (If you want the stabilizing results of war, look at ISIS, which wouldn't exist without the U.S. invasion.)
This deal isn't naivete. It's the same kind of intelligence that leads us to deal with countries like Pakistan, or China, or Russia, even though we don't 100% trust them. Iran hasn't invaded another country and refused to leave, so the Hitler analogy is nonsense. If you want to criticize a country that's invaded a neighbor and refused to leave, you might want to look at Israel.
The naive people are the ones insisting that we have to completely trust Iran to deal with them. The naive people are the ones insisting that war is going to be more stabilizing than an awkward peace. (If you want the stabilizing results of war, look at ISIS, which wouldn't exist without the U.S. invasion.)
This deal isn't naivete. It's the same kind of intelligence that leads us to deal with countries like Pakistan, or China, or Russia, even though we don't 100% trust them. Iran hasn't invaded another country and refused to leave, so the Hitler analogy is nonsense. If you want to criticize a country that's invaded a neighbor and refused to leave, you might want to look at Israel.
2
The Iranian Grand Poobah doesn't seem on board with this.
4
Hey would like anyone to talk like that about the pope? Have some respect please.
I know you are dealing with hundreds of comments, but could you add a sentence/para to my previous note?
If political/economic integration worked for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, why won't it work for Iran?
If political/economic integration worked for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, why won't it work for Iran?
5
Neither Germany nor Japan fared well after the destruction and death they initiated and caused in WWII. At least America helped re-build both countries. I am perplexed why we would help a country that held 52 American diplomats and citizens hostage for 444 days and still to this day, celebrates the yearly Death to American event. I do not see how Iran is a friend or ally to America.
2
It's Happy Hour here in Washington DC.
Apparently we can send the bar tabs for champagne to the people huddled at the bar across the street from the White House chanting "Death to America."
The Obama Presidency (2008-2016): Because apparently Larry, Moe and Curly weren't available.
Apparently we can send the bar tabs for champagne to the people huddled at the bar across the street from the White House chanting "Death to America."
The Obama Presidency (2008-2016): Because apparently Larry, Moe and Curly weren't available.
3
Can you please explain what about the Bush years was so wonderful? Your disrespect and loathing of President Obama cuts so deep.
Is Iran the biggest sponsor of terrorism as Speaker Boehner says? Most of the Islamist terrorism that plagues the world today is of Sunni origin. It is our allies, and probably unwittingly we ourselves, who have direct or indirect links to it.
Can Iran's support of Syrian President Assad, Lebanese Hezbollah or Iraqi Shia militants be called 'terrorism'? Are not Iran's actions very similar to what we and our friends the Saudis do in the region?
Can Iran's support of Syrian President Assad, Lebanese Hezbollah or Iraqi Shia militants be called 'terrorism'? Are not Iran's actions very similar to what we and our friends the Saudis do in the region?
4
Could there be a second Nobel Peace Prize coming? I think it's a great accomplishment.
I do have some concern about what happens in fifteen years. That sounds like a long time off, but it isn't and, assuming Iran could be powerful industrially and militarily by then, it could be a huge problem.
I hope we haven't "kicked the can down the road" hoping the next generation will find a solution.
I do have some concern about what happens in fifteen years. That sounds like a long time off, but it isn't and, assuming Iran could be powerful industrially and militarily by then, it could be a huge problem.
I hope we haven't "kicked the can down the road" hoping the next generation will find a solution.
2
Obama announces peace in our times. In further news, the president declared that Santa Claus is real and will make his first visit to the Persian nation this December. One of these annoucements is false. Or perhaps both?
4
I am surprised. From the combined rumblings of the Israeli government and the GOP, I imagined that we were getting burned during this negotiation. This deal sounds very, very reasonable to me. Nobel Peace Prizes for everyone?
7
Obama is once again playing the long game with a cool and settled head, while so many of the critics around him are popping off with short-term sound bites that fail to grasp the deeper implications of this deal.
This isn't just a bet on Iran's nuclear ambitions. It's a play for the soul of Iran. Iran has been balanced on a fine edge for at least a decade, encompassing a deeply unsteady (if not downright schizophrenic) embrace of contradictory impulses toward theocracy and democracy. Obama is betting that the younger generation in Tehran and Iran's other urban centers - most of whom want to live in a modern country at peace with the west and fully engaged in the global economy - hold the key to Iran's future, and we can strengthen their hand if we indicate that we are willing to live in peace and full diplomatic relations with Iran.
The major stumbling block is, of course, Israel. Many Israelis, including most politicians left and right, are afraid to live in a world where Israel is not the US' only ally in the region. They seek to perpetuate anti-Islamic attitudes in the US for their own benefit. A more even-handed America is one that will put pressure on Israel to end its own unjust occupation of land that belongs to Muslim peoples in the region.
This will be a bitter pill to swallow, but there is something in it for Israel too: a chance to moderate their own hysteria and learn to live in peace with their neighbors on fair terms.
This isn't just a bet on Iran's nuclear ambitions. It's a play for the soul of Iran. Iran has been balanced on a fine edge for at least a decade, encompassing a deeply unsteady (if not downright schizophrenic) embrace of contradictory impulses toward theocracy and democracy. Obama is betting that the younger generation in Tehran and Iran's other urban centers - most of whom want to live in a modern country at peace with the west and fully engaged in the global economy - hold the key to Iran's future, and we can strengthen their hand if we indicate that we are willing to live in peace and full diplomatic relations with Iran.
The major stumbling block is, of course, Israel. Many Israelis, including most politicians left and right, are afraid to live in a world where Israel is not the US' only ally in the region. They seek to perpetuate anti-Islamic attitudes in the US for their own benefit. A more even-handed America is one that will put pressure on Israel to end its own unjust occupation of land that belongs to Muslim peoples in the region.
This will be a bitter pill to swallow, but there is something in it for Israel too: a chance to moderate their own hysteria and learn to live in peace with their neighbors on fair terms.
9
This is a good deal! We must not let the republicans and conservative democrats wreck it!
5
This remarkable deal must be followed by the engagement and welcome that will bring Iran fully into the international community. If that is allowed to happen, and actively encouraged to happen, it will not matter what the particulars of the deal for 15 years out will be. Iran will be a vested and fully integrated member of an international political and economic community and order that no Iranian will permit its government to turn its back on.
America's strongest reaction to the Soviet Union's far-thinking President Gorbachev, allowing communism to collapse without a fight, was to foolishly expand NATO. Nothing was done to integrate Russia as a fully participatory member of the world's and Europe's economic and political community.
America should learn from its failures and mistakes from losing the once in a lifetime opportunity to pro-actively pull post-communist Russia into the international economic/political community, to pull out all the stops in ensuring that this historic agreement is not wasted, and that Iran is made a fully vested part of an international order that any Iranian government will fight to support and maintain because of the benefits the Iranian people get from it.
America's strongest reaction to the Soviet Union's far-thinking President Gorbachev, allowing communism to collapse without a fight, was to foolishly expand NATO. Nothing was done to integrate Russia as a fully participatory member of the world's and Europe's economic and political community.
America should learn from its failures and mistakes from losing the once in a lifetime opportunity to pro-actively pull post-communist Russia into the international economic/political community, to pull out all the stops in ensuring that this historic agreement is not wasted, and that Iran is made a fully vested part of an international order that any Iranian government will fight to support and maintain because of the benefits the Iranian people get from it.
I'd like to employ this maxim here: Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.
Hopefully Iran becomes a true friend and partner in peace. Kudos to the Obama administration for showing courage and patience in this process for peace.
Hopefully Iran becomes a true friend and partner in peace. Kudos to the Obama administration for showing courage and patience in this process for peace.
8
Reading the comments of GOP-Fox Flag Lapel Pin Patriot Well-Regulated Militiamen gives me PTSD flashbacks. I'm serious.
5
"I bring you peace in our time".
4
President Obama keeps doing the right thing and the smart thing all the way down the line and it's just killing the GOP. Please keep in mind that this agreement never would have happened under a GOP administration. We would be up to our necks in war and shock and awe by now and knee deep in American casualties. American lives and treasure are both expendable to Netanyahu and the corporate-owned GOP, and their entire focus is on power and profit for the organizations who finance them. I hope the American people have their eyes wide open now.
2
All those supposed centrists who equivocate Republicans and Democrats as being basically the same should really reflect on this Iran deal. If we had elected Romney as President we would not be resolving the nuclear issue through peaceful means, instead we would likely be on the precipice of another destructive war in the middle east.
We didn't get everything we wanted in this deal because that's not how diplomacy works. This deal though is the exact reason we implemented sanctions against Iran and should be seen as nothing but a great diplomatic victory for us and the rest of the world. Without any sarcasm, Thanks Obama!
We didn't get everything we wanted in this deal because that's not how diplomacy works. This deal though is the exact reason we implemented sanctions against Iran and should be seen as nothing but a great diplomatic victory for us and the rest of the world. Without any sarcasm, Thanks Obama!
6
Anybody who's in it for a fair shake, would gladly accept "verification". Ha ha ha ha.
3
There ought to be a candle light vigil to appreciate the many thousands of lives that will not be lost due to this diplomatic success! If Iraq is any guide, there are hundreds of thousands of Iranians and several thousand Americans who will not know war.
To remember in the last presidential election cycle how the Republican candidates bragged about how quickly they would take military action against Iran. Obama has truly earned his Nobel Peace Prize!
To remember in the last presidential election cycle how the Republican candidates bragged about how quickly they would take military action against Iran. Obama has truly earned his Nobel Peace Prize!
2
Chamberlain thought he could do business in good faith with Hitler. That got millions killed. The President thinks he can do business with religious fanatics who've been sponsoring terrorism, killing political/religious enemies with impunity and declaring their intent to wipe a significant US ally off the face of the earth.
Perhaps the President is right this time, but there's nothing in our experience with these people over the last 35 years that would indicate that he is. Is it wise to bet that many lives and the security of a large swath of the world on your conviction that you know better than a lot of more experienced people? Perhaps not.
Perhaps the President is right this time, but there's nothing in our experience with these people over the last 35 years that would indicate that he is. Is it wise to bet that many lives and the security of a large swath of the world on your conviction that you know better than a lot of more experienced people? Perhaps not.
3
Why do you keep talking about Chamberlain ? Has Chamberlain been the only diplomat in history ? Are you in love with Chamberlain's story ?
Try to remember your history, America. Iran is what it is today in large measure because of what America did to it decades ago, for decades. Those opposing this deal in both an uninformed and knee jerk manner forget that while negotiation, compromise and building an atmosphere of trust are hard to accomplish, war has a terrible price. Visit a VA hospital if you need a refresher. The Republicans act as if Obama is the one who needs to achieve credibility to see this agreement enacted. But it is the Republicans who lack all credibility in their own uninformed and knee jerk reaction. Again, America, remember that it is the Republican Party who promised at the the outset of this Administration to block its efforts at every turn regardless of topic. How is such a position credible on any level? Even a minimally practical person looks for ways to go forward. It's ironic that this President couldn't get the conservative "mullahs" of the Republican Party to meet him even 10% of the way (remember that?), but through dogged determination, intelligence and tough but fair-minded negotiation found a way to conclude a verifiable agreement with a nation ruled by Shiite conservatives. Tells you something about Boehner, McConnell et al, doesn't it?
7
Leaving behind 4 Americans, 3 imprisoned and another not heard from since 2011 tells me enough.
The surviving former hostages who were held captive for 444 days when Iranians seized the U.S. Embassy in 1979 must be spraying Champagne all over the ceiling.
And please do not attempt to lecture me about the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953. My response will be taken from Cato's signature pronouncement in the Roman Senate, substituting "Iran" for "Carthage" -- ceterum censeo, Parthia delenda est.
And please do not attempt to lecture me about the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953. My response will be taken from Cato's signature pronouncement in the Roman Senate, substituting "Iran" for "Carthage" -- ceterum censeo, Parthia delenda est.
3
How can this deal survive if a Republican is elected in 2016?
It can't, and won't. That's what the point of the Cotton Communique was.
Truth must hurt. All the wishful thinkers - now, and then.
After the signing today, North Korea's chief negotiator, Kang Sok Ju, described it as "a very important milestone document of historic significance" that would resolve his country's nuclear dispute with the United States "once and for all."
He said the agreement, once put into effect, would resolve "all questions of the so-called nuclear weapons development by North Korea" that have raised "such unfounded concerns and suspicions."
"We have neither the intention nor the plan to develop nuclear weapons," Mr. Kang said.
At a news conference in Washington, President Clinton said the treaty was "a good deal for the United States."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/22/world/us-and-north-korea-sign-pact-to-...
After the signing today, North Korea's chief negotiator, Kang Sok Ju, described it as "a very important milestone document of historic significance" that would resolve his country's nuclear dispute with the United States "once and for all."
He said the agreement, once put into effect, would resolve "all questions of the so-called nuclear weapons development by North Korea" that have raised "such unfounded concerns and suspicions."
"We have neither the intention nor the plan to develop nuclear weapons," Mr. Kang said.
At a news conference in Washington, President Clinton said the treaty was "a good deal for the United States."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/22/world/us-and-north-korea-sign-pact-to-...
4
It was a good deal for the US. It was working too, until Bush and the Republicans deliberately torpedoed the deal. They refused to carry out our very modest commitments, because they did not want a deal.
That is the lesson for this deal too. Good for the US. The risk is the Republicans, far more than Iran.
That is the lesson for this deal too. Good for the US. The risk is the Republicans, far more than Iran.
In terms of the details of the accord, I don't think this was a great deal for the West, but in my opinion it is an improvement from the status quo because the West will still retain all the options it has on the table today (sanctions, war, etc.) but will give Iran a chance to prove what it claims about its plans and aspirations. So a calculated risk, a prudent bet, a cause for hope...
Obama is a good teleprompter reader but we who are awake know he does not work for America. He works for the illuminati who are destroying America in secret and poisoning our food and air to give us cancer. The vaccines are used as slow kill weapons and they are used to give people autism and cancer later on in life. In the U.S. autism rates are 1 in 66 and in NJ they are 1 in 27 boys. Vaccines cause autism but they won't tell you that b/c our government has been hijacked by the illuminati who are poisoning our country and destroying the value of the dollar to make it harder and harder to afford food and living expenses. They are poisoning the food with GMO organisms that cause gross tumors and cancer. The govt will not protect you because they do not care about the people. The info is on youtube go research the illuminati and their plans for a New World Order and their plan to kill off most of us.
2
wow!!! what a conspiracy theory!
Wow, drink enough Kool-Aid today?
American politicians tend to lack a significant sense of history. Not since WW2, when the military option was the only option, has a large scale military conflict led to more favorable conditions after the mission was conducted.
I trust less than a quarter of the countries the US has regular dealings with. However, we only get one planet, and no matter if it's the Iranians, the Chinese, or even the Russians, humankind must find the ability to circumvent socio-political and economic differences without exercising the use of force. Only together can we hope to keep moving forward.
I trust less than a quarter of the countries the US has regular dealings with. However, we only get one planet, and no matter if it's the Iranians, the Chinese, or even the Russians, humankind must find the ability to circumvent socio-political and economic differences without exercising the use of force. Only together can we hope to keep moving forward.
1
Jaw! Jaw! is always better than War! War!
1
While we jawed, 8000 Bosnians were murdered in Sebrenica, and 800,000 in Rwanda. Care to explain?
Iran Nuclear Deal Is Reached After America Caves In.
4
It is good that the right-wingers and Israel-apologists in the U.S. Congress can only do limited damage to this Agreement. Even if they vote against it, Obama can veto their vote, and they need a 2/3-rds majority to overrule. And in the unlikely scenario that they are able to do that, it will only pull the U.S. out of it. The other signatories to the agreement will simply lift their sanctions (as the soon-to-passed UN Security Council resolution will demand), and life will go on.
9
However imperfect, without this, they could have a bomb by Christmas.
1
This is great news! some of the best news of the decade!
An added benefit, when Iran gets oil rich, the mere idea of waging a war becomes unthinkable, why would they risk everything on a war?
Thank you Mr President and members of your team!
An added benefit, when Iran gets oil rich, the mere idea of waging a war becomes unthinkable, why would they risk everything on a war?
Thank you Mr President and members of your team!
3
We all need to call and write to our representatives to press them to approve the deal. In Foreign Affairs committee of the House, they are having a field day opposing the deal. They brought in Joe Lieberman even, imagine that!
So, please don't treat this as a done deal, call your reps with your support for the deal.
So, please don't treat this as a done deal, call your reps with your support for the deal.
2
Iran nuclear deal is a giant victory for those who love peace and smart diplomacy AND a humiliating defeat for haters and warmongers who want the American foreign policy to "follow" their own expansionist designs in the Middle East #USFIRST
A small but potentially promising step toward sanity, that merits intense surveillance and only guarded optimism. That said, it is better than a bad deal, or no deal at all, either of which would guarantee Iran's acquisition of nukes.
Another possible benefit will be the smoking out of those Obama haters who are not already angry over the ACA or gay marriage. Their tantrums disclose them for what they are: superannuated toddlers who can't get over all those 20s on the calendar.
Oh, and it may also save Israel from the potentially lethal consequences of the irresponsible sabre-rattling of those now in leadership there.
Another possible benefit will be the smoking out of those Obama haters who are not already angry over the ACA or gay marriage. Their tantrums disclose them for what they are: superannuated toddlers who can't get over all those 20s on the calendar.
Oh, and it may also save Israel from the potentially lethal consequences of the irresponsible sabre-rattling of those now in leadership there.
Fortunately for us, congress is bound by this agreement. If it override this agreement then Iran is the big winner. It gets the sanction relief and everything else that its currently does not have.
No other country will go back to July 13th and the US will look awfully stupid in trying to get universal sanctions back in place.
Congress is now trapped in its own rhetoric. It will have to backdown.
No other country will go back to July 13th and the US will look awfully stupid in trying to get universal sanctions back in place.
Congress is now trapped in its own rhetoric. It will have to backdown.
"Mr. Obama will also have to manage the breach with Mr. Netanyahu and the leaders of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states who have warned against the deal, saying the relief of sanctions will ultimately empower the Iranians throughout the Middle East."
No - Mr. Netanyahu and the leaders of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states will need to manage the breach with the U.S. Netanyahu's political meddling not only got him nothing, but it ensured his country's continued justified alienation from the President - and us voters - of the U.S.
Good for the President; good for the U.S.; good for the Gulf States and the wider Middle East; and good for Iran.
No - Mr. Netanyahu and the leaders of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states will need to manage the breach with the U.S. Netanyahu's political meddling not only got him nothing, but it ensured his country's continued justified alienation from the President - and us voters - of the U.S.
Good for the President; good for the U.S.; good for the Gulf States and the wider Middle East; and good for Iran.
8
I feel like I visited the church of Obama. This deal has a lot of issues and NYT failed to cover it objectively. I wonder what the final price will be? I used to read this newspaper.
7
Rouhani tweet after the deal:
https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/status/620927242210803712
Khamenei tweet from last year:
https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/531057306142650369
This deal is just a delay in Iran's quest for nuclear power and a huge mistake for the world.
https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/status/620927242210803712
Khamenei tweet from last year:
https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/531057306142650369
This deal is just a delay in Iran's quest for nuclear power and a huge mistake for the world.
1
So the U.S. can now officially be deceived about Iran's nuclear ambitions and we are ok with that and, with lifting of sanctions, we will finance their nuclear ambitions. I don't claim to know a better way to deal with the problem, but I'm not the President of the United States. We vote on our representatives in hopes that they know what they are doing. Obama is now one step closer to becoming the American Chaimberlain.
3
I have no doubt that liberals in D.C. will put the President's short-term legacy before the long-term safety of the U.S. This deal is not a legal binding agreement, but a political one. Which is to say it means absolutely nothing! I don't look forward to the day when Iran tells the U.S. what they can do with their military base inspections. It will never happen. Another legacy over substance deal by the Obama administration.
3
For all of those who are opposing this deal, I have this question:
Are you willing to go fight on the front lines of any new Mideast War? Are you willing for your sons or daughters to go fight? It is easy to criticize when you will never be in harms way.
Like a Vietnam veteran told me, "Only a fool would want to go to war."
Are you willing to go fight on the front lines of any new Mideast War? Are you willing for your sons or daughters to go fight? It is easy to criticize when you will never be in harms way.
Like a Vietnam veteran told me, "Only a fool would want to go to war."
3
There is still time for Senator Kerry to throw his name to the US Presidential race, right?
1
To the Hawks - Don't let ignorance cloud your judgment. Firstly, the details have not been released, so don't rush to judgment.
Secondly, you must remember a couple of things: 1) Iran is still party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Iran was hellbent on creating in nuclear weapon, it would have left long ago like North Korea. 2) Don't think for a minute that Iran's sanctions relief isn't tied to verification at every step. The IAEA will now have unprecedented oversight of Iran's nuclear facilities and any violation in its oversight will likely nullify the agreement.
There are more details to this agreement than simple "appeasement."
Secondly, you must remember a couple of things: 1) Iran is still party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Iran was hellbent on creating in nuclear weapon, it would have left long ago like North Korea. 2) Don't think for a minute that Iran's sanctions relief isn't tied to verification at every step. The IAEA will now have unprecedented oversight of Iran's nuclear facilities and any violation in its oversight will likely nullify the agreement.
There are more details to this agreement than simple "appeasement."
1
Well done President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and everyone else that made this deal happen. It's admittedly not perfect but it's the best opportunity to prevent or slow a nuclear armed Iran and an arms race in the middle east. No doubt, the do nothing, warmonger Republicans and warmonger Netanyahu will try to prevent it or sabotage it from happening. Americans must not allow that to happen.
2
5,000 American soldiers just lived! We don't have to go to war to settle differences, even with enemies. When a crisis is averted we will never know the names of those whose lives were saved!!
2
Dudes
I'm Iranian and typing from Iran.just wanted to say more than 99% of Iranians do not know what real terrorism is! May some people in the us are now, thinking Iran is in which state but everybody here is happy about the deal!
Iran is not like the films which you have seen.most of Iranians like Americans
I'm Iranian and typing from Iran.just wanted to say more than 99% of Iranians do not know what real terrorism is! May some people in the us are now, thinking Iran is in which state but everybody here is happy about the deal!
Iran is not like the films which you have seen.most of Iranians like Americans
10
John Kerry should receive major credit for this. He worked tirelessly for months against all odds and obfuscations to make this agreement happen. He is a secretary of state that we all can be proud of. His wisdom and determination would make him a great next president.
7
He would have been a great president however the swift boat attacks changed the course of history.The ignorant right wing masses thought it better to elect a i dont wont to go to war my daddy is head of CIA alcoholic instead of a 3 purple heart i volunteered for a dangerous assignment in Vietnam hero.It is a strange mixed up place we live in but it is the land of the free because of the brave.
1
Appeasement abroad, amnesty and entitlements at home.
The Obama Legacy.
The Obama Legacy.
3
The participating members of this nuclear accord negotiation and their support staffs should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
6
If anything it sounds and reads like Iran capitulated on virtually everything.
Of course you would not know that from the howling and screeching from NetanYahoo and the American right.
But the rest of the world, including all of its major powers who are also part of this, is applauding in a standing ovation, as am I.
Of course you would not know that from the howling and screeching from NetanYahoo and the American right.
But the rest of the world, including all of its major powers who are also part of this, is applauding in a standing ovation, as am I.
5
President Obama now rightly deserves his Nobel Peace Prize
2
No deal would be much better. We had sanctions going. Iran was contained. Now the door is flung open. Iran will have a weaponry bomb sooner than ever before. We just granted them the money to keep the dictatorship alive. Sad. A bad deal.
1
Many Americans might feel more confidence if there were not demonstrators in the streets in Iran shouting "Death to America", emotions which don't exist at all in this country.
Much optimism and happiness is expressed. Was there similar happiness and relief when PM Chamberlain brought home the Munich agreement?
Much optimism and happiness is expressed. Was there similar happiness and relief when PM Chamberlain brought home the Munich agreement?
5
I call members of Congress on a regular basis on a number of issues, including this one. Invariably, when I ask Congressional staffers if they know why some Iranians chant "Death to America" none know the answer, that in the early 1950s the CIA took out Iran's democratically-elected leader after he nationalized Iran's oil fields and then helped prop up the horrific Shah, who brutalized Iranians until the revolution. How are we supposed to move forward if we don't understand how we got here?
3
If Iranians are so incensed about the Cold War coup that overthrew the dubiously democratic Mossadeq, then why did they choose to live under a non-democratic gang of theocratic Nazis? Mossadeq, by nationalizing those fields stole British property, and also ran far afoul of those who elected him and was in the process of being marginalized. Iranians are yelling death to America, not because of the Shah, but because we support our friend Israel, the only democracy in the middle east. In any event, no Iranian today is wearing a Mossadeq T-shirt. Are you suggesting that Iran is the world's largest sponsor of state terror because the CIA and British overthrew Mossadeq and the Shah came in--a dictator who has been dead for 35 years? That's why the Iranians pay people to murder innocents all over the world? I doubt it.
Can we please ban the phrase "send a message of weakness" from the political lexicon?
2
Those of you criticizing this agreement and my President, I have one question with many components. What's your alternative? I don't want a one sentence talking point you received via email. I want full chapter and verse of an alternative plan.
At minimum...what is the specific problem? Where does the specific problem exist (just saying Iran is not good enough)? How would you recommend we deal with the problem you identified? What specific resources, military or otherwise, would be required to achieve your solution? What risks are involved (think things like Strait of Hormuz)? How many casualties, military and civilian, do you expect on both sides? What impact would your solution have on our economy and worldwide financial and commodity markets?
I can go on. Don't just blubber on about how bad this agreement is. What's you idea of something that's better?
At minimum...what is the specific problem? Where does the specific problem exist (just saying Iran is not good enough)? How would you recommend we deal with the problem you identified? What specific resources, military or otherwise, would be required to achieve your solution? What risks are involved (think things like Strait of Hormuz)? How many casualties, military and civilian, do you expect on both sides? What impact would your solution have on our economy and worldwide financial and commodity markets?
I can go on. Don't just blubber on about how bad this agreement is. What's you idea of something that's better?
7
Joe, I apologize for criticizing Barack Obama.
For some odd reason, as a lawyer in Washington DC, I thought the Constitution guaranteed me free speech. I stand corrected.
What's my alternative to Obama's plan?
I would start with something Barack Obama hasn't done in 54 years...by telling the truth. The truth is there is no real way short of a ground war to end Iran's weapons program. With the truth out there, a real deal could have been negotiated with our ENEMY, Iran.
Step two, something else Barack Obama has never done: Sit down like a grown up and actually COMPROMISE with the Republicans. Obama's idea of compromise with the GOP is to ignore them, overstep his authority and demagogue the GOP for not letting him have his way. That's not change, its cowardice.
My solution? Anything but what Obama just did today, which is unilaterally surrender to Iran on all fronts, all for 3 magic beans and dreams of a beanstalk.
For some odd reason, as a lawyer in Washington DC, I thought the Constitution guaranteed me free speech. I stand corrected.
What's my alternative to Obama's plan?
I would start with something Barack Obama hasn't done in 54 years...by telling the truth. The truth is there is no real way short of a ground war to end Iran's weapons program. With the truth out there, a real deal could have been negotiated with our ENEMY, Iran.
Step two, something else Barack Obama has never done: Sit down like a grown up and actually COMPROMISE with the Republicans. Obama's idea of compromise with the GOP is to ignore them, overstep his authority and demagogue the GOP for not letting him have his way. That's not change, its cowardice.
My solution? Anything but what Obama just did today, which is unilaterally surrender to Iran on all fronts, all for 3 magic beans and dreams of a beanstalk.
2
I sat at my desk today at work, stunned at Barack Obama's celebratory remarks on the Iran Nuclear Deal.
The same Obama who mocked and ridiculed his predecessor for offering false choices and straw man rhetoric, proudly mimicked his predecessor, but with a twist even George W. Bush would not utter aloud--a pompous, tin-eared veto threat, again thumbing his nose in the faces of Congress.
Here's what we know. Iran sanctions are lifted and Iran has made no concession, verifiable or otherwise that it will not continue to develop nuclear weapons. It is classic high school debate strategy for Obama to rely on "if you haven't seen the deal you can't criticize it" tactics as he continues to honor his promise of transparency by hiding information from the American people in ways that would make Nixon blush.
This is a legacy grab. A meaningless deal that enables and legitimizes an Islamic Republic that considers us sworn enemies who must be destroyed as a matter of religious identity.
Oh well, after the President's remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, its not like he respects Christians or believes in God anyway, so why should we be surprised that Obama fast tracked and green lighted a deal favoring Iran?
The same Obama who mocked and ridiculed his predecessor for offering false choices and straw man rhetoric, proudly mimicked his predecessor, but with a twist even George W. Bush would not utter aloud--a pompous, tin-eared veto threat, again thumbing his nose in the faces of Congress.
Here's what we know. Iran sanctions are lifted and Iran has made no concession, verifiable or otherwise that it will not continue to develop nuclear weapons. It is classic high school debate strategy for Obama to rely on "if you haven't seen the deal you can't criticize it" tactics as he continues to honor his promise of transparency by hiding information from the American people in ways that would make Nixon blush.
This is a legacy grab. A meaningless deal that enables and legitimizes an Islamic Republic that considers us sworn enemies who must be destroyed as a matter of religious identity.
Oh well, after the President's remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, its not like he respects Christians or believes in God anyway, so why should we be surprised that Obama fast tracked and green lighted a deal favoring Iran?
3
if only gas prices will fall, it will be great. thanks for diplomacy and not war.
1
Worth remembering that bombing them or diplomacy now were not the only two choices. It could have been continue sanctions and diplomacy later....maybe at that point their negotiators wouldn't have mopped the floor with ours.
In the argument of diplomacy versus war, here's somethings to consider:
Diplomacy didn't work with the Nazis - we went to war anyway, but:
Texas cowboy Pres Johnson opposed global communism with war - result - a counterproductive catastrophe in Vietnam & Cambodia.
California cowboy Reagan opposed global communism primarily economically & diplomatically, with defense but no full scale war - result - success - the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War & effectively the end of the spread of global communist tyranny.
Carter got Egypt & Israel together diplomatically - result - decades of peace between them.
Texas cowboy G W Bush starts an unnecessary war in Iraq with an invasion - result - an endless counterproductive catastrophe.
Obama deals with Iran diplomatically - well, we see.
Diplomacy didn't work with the Nazis - we went to war anyway, but:
Texas cowboy Pres Johnson opposed global communism with war - result - a counterproductive catastrophe in Vietnam & Cambodia.
California cowboy Reagan opposed global communism primarily economically & diplomatically, with defense but no full scale war - result - success - the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War & effectively the end of the spread of global communist tyranny.
Carter got Egypt & Israel together diplomatically - result - decades of peace between them.
Texas cowboy G W Bush starts an unnecessary war in Iraq with an invasion - result - an endless counterproductive catastrophe.
Obama deals with Iran diplomatically - well, we see.
3
Over 30 years of animosity between the US and Iran brought nothing to bear, but the Iranian government at least tried to obtain nuclear weapons. All the while millions and millions of the Iranian people suffered more and more everyday under the tyranny of the mullahs and the weight of the western sanctions. Mullahs always used the sanctions as a testimony of their victimization by the great Satan. They legitimized themselves as the true leader of the Muslims around the world capable and willing to stand up to the west. In their narrow view, Iranian people were either with the Mullahs or with the great Satan.
Thank you, President Obama, for doing the right thing. Thank you for bringing the Iranian government to the negotiation table. Mullahs are talking to the west because President Obama tightened the noose of the sanctions so much that they have no choice but to play nice. This is a great day for the world and particularly for the Iranians inside Iran who have suffered immensely in the last 30+ years. The alternative to the current developments would have been waging yet another war in the Middle East, something that Mr. Chaney would embrace delightfully and Halliburton would benefit from vastly. Needless to say, Mr. Netanyahu would be the chief cheer leader on the sidelines cheering for the US at the expense of US lives.
The haters shall continue to hate, but let's celebrate today for as long as it lasts.
May peace always prevail.
Thank you, President Obama, for doing the right thing. Thank you for bringing the Iranian government to the negotiation table. Mullahs are talking to the west because President Obama tightened the noose of the sanctions so much that they have no choice but to play nice. This is a great day for the world and particularly for the Iranians inside Iran who have suffered immensely in the last 30+ years. The alternative to the current developments would have been waging yet another war in the Middle East, something that Mr. Chaney would embrace delightfully and Halliburton would benefit from vastly. Needless to say, Mr. Netanyahu would be the chief cheer leader on the sidelines cheering for the US at the expense of US lives.
The haters shall continue to hate, but let's celebrate today for as long as it lasts.
May peace always prevail.
4
How about that! Mohammed came to the mountain...in Austria. I hope the Republicans act in our nation's interest and approve this deal. The Iranians speak with one voice. If all the other countries ratify this deal and we don't, it won't be Obama that looks bad. His administration has done its part and then some!
2
This agreement is a sham. There is no way we can trust the Iranian government. The bulk of the middle east states have dictators as leaders and do what ever they want. The U.S. has been taken for a ride. Do we need more oil? Once the Iranians get to make enriched uranium they will be building a simple bomb and most likely use it on Isreal who they openly want to destroy. This agreement seems as ludicrous as Bush and Cheney deciding to destroy Iraq. The consequences of that act have destabilized most of the world and cost numerous lives and money. Allowing this treaty allows other countries to pursue their own nuclear programs and bombs.
2
If the US Congress rejects the Iran Nuclear deal, but the rest of the world thinks it is the best option possible, then how are economic sanctions going to continue if only the United States continues the sanctions and the rest of the world ignores them?
I see that Mr. Netanyahu is upset at the deal. His feelings should be under the headlines: "The Sun Rose in the East This Morning."
"Nobel Prize Winning Mathematician Proves 1 + 1 = 2"
"House Republicans Vows to Repeal Obamacare."
"Rep. Gohmert Questions President Obama's Birth Certificate"
"Sen. Tom Cotton Explains the US Constitution to the Iranian Government."
Republicans will oppose this deal primarily because it was done by Pres. Obama. If this deal was done by Reagan or G.W. Bush, they would be celebrating at the capitol.
"Nobel Prize Winning Mathematician Proves 1 + 1 = 2"
"House Republicans Vows to Repeal Obamacare."
"Rep. Gohmert Questions President Obama's Birth Certificate"
"Sen. Tom Cotton Explains the US Constitution to the Iranian Government."
Republicans will oppose this deal primarily because it was done by Pres. Obama. If this deal was done by Reagan or G.W. Bush, they would be celebrating at the capitol.
6
What about the Democrats.
Is it possible they will oppose this agreement and if they do will you admit
they could be right.
Is it possible they will oppose this agreement and if they do will you admit
they could be right.
1
One thing for sure, Mr. Netanyahu would be against any agreement - he's a Republican.
3
'Netanyahu says Israel is not bound by "Bad Deal" '
'Scott Walker denounces deal with Iran'
'John Boehner condemns Iran nuclear deal'
'Lindsay Graham calls deal "Most Irresponsible" '
In other news, dog bites man.
'Scott Walker denounces deal with Iran'
'John Boehner condemns Iran nuclear deal'
'Lindsay Graham calls deal "Most Irresponsible" '
In other news, dog bites man.
4
What's our alternative ... war ? I think the President is right in working on a deal, but....verify...verify !
1
Isn't the plan to suck up all their oil before letting themselves blow themselves up?
There will be no snapping back of Sanctions if Iran cheats.
7
That's doubtful, as all signatories are on board to re-impose sanctions if there is a violation. Besides, why should we place much trust in the opinion of a Saints Fan from Houston?
A ridiculous capitulation to Iran, Russia and China. In five years Iran's arms embargo is lifted. Sanctions begin to be lifted now. No comment on whether or not impromptu inspections are allowed. Iran is not required to destroy ANY of its hidden underground nuclear facilities (Fordo, etc.) If Obama was trying to avoid a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, too bad - it just started. Neither the Saudis, Arab Emirates, or Israelis are going to sit around twiddling their thumbs to see if Obama's "hopes" for an honest Iran pans out. A complete - and dangerous - diplomatic disaster.
8
Beyond giggling uncontrollably at the notion of Russia's happy coziness with radical Islam (does the word "Chechnya," ring a bell?), here's what i always wonder: have even ONE of you guys every done any real negotiations?
i mean, it's not just you go into some room, stick your finger in the other guy's face, and scream until he starts crying and does whatever you want.
In brief, what's your cunning plan? be specific.
i mean, it's not just you go into some room, stick your finger in the other guy's face, and scream until he starts crying and does whatever you want.
In brief, what's your cunning plan? be specific.
1
My head and heart are so proud of our president, his persistence that diplomacy must be the method of controlling Iran's nuclear capabilities, not warfare. Mr. Boehner is simply a naysayer and deserves the respect and attention of no American. He is the kind of traitor that puts us in bad across the world, as people love evil. If the accord falls apart, it won't be because of Pres. Obama. He got it done, didn't he! Envy does not become the always disenchanted Republicans. They always want to pick up their toys and go home. Juvenile delinquents in suits.
6
This also will improve the Afghanistan situation. Especially Western Afghanistan (Herat Region) is very much integrated with East Iran. Might be a strong step to better control Taliban and ISIS.
1
Listening to these Republican yahoos on the House Foreign Relations Committee, it is clear they intend to focus on just saying Iran is bad, bad, bad, instead of the deal itself. So it's probably a good deal.
1
The Iran deal is obviously a very heated and debated decision by all NYT readers. But there is no cause for name calling. It is unwarranted, mean and a borderline personal attack and I am very annoyed that the Times review committee would allow it and print it. Disgraceful and unnecessary.
So - what about Israel's hundreds of nukes?
What about the fact it is using US taxdollars to actually wipe a country off the map - with plans to reinvade Lebanon and Sinai and Syria for lebensaraum?
when do we begin to worry about the crazies in Israel getting their hands on nuclear missiles that, for some reason, can reach the US.
If a dirty bomb goes off and is immediately blamed on Iran -I will not be alone is suspecting Israel, or its "sayanim."
What about the fact it is using US taxdollars to actually wipe a country off the map - with plans to reinvade Lebanon and Sinai and Syria for lebensaraum?
when do we begin to worry about the crazies in Israel getting their hands on nuclear missiles that, for some reason, can reach the US.
If a dirty bomb goes off and is immediately blamed on Iran -I will not be alone is suspecting Israel, or its "sayanim."
3
The real reason the GOP is against the deal isn't based on any valid merits or concerns it is against the deal because it didn't happen under a Republican president. They don't want President Obama to leave office with a lasting legacy.
2
Bush isn't president...just thought you'd like to know.
1
Great.
Now about Israel's nukes and state terrorism...
Now about Israel's nukes and state terrorism...
7
The GOP presidential hopefuls will no doubt be lined up against this agreement since they and their party seem intent on building a bridge to 20th or even 19th century. Iran is certainly not our pal and we have good reason to be skeptical of their intent, just as they must be skeptical of America that backed Saddam Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war and who helped engineer the 1953 coup that toppled a a democratically elected prime minister. Trust isn't required for this agreement that has built-in verification and can immediately revert to the status quo ante that existed during the Bush years. The key is opening up economic opportunity to the Iranian middle class - once they see material gains in their quality of life it will be difficult or impossible for the Iranian leadership to risk reinstatement of sanctions. Bravo President Obama!
2
How astoundingly duplicitous it is for Israel’s Prime Minister to attack an agreement with Iran to restrict its atomic energy program to peaceful objectives when Israel itself has a covert arsenal of at least 200 nuclear weapons, won’t sign the NPT and refuses to join the IAEA.
10
Please tell us all about how Israel gets to build and maintain a massive nuclear weapons stockpile while Iran has to knuckle under. For that matter, tell us all about how the United States can play any of this diplomacy game without ridicule and laughter.
Disgusting, despicable hypocrisy.
Disgusting, despicable hypocrisy.
1
With 24 days to hide their nukes and the right to enrich uranium? Why would we even need verification? It's a done deal. You gave it to them. Now to impeach you as traitor.
7
Let me guess: Saddam Huseein really DID have WMDs, too, and the leftists stashed them somewhere.
How many Americans know anything about Iranian people? How many know, for example, that pizza is wildly popular in Iran? And, how many know that unfortunately, Tehran's residents enjoy their slices slathered with ketchup?
Amid all the talk of inspections, verification procedures, congressional approval, and chants of "Death to [fill in the enemy country du jour]," we need to remember that this deal affects us and our fellow human beings, who happen to be Iranian. Fellow human beings who, just like us, live, love, cry, raise families, get sick, laugh, go to work, and eat pizza (albeit incorrectly).
Call me naive (many have, and many will continue to do so), Kerry and Zarif spent large amounts of time with each other and necessarily got to know each other as human beings, not just "agents of the regime." Implementing a deal that brings Iran back into the fold of nations exponentially increases the opportunity for citizens of our countries to recognize each other's common humanity as well.
Yes, there are numerous obstacles to overcome, and as our president explained, the deal is based on verification. But, on the whole, bringing our peoples closer is a good thing.
(And, hopefully Kerry had a few New York pies delivered to Vienna; showing the Iranians the error of their ketchup-applying habits may have been just what it took to seal the deal.)
Amid all the talk of inspections, verification procedures, congressional approval, and chants of "Death to [fill in the enemy country du jour]," we need to remember that this deal affects us and our fellow human beings, who happen to be Iranian. Fellow human beings who, just like us, live, love, cry, raise families, get sick, laugh, go to work, and eat pizza (albeit incorrectly).
Call me naive (many have, and many will continue to do so), Kerry and Zarif spent large amounts of time with each other and necessarily got to know each other as human beings, not just "agents of the regime." Implementing a deal that brings Iran back into the fold of nations exponentially increases the opportunity for citizens of our countries to recognize each other's common humanity as well.
Yes, there are numerous obstacles to overcome, and as our president explained, the deal is based on verification. But, on the whole, bringing our peoples closer is a good thing.
(And, hopefully Kerry had a few New York pies delivered to Vienna; showing the Iranians the error of their ketchup-applying habits may have been just what it took to seal the deal.)
13
They eat their pizza WITH KETCHUP?
OK, deal's off.
OK, deal's off.
Hey, I like optimism too! Now that the deal is in place, I hope everything works out just fine too (and maybe there really was no plausible alternative). But your second paragraph is hard to ignore (the "death to America" chants). No nation is perfect, but it's hard to accept good intentions from a nation that makes a point of reminding us, itself, and the rest of the world that it wants us dead. Taking a baby step away from the edge is great, but I'll breath easier when they stop reiterating how much they want us to die.
Just ketchup or do they otherwise embellish their pizza. As for the nuke pact, dialogue with those you fear most is always superior to vitriol and death. Kudos to Biden and the entire nuke negotiating team for a job well done!
1
It's worth noting that the pathological liar, Bibi, doesn't like this deal because contrary to his rhetoric, what the Lukid want, actually, is to destabilize their neighbors as much as possible. This strategy has been their operating policy all along, and is hardly going to change now.
Remember, if he's speaking english.. He's lying.
Remember, if he's speaking english.. He's lying.
10
Congress will now decide whether its leader is Barrack Obama or Bibi Netanyahu
4
And yet, Iran recently held their yearly “Death to America” celebration. When does the Iranian clock of trust and embrace start ticking?
3
I dunno...has John McCain quit singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," on the floor of the Senate yet?
A deal that is opposed by Saudis and Israelis cannot be bad for America.
6
A deal that is not opposed by Iran cannot be good for America.
1
There are only three parts to this who don't want it; the Saudis and the other Gulf Sunnis, the GOP because for some reason evangelicals believe Israelis with welcome them with open arms at the end of days to convert them and GOP candidates.
I can't say more, "who cares if they have a nuclear weapon". Plenty of cy countries who are equally hostile toward us do. We do et need nuclear weapons to kill each other. It's a non issue. It's the Gulf afraid of the money they will be making when sanctions are lifted.
I can't say more, "who cares if they have a nuclear weapon". Plenty of cy countries who are equally hostile toward us do. We do et need nuclear weapons to kill each other. It's a non issue. It's the Gulf afraid of the money they will be making when sanctions are lifted.
1
I am so sad that the last six years had to have been spent cleaning up the international piles of dog manure that were left by the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their ilk, going back to the 1953 US sponsored coup that replaced a democratically elected government in Iran with a US supported puppet. So much effort to extricate ourselves from foreign messes where we have wasted lives, energy, and money with little to no long-term benefit to ourselves. 58,000 sons, brothers, and fathers killed in Vietnam, many after we knew the war was unwinnable. Thousands killed in Iraq and many, many more forever scarred. Trillions of dollars and decades wasted. We fined BP for the Gulf oil spill, but got nothing for our part in keeping their Iranian oil business profitable in the 1950's. There is too much for us to do at home to have our attention diverted trying to fix the world.
5
"For those on the right lambasting the deal..."
The Senators and Representatives who will have the toughest time here are not "those on the right." It will be "those on the left" who are known as champions of Israel (e.g. Senator Schumer of New York, who's promised to go over the agreement "with a fine-toothed comb"). Needless to say, Netanyahu will be leaning very heavily on them, since he knows he's already got "those on the right" in the bag.
The Senators and Representatives who will have the toughest time here are not "those on the right." It will be "those on the left" who are known as champions of Israel (e.g. Senator Schumer of New York, who's promised to go over the agreement "with a fine-toothed comb"). Needless to say, Netanyahu will be leaning very heavily on them, since he knows he's already got "those on the right" in the bag.
2
Even if for different reasons, the Republicans and the Ayatollah may be on the same side on this one. Each as ignorant about the average Iranian who just wants a good life for his/her family.
2
Normalize relations with Cuba, Supreme Court decisions on Gay Marriage and the Affordable Care Act, Asia Trade Deal and a nuclear deal with Iran.
Maybe the best 3 weeks of any president in history
Maybe the best 3 weeks of any president in history
8
Obama maybe the best three weeks of any president in history?
Or as American historians will call it, the nail in the coffin of a historical aberration on the American presidency unseen since Buchanan, Hoover and Nixon.
Or as American historians will call it, the nail in the coffin of a historical aberration on the American presidency unseen since Buchanan, Hoover and Nixon.
Hat off to Obama for his unparalleled signature foreign policy achievement for his legacy.
Kerry who is under fire at home for his time and effort to the Iran nuclear issue calling it a "fool’s errand" responded with the Lausanne deal, a most significant diplomatic achievements of our times making him a leading contender for the Nobel peace prize along with Mohammad Javad Zarif Iran's foreign minister.
Binyamin Netanyahu and Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz played a perfect zero sum maneuvers deserving found no traction internationally.
Kerry who is under fire at home for his time and effort to the Iran nuclear issue calling it a "fool’s errand" responded with the Lausanne deal, a most significant diplomatic achievements of our times making him a leading contender for the Nobel peace prize along with Mohammad Javad Zarif Iran's foreign minister.
Binyamin Netanyahu and Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz played a perfect zero sum maneuvers deserving found no traction internationally.
6
Only in America....would the supposedly world newspaper of record be replete with comments drenched in ahistoricity, with each paean more poetic than its precursor, their authors regaling their minds' eyes' (but in reality nonexistent) birth of warmer fuzzier Shi'ite Islamist theocracy, in those blind minds' eyes' made possible by clearheaded Obama's digging in; whilst utterly unconnected to the warp and woof of the warring Islamists' death struggle for hegemony, over one another and the world (in no particular order, really).
I especially liked the "Jewish-American" Iran visitor who has to let us know that she saw the truth while there digging the chimes of Islamist modernism. Just like Paul Robeson's visit to Stalinist U.S.S.R., in which he played the fool in an orchestrated hand-shake with a recently released Jewish prisoner who couldn't utter a word of truth without getting his family killed, then pronounced to the U.S. Left, "All is well in the Workers' Paradise," so does our modern-day flunkie manage to kvell in surface modernity and dismiss the absolute control orchestrated by the mullahs, long practiced in world-beating terrorism, who this time around put the kibosh on *internal* criticism of the nuclear deal.
I especially liked the "Jewish-American" Iran visitor who has to let us know that she saw the truth while there digging the chimes of Islamist modernism. Just like Paul Robeson's visit to Stalinist U.S.S.R., in which he played the fool in an orchestrated hand-shake with a recently released Jewish prisoner who couldn't utter a word of truth without getting his family killed, then pronounced to the U.S. Left, "All is well in the Workers' Paradise," so does our modern-day flunkie manage to kvell in surface modernity and dismiss the absolute control orchestrated by the mullahs, long practiced in world-beating terrorism, who this time around put the kibosh on *internal* criticism of the nuclear deal.
1
Thanks for digging out your thesaurus; you have made the world dumber for it. I gather you have never been to Iran. Well I spoke with a recent Iranian immigrant who corroborates the story of your "flunkie". He left Iran because of the government it is true, but still thought Tehran had a better lifestyle than the Kansas town where he went to school. This agreement is giving Iranians hope of more Western values. And once you give someone hope, you better be careful if you try and take away.
I like the idea that geopolitically, the rise of Iran balances that area out and gives the U.S. another major player that can assert influence in the area.
This is a good plan.
Israel and Saudi Arabia were getting far too complacent anyway.
And with Iran being, more or less, brought in from the cold, I actually think it betokens good for the region.
Obviously, we'll have to see. But what we've been doing hasn't been working all that well.
This is a good plan.
Israel and Saudi Arabia were getting far too complacent anyway.
And with Iran being, more or less, brought in from the cold, I actually think it betokens good for the region.
Obviously, we'll have to see. But what we've been doing hasn't been working all that well.
1
God bless diplomacy over warfare.
2
Peace has won a chance to win. May it succeed.
1
Has anyone read the deal? Usually the devil is in the details. I think everyone should hold comments till you can actually read it.
2
Obama's second term has been great for this country and, I believe, the world beyond our borders. In my 34 years I have yet to see any other president demonstrate such a capacity for patience and wisdom. Looking at the field of candidates for 2016 has become painful lately.
5
Is the agreement text available somewhere?
1
If all fails then we can nuke each other to the final end. But I believe this is the best way to go. PEACE should always get the first chance and we should be very proud of this administration.
5
Netanyahu is a total outright idiot.
Israel has contributed nothing in a positive sense to this issue.
I feel for Israel and its troublesome neighbourhood. But it has to understand that it can't have the run of the table without others in the region having relief too. Netenyahu can pack sand - he's done NOTHING AT ALL OF VALUE.
Iranians are good people under a loopy theocracy. But even that theocracy is facing the economic facts of the day.
And after 10 years or so of a "parked" nuclear weapons plan and improvement in the economy and a build up of trust, their desire for nuclear weapons may wane away. That's my hope. Hopes die hard, I know.
Israel has contributed nothing in a positive sense to this issue.
I feel for Israel and its troublesome neighbourhood. But it has to understand that it can't have the run of the table without others in the region having relief too. Netenyahu can pack sand - he's done NOTHING AT ALL OF VALUE.
Iranians are good people under a loopy theocracy. But even that theocracy is facing the economic facts of the day.
And after 10 years or so of a "parked" nuclear weapons plan and improvement in the economy and a build up of trust, their desire for nuclear weapons may wane away. That's my hope. Hopes die hard, I know.
5
I join the Obama supporters who want PM Benjamin Netanyahu to shut up.
I mean just go ahead and let Iran annihilate Israel and America, just like Obama's deal allows them to.
Sheesh Bibi, take a chill pill bro!
I am starting to wonder if Barack Obama can figure out how to boil water.
I mean just go ahead and let Iran annihilate Israel and America, just like Obama's deal allows them to.
Sheesh Bibi, take a chill pill bro!
I am starting to wonder if Barack Obama can figure out how to boil water.
5
A day that will live in infamy.
4
15 years is a very brief span of time when the life of nations is considered. If this accord allows Iran at some point in time to continue with its research into the uses of nuclear energy, the "break out" time for a nuclear bomb at the end of these 15 years might be dangerously short. Time will tell if this accord will ultimately make the Middle East and the world more secure and peaceful.
1
Pathetic president Hussein moved us closer to nuclear war. First he screwed up USA, than interntational politics - USA is laughing stock in the whole world - and now helped Iran along with developing A bomb.
Only idiots or democrats can belive it is a good deal.
Only idiots or democrats can belive it is a good deal.
4
I think the President has finally indeed earned his Nobel Peace Prize.
The world is safer and more peaceful today due to the patient , thoughtful approach by the POTUS and Secretary Kerry.
The world is safer and more peaceful today due to the patient , thoughtful approach by the POTUS and Secretary Kerry.
7
Note to Bibi: In the words of the great John Winston Lennon, "All we are saying, is give peace a chance."
4
This deal offers the possibility of moving Iran back into the diplomatic world, with many good implications for the region. Iran, (like us, frankly) has some religious hard-liners, but it is a young country, and this deal sets the stage for millions of young Iranians to grow up in a world where they can connect with the West. You don't get people to abandon a medieval mentality by bombing them back to the Stone Age. You do it through outreach and patience and time.
12
If anybody can bring the Middle East into the 21st century and stop ISIS, it's Iran. I would trust them before I would trust a Saudi.
All praise for Barack Obama, John Kerry, and The Five and similar praise for the Iranian negotiators. A major achievement on paper. We who praise know all too well what hurdles this accord faces. But today let us thank the John Kerry Team for showing the unthinkable way - painstaking negotiation instead of war. Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
A resubmission. First filed at 04:52 EDT and apparently rejected. Resembles some Times Picks with 1000 recommends. Interesting.
A resubmission. First filed at 04:52 EDT and apparently rejected. Resembles some Times Picks with 1000 recommends. Interesting.
4
It is easy to vilify the Iranians and to think they are animals with no morals, and reject this deal based on that hidden premise. They may have the same thoughts about us.
The fact that such a deal can be constructed shows that both sides understand civilian suffering is more detrimental than the success of any ideological crusade.
Hope the congress understand that as well.
The fact that such a deal can be constructed shows that both sides understand civilian suffering is more detrimental than the success of any ideological crusade.
Hope the congress understand that as well.
8
Obama is no fool. Iran will abuse the agreement as usual. But I also believe the advanced centrifuges that we give them will be reporting back to us amongst other classified tricks up our sleeve.
Sanctions were in place to force them to the negotiation table. They came to the table and with 6 other nations came to an agreement. An arms race has been halted, the threat of war avoided. In 15 years, after rejoining the rest of the world, Iran's hard line mullahs will be gone, the Iranian people, always more moderate, will have risen and will seek to preserve their better lifestyles and modern existence. This was the right thing to do. It is harder than the cave man attitude of the right that says bomb everyone and everything. That approach has failed for the past 30 years in the Middle East where we are still fighting the same people we fought when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Same people, different names. Watch as the xenophobes in the GOP try and derail this. They know one thing and that is that everyone is trying to kill us. Remember when ISIS was coming here to "kill us all" according to Lindsay Graham? This was a wise and hard fought agreement. This president, with this agreement, with healthcare reform, recent decisions on marriage equality, ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, halving the unemployment rate, avoiding an economic collapse, rescuing the auto industry, ending Bin Laden, will go down as one of the better presidents in our history. What does George Bush have to look back on? Allowing the worst attack on our soil? A useless war in Iraq? A mismanaged war in Afghanistan? Torture? 9 million lost jobs? Really.
6
Bush handed Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. That being the case, Iran is now our only national ally in the fight against ISIS, the biggest threat to the region, including Israel.
5
THIS DEAL MEANS NOTHING . . .
...because the Republican Senate and other war mongers will never agree with Obama as they said the night he was elected. Oh, yes they will agree with the President for the newest trade deal because it puts money in the pockets of the G. O. P. senators via the lobbyists.
...because the Republican Senate and other war mongers will never agree with Obama as they said the night he was elected. Oh, yes they will agree with the President for the newest trade deal because it puts money in the pockets of the G. O. P. senators via the lobbyists.
Seems Nobel committee has a great insight into the future. They advanced the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. Wow!
2
So all of you that think this is such a great move, I assume you will support unilateral military action against Iran when it's found that they aren't adhering to the accord? Because I guarantee you, Iran is already determining how to get around and weaken elements of this deal.
You're a bunch of hypocrites.
You're a bunch of hypocrites.
1
Iran is the natural US ally in the Gulf, mullahs notwithstanding. It is a potential bulwark against terrorism, which - as well all know -has Wahhabi/salafist roots. It is ripe for investment. The reason Netanyahu fears it is that Iran is the only local actor that can keep Israel straight.
5
Wow.
Putin behind it. The Chinese behind it. The French behind it. The British behind it. The Italians behind it. The Germans behind it.
The Israelis against it. John McCain against it. John Boehner against it. Mitch McConnell against it. Ted Cruz against it.
That ought to put things in perspective.
Putin behind it. The Chinese behind it. The French behind it. The British behind it. The Italians behind it. The Germans behind it.
The Israelis against it. John McCain against it. John Boehner against it. Mitch McConnell against it. Ted Cruz against it.
That ought to put things in perspective.
11
Why wouldn't Russia and China be in favor of a deal that makes Iran stronger?
They're allies!
There's a word to describe someone who is skeptical of Obama's deal: Sane.
They're allies!
There's a word to describe someone who is skeptical of Obama's deal: Sane.
How's Plan B (War) working out for you?
If you consider the Israelis and their Republican enablers 'sane' on this, then the patients are running the asylum.
If you consider the Israelis and their Republican enablers 'sane' on this, then the patients are running the asylum.
Watch it. Islam teaches to lie for Islam, which can be anything unfortunately.
1
It takes guts to follow a path when there is much opposition around us. I'm not comparing this achievement with those of MLK, but MLK took a very dangerous approach to achieve his goals and it cost him his life. His approach was the right one. In this case I agree that the US needs to negotiate and stop attempting to bully the world. I think we need to go further and stop arming other countries. We are still feeding the fighting machine.
4
Since we know from experience that Iran and its people, "death to America" can't be trusted and when they get their hands on the Atomic Bombs they want they will use them to eliminate their "enemies", first being Israel, and then try to take full control of of the Middle East it seems prudent for all of the other nations in the Middle East to quickly develop their own nuclear weapons to prevent that from happening.
1
This was great news. Makes me proud of the US again to have educated rational secure adults in charge.
And why is that the GOP will bemoan this as not being tough with Iran when they ant be tough with The Donald ?
And why is that the GOP will bemoan this as not being tough with Iran when they ant be tough with The Donald ?
7
For a concise yet penetrating summary of the P5 1/Iran agreement, go to
http://www.timesofisrael.com/16-reasons-nuke-deal-is-an-iranian-victory-...
The article was written by David Horovitz, a thoughtful, politically moderate Israeli journalist.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/16-reasons-nuke-deal-is-an-iranian-victory-...
The article was written by David Horovitz, a thoughtful, politically moderate Israeli journalist.
So the next 'hurdle' for this 'momentous deal' is thought to be Congress? Wishful thinking, mates. The REAL hurdle is Iran's unelected, unaccountable, all powerful Supreme Leader, who may not look much like Superman but can just as easily clobber all agreements with a single 'No'.
So let's stop being fooled. We are in the position of putting complete trust in a character who's so far shown himself to be about as trustworthy as Singapore is likely to be snowbound. Jes' sayin', as we say down heah in the South.
So let's stop being fooled. We are in the position of putting complete trust in a character who's so far shown himself to be about as trustworthy as Singapore is likely to be snowbound. Jes' sayin', as we say down heah in the South.
1
Amazing!
American taxpayers send billions of dollars to israel every year and what do we get in return?
They try to influence our Presidential elections and influence every member of Congress with campaign contributions by the lobbyists of AIPAC!
Enough!
American taxpayers send billions of dollars to israel every year and what do we get in return?
They try to influence our Presidential elections and influence every member of Congress with campaign contributions by the lobbyists of AIPAC!
Enough!
9
...and when Israel is a smoking crater, what will we say about this 'deal'? Obama has ignored Congress and insisted on getting in bed with the homicidal maniacs who run Iran. Their CONSTITUTION calls for the obliteration of Israel.
15 YEARS to get rid of 98% of their nuclear stockpile? Obama (and you Democrats) make me laugh.
15 YEARS to get rid of 98% of their nuclear stockpile? Obama (and you Democrats) make me laugh.
3
Do you *actually* think Iran would develop a nuke or two then actually use it on Israel even though they know it would mean their own total destruction?
This is absurd - and it rests on real hypocrisy, if not racism.
Israel can be trusted to have hundreds of nukes, for sure, because Jews are good and rational - while the Muslim Persians are so irrational they want to destroy Israel no matter what.
It's nonsense.
This is absurd - and it rests on real hypocrisy, if not racism.
Israel can be trusted to have hundreds of nukes, for sure, because Jews are good and rational - while the Muslim Persians are so irrational they want to destroy Israel no matter what.
It's nonsense.
This is great! Now the focus of the next 15 years should be on creating a relationship in which Iran will have no need or temptation to attack the west - this is not so far-fetched. If the Iranian people realise that we are reasonable and good partners, they will not support governments whose objective is to fight the West ...
5
Congratulations to President Obama and the world leaders who made this possible. Diplomacy is hard and the results may be imperfect, but this is far better than the war our republican legislators have been advocating so shamelessly.
7
Great, now how about an international deal on the REAL threats to the planet: global warming and dying oceans?
Or would that be too onerous on business?
Or would that be too onerous on business?
2
SO Obama earned his Nobel Peace Prize after all.
8
What a great achievement to finally bring the secret nuclear power's 300 warheads into the open, accept IAEA inspections, and finally ratify the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Oh wait, this deal was with Iran, not with Israel.
Oh wait, this deal was with Iran, not with Israel.
2
It is inconceivable that we came out of this "deal" without a guarantee that Amir Hekmati is on his way home. Just a complete disgrace.
2
It's a better bet that Iran keeps its side of the agreement than America will honor it without some nefarious CIA effort. That's not cynicism, that's merely history repeating itself. Unless the next President is a Democrat we will go to war just to make sure the Republican profiteers get their take. And Fox News will bring along a solid 40% of the population. Follow the money, that's the only way to follow the endless war that will carry on no matter what comes of these nuke issues. Oh, and watch the Senator from Israel wag the dog too. A little more peace for now is a very good thing. And a very fragile thing.
2
This is a truly historic turning point and all the credit should go to President Obama who has persevered despite outrageous warmongering by irrational opponents.
It is far better to give even a rogue state a chance to join the community of civilized nations than to try to bomb it into submission.
We tried that with Afghanistan and Iraq and look where it got us.
Even if this deal eventually unravels, the whole world now knows the US tried its best. This is a day to be proud of being American.
It is far better to give even a rogue state a chance to join the community of civilized nations than to try to bomb it into submission.
We tried that with Afghanistan and Iraq and look where it got us.
Even if this deal eventually unravels, the whole world now knows the US tried its best. This is a day to be proud of being American.
5
Thats right. The warmonger Republicans are always wrong and do nothing but create suffering for Americans and the world. Now Americans must ensure a warmonger Republican is not elected POTUS. If Americans are stupid enough to elect a do nothing, warmonger Republican, they will surely dismantle this progress.
It doesn't sound like a great deal...but it's a whole lot better than no deal at all. I hope the lifting of sanctions does enough to boost the welfare of the Iranian people that we spend more time intertwining our economies and family lives, and less time rattling sabers at one another.
Well done, Secretary Kerry.
Well done, Secretary Kerry.
2
The agreement looks toward the future and looks toward Iran becoming integrated with a world from which it's been apart. When Nixon went to China, there was not the issue of state-sponsored terrorism, which we in America have labeled on Iran. There was not the issue of Israel, joined at the hip to the GOP and many Democrats in states with large Jewish populations. There was not Islam-phobic thinking. I suspect Americans have less accurate information about Iran and Iranians than existed with China. It's not Mr. Obama's style to sell this deal to Americans. Its public opinion fate will be in the hands of the media (shudder) but also in the hands of Iran which could do a lot fewer "death to America" outbursts and show that it also desires to inch closer to America and the world from which it's been isolated.
2
Ever since Obama made clear his preference for a compromise-based I/P peace, the Likud and AIPAC types here have considered him a sworn enemy of Israel. What exactly was their expectation, that insulting him at every turn would induce him to see things on Iran the way they do?
10
The American people's voting this appeaser Obama into office has been a disgrace. It has damaged Israel and hence the US - Israeli relationship beyond belief, as Netanyahu has quite correctly pointed out. Hopefully they will have enough common sense next time around to vote for a more pro-Israel president.
2
There is no strategic reason to continue to be 100% in agreement with Israel on all Mideast issues. Some distance between the allies is natural and in the long wrong in our best interest.
This deal has several weaknesses.
- Lifting the arms embargo. Why do that? Of course China and Russia want to sell arms to Iran. Was it necessary to get them onboard? Lifting the arms embargo is foolish.
- Snap back is baloney. Once things have changed and Russia and China are actively engaged selling arms, and large corporations are getting back into Iran, there is not going to be any "snap back". The will to do it will be lost at that point.
- Lack of completely uninhibited and unrestricted surprise inspections. Given their past history its a solid bet that Iran will cheat on this agreement
A deal could have been reached but not under these conditions.
- Lifting the arms embargo. Why do that? Of course China and Russia want to sell arms to Iran. Was it necessary to get them onboard? Lifting the arms embargo is foolish.
- Snap back is baloney. Once things have changed and Russia and China are actively engaged selling arms, and large corporations are getting back into Iran, there is not going to be any "snap back". The will to do it will be lost at that point.
- Lack of completely uninhibited and unrestricted surprise inspections. Given their past history its a solid bet that Iran will cheat on this agreement
A deal could have been reached but not under these conditions.
3
What were the choices -- letting Iran build a weapon and then wage a war (if we can), over a peaceful resolution that controls the outcome. John Kerry and team have done an outstanding job. Finally President Obama has accomplished a series of successes that few presidents can have in their second term. The world will one day recognize this brave effort regardless of what some other countries claim the deal to be.
8
Next stop, congress? That's sad. Those relative rubes...
2
Frist Cuban rum & cigars
now
Iranian caviar
Sybarites across the nation have even more to celebrate this Bastille Day!
To all the naysayers~ nothing is perfect.
Negotiation means compromise - each side gives up something.
(Something too many have forgotten)
Agree with those pointing to Nixon goes to China.
The world is better for this.
now
Iranian caviar
Sybarites across the nation have even more to celebrate this Bastille Day!
To all the naysayers~ nothing is perfect.
Negotiation means compromise - each side gives up something.
(Something too many have forgotten)
Agree with those pointing to Nixon goes to China.
The world is better for this.
5
Nuclear weapons will be acquired by those who can afford or not ( North Korea) what ever we can do , we cannot stop this negative outcome.
Number reason is the technology of developing nuclear weapons is not overwhelming anymore, this is not 1950's.
We all know that whomever attempt to use Nuclear weapon will also pay huge toll. Unless it will escalates a world wide warfare.
Nuclear proliferation is inevitable, if so bringing the Nuclear weapons under the audits control is essential if not vital.
Today ,all intelligence agencies are in high alert because terrorist can have a dirty bomb, lets get address the real issue, a nation cannot hide but terrorist can.
Number reason is the technology of developing nuclear weapons is not overwhelming anymore, this is not 1950's.
We all know that whomever attempt to use Nuclear weapon will also pay huge toll. Unless it will escalates a world wide warfare.
Nuclear proliferation is inevitable, if so bringing the Nuclear weapons under the audits control is essential if not vital.
Today ,all intelligence agencies are in high alert because terrorist can have a dirty bomb, lets get address the real issue, a nation cannot hide but terrorist can.
When the world is faced with nuclear jihadists, remember to thank a Democrat.
3
Just another example of Obama's standard method of dealing with foreign adversaries: Surrender.
(and let others suffer with the mess that results)
(and let others suffer with the mess that results)
3
Really??? What does Bush have to show for after invading Afghanistan and Iraq?
1
Bush left Obama an orderly Iraq, on the way to stable democracy. But Obama had to be a hero to his left wing and "end the war" by not renegotiating the Status of Forces Agreement in 2011. The result? ISIS filled the vacuum, unleashing chaos.
But, that's not relevant now. "What does Bus have to show" is not an excuse for surrendering to Iran. Even if Obama (and you) think so. And I notice you don't deny that we surrendered to Iran on this.
But, that's not relevant now. "What does Bus have to show" is not an excuse for surrendering to Iran. Even if Obama (and you) think so. And I notice you don't deny that we surrendered to Iran on this.
Netanyahu is ticked because he couldn't get us to fight a war for him. Well too bad! He controls most of the congress so he can still sour this deal by demanding that his minions in Congress attach poison pills to the deal forcing the President of the United States to veto the bill. Such shenanigans will give the Iranians justification to pull out of the agreement. Thus leading to the war that Israel and the GOP so desperately want. These folks make me sick.
13
Netanyahu controls American congress? How? Jewish Americans are patriots they think of America first bibi later. If they don't then they are welcome to move to Israel.
1
Once again the lunatic liberal left takes the path of least resistance. What a disaster this is for the world. All this is is aiding and abetting a bitter enemy who is ruled by religious fanatics. Congrats to President Obama for making the world that much more unsafe. Idiot!
3
All we are sayin' is give peace a chance.
1
I worry about a) after ten years they WILL build and deploy nuclear weapons, along with the entire MidEast, and b) zero chance the IAEA will catch even the most blatant move toward a weapon.
But I can understand the Iranian negotiator's joy at getting the sanctions lifted.
But I can understand the Iranian negotiator's joy at getting the sanctions lifted.
2
When is Netanyahu going to get it his incalcitrance just perpetuates business as usual? Unfortunately he is blind to an unprecedented opportunity to re mythologize the victim narrative and support a hopeful paradigm.
According to conservative critics, all attempts at diplomacy are equivalent to Chamberlain's actions on the eve of WWII, and reckless military adventurism is the ONLY plausible foreign policy.
8
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
1
An autocratic theocracy is, and will forever be, an autocratic dictatorship hiding behind religion. This "deal" is another opportunity for Iran to brag about what they got from the Great Satan and also an opportunity to do what North Korea's been doing for years: get economic sanctions lifted, continue to build up their terrorism and military.
Also, you would think the least America could get back from making so many concessions would be our hostages over there, wouldn't you?
Also, you would think the least America could get back from making so many concessions would be our hostages over there, wouldn't you?
2
Netanyahu didn't get his way? The tears and whining will double fold now. Good. It is nice to see the USA isn't always the lapdog of Israel.
10
Obama stands head and shoulders above those cynical pessimists so rampant in American politics. If the rest of us had any brains at all we'd get a constitutional amendment through in time to re-elect The Man. We have a precedence for running hard and long with a great president, in FDR. We could do it again (but admittedly not likely at all). It's just that the thought is so nice.
1
When have the Republicans or Netanyahu been right about anything related to foreign policy? These people don't want peace. Their political existence depends on keeping people sacred and on a constant war footing.
11
We can't all be as right as Barack Obama was about the Middle East when he:
Declared Iraq free, self-reliant and stable;
Drew a red line in Syria to stop Assad's slaughter;
Called Yemen a model of his foreign policy;
Insisted that the Benghazi attacks were caused by a You Tube video;
Called ISIS the "JV team"
Sorry, I'm going to go with Netanyahu and the GOP on this one.
Declared Iraq free, self-reliant and stable;
Drew a red line in Syria to stop Assad's slaughter;
Called Yemen a model of his foreign policy;
Insisted that the Benghazi attacks were caused by a You Tube video;
Called ISIS the "JV team"
Sorry, I'm going to go with Netanyahu and the GOP on this one.
1
[The Israeli defense minister, Moshe Yaalon, issued a warning on Monday as the deal appeared imminent. “Obviously we are going to have to continue to prepare to defend ourselves by ourselves,” he said.]
With United States' Tax Payer's money.
With United States' Tax Payer's money.
6
Today in middle east , we see only ISIS mentality.
ISIS is exist because Saudi regime is behind it , with money, politics and alliances.
Israel is tacitly okay with ISIS. Who knows how Israel is helping Saudi's which eventually benefiting the ISIS.
Thanks to Obama stand against these two allies, which they long abuse our power and influence with their lobbyists.
It is time to bring humanity in the land of death , Middle East.
ISIS is exist because Saudi regime is behind it , with money, politics and alliances.
Israel is tacitly okay with ISIS. Who knows how Israel is helping Saudi's which eventually benefiting the ISIS.
Thanks to Obama stand against these two allies, which they long abuse our power and influence with their lobbyists.
It is time to bring humanity in the land of death , Middle East.
3
Does the agreement contain language that Israel has the right to exist?
Does it contain language that the USA has the right to exist?
Based on comments and protests in Iran I assume not.
So we are willing to give away the farm to a country that wishes us dead. How nice of us.
Does it contain language that the USA has the right to exist?
Based on comments and protests in Iran I assume not.
So we are willing to give away the farm to a country that wishes us dead. How nice of us.
4
The USA has a right to exist? We need someone to confirm that??
You do understand that this language is totally alien to our politics and our geopolitical situation?
But just keep on viewing American politics through the Israeli lens. You won't succeed in putting us in the prison that Israel has built for itself with its failed occupation.
You do understand that this language is totally alien to our politics and our geopolitical situation?
But just keep on viewing American politics through the Israeli lens. You won't succeed in putting us in the prison that Israel has built for itself with its failed occupation.
How does this deal avert a Middle Eastern arms race when the other Middle Eastern countries have no expectation the deal will be honored?
4
John Lennon of the Beatles wrote his timeless song 1969 which applies to all of the vociferous critics of this deal and those who hate all things Obama.
"Let me tell you now
Ev'rybody's talking about
Revolution, evolution, masturbation,
Flagellation, regulation, integration,
Meditation, United Nations,
Congratulations.
All we are saying is give peace a chance,
All we are saying is give peace a chance."
When the GOP comes up with a better idea, I will listen, but it will probablyly be from my grave.
"Let me tell you now
Ev'rybody's talking about
Revolution, evolution, masturbation,
Flagellation, regulation, integration,
Meditation, United Nations,
Congratulations.
All we are saying is give peace a chance,
All we are saying is give peace a chance."
When the GOP comes up with a better idea, I will listen, but it will probablyly be from my grave.
5
There will be peace in our time. Thank you Sir.
5
I may well be wrong. But I would say we should treat Iran as an ally.
Regardless of what the possibly incoming Joint Chiefs of Staff says, Russia is not our enemy. We beat them, unnecessarily so when Soviet Union broke up. They are not very humane. That's that.
We should treat ISIS/Daesh as our real enemy. Without allying with Iran, it's impossible. Daesh is an offshoot of Wahhabism. There's a natural affinity with each other. Mecca maybe in Saudi Arabia but Wahhabism is a distorted radical version of Islam. Daesh is still more extreme. Whereas Shia Muslim is more moderate.
Unfortunately, Ayatollah Khomeini established his theocracy in Iran based on purely radical ideology. Now Iran is CLOSE to a TIPPING POINT of going back to the Persian Culture. We should take advantage of that.
Gorbachev wasn't Stalin. Treating him as Stalin was another blunder we made, as invading Iraq.
So a thorough revision of our attitude towards Iran is indispensable. (After Khomeini helped to win Ronald Reagan I was intensely against Iran, the nation.)
Regardless of what the possibly incoming Joint Chiefs of Staff says, Russia is not our enemy. We beat them, unnecessarily so when Soviet Union broke up. They are not very humane. That's that.
We should treat ISIS/Daesh as our real enemy. Without allying with Iran, it's impossible. Daesh is an offshoot of Wahhabism. There's a natural affinity with each other. Mecca maybe in Saudi Arabia but Wahhabism is a distorted radical version of Islam. Daesh is still more extreme. Whereas Shia Muslim is more moderate.
Unfortunately, Ayatollah Khomeini established his theocracy in Iran based on purely radical ideology. Now Iran is CLOSE to a TIPPING POINT of going back to the Persian Culture. We should take advantage of that.
Gorbachev wasn't Stalin. Treating him as Stalin was another blunder we made, as invading Iraq.
So a thorough revision of our attitude towards Iran is indispensable. (After Khomeini helped to win Ronald Reagan I was intensely against Iran, the nation.)
6
The Ayatollah is the supreme leader, what he says goes in Iran. He states over and over that America is their enemy, that Israel must be wiped out. And he is a religious fanatic. And, no one from the west has actually dealt directly with him!!
He'll just tell his people to find another mountain (they have plenty of them), dig another deep tunnel, and get to work building the bomb. And he will praise God that Obama is president.
He'll just tell his people to find another mountain (they have plenty of them), dig another deep tunnel, and get to work building the bomb. And he will praise God that Obama is president.
5
".....and he [Ayatollah] is a religious fanatic. "
So are the people governing Israel. They are not just religious fanatics, they are religious fanatics running an Apartheid state!
So are the people governing Israel. They are not just religious fanatics, they are religious fanatics running an Apartheid state!
To those who think any deal is a good deal, you really need to study your history:
This deal would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. Iran will have more money to continue covertly acquiring conventional weapons, and in 8 years, won't even have to be covert about it. They can also violate the nuclear terms of the deal, knowing that by the time they are caught they will be no more than a few months from being able to produce nuclear weapons.
There's a reason the rest of the Middle East, not just Israel, knows this is a bad idea.
This deal would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. Iran will have more money to continue covertly acquiring conventional weapons, and in 8 years, won't even have to be covert about it. They can also violate the nuclear terms of the deal, knowing that by the time they are caught they will be no more than a few months from being able to produce nuclear weapons.
There's a reason the rest of the Middle East, not just Israel, knows this is a bad idea.
4
For a President whose narcissism knows no bounds, his comments to Democrat Senators on this fatally flawed agreement tell as all that we need to know. He seems more worried about his "legacy" rather than what is good for the security of the United States and the world. Sadly, should this agreement survive Congress, his "legacy" will be written the the blood of many around the world subjugated (and perhaps worse) by a nuclear-armed Iran.
4
This deal is based on 'verification and not trust'. What happens when Iran breaks the agreement? What recourse is there, a slap on the wrist?
Only time will tell and then it maybe too late. Many lives will be lost.
This administration is naive.
Only time will tell and then it maybe too late. Many lives will be lost.
This administration is naive.
4
If we were able to negotiate a successful nuclear arms treaty with Russia during height of the Cold war who was and some would daresay still is our sworn enemy why couldn't we do the same with Iran. I'm glad that cooler heads prevailed because it easy to go to war over a pretext i.e. Iraq. This deal can provide a framework to work with Iran on mutual interests like containing and defeating ISIS who is our true enemy in the region. This deal was in Iran's best interests which needed to stabilize their currency and offload their oil to thirsty Western markets. The true calculus of this deal was their oil reserves which second behind Saudi Arabia which will keep our thirsty SUVs going for years to come.
Peace in our time.
Neville
Neville
3
Congratulations to Obama and Kerry. Another major accomplishment in his term!
7
Hurray for sanity and reason! The losers in this deal have been those who won't acknowledge the West's history with interfering in Iran because of the Cold War and oil. Oh, and let's not forget how the West has failed to understand the Sunni-Shi'a divide--which has no Western solution through military intervention...why is it the West continues to march against historical truth and facts! The President's grade on this effort is definitely an "A".
3
Obama acknowledged the fact that Iran isn't the real source of instability in the region nor US's main enemy; if anything Iran actually is the most sane, most stable country in the middle east. In fact the main goal of this agreement beside preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, is to hopefully change the behavior of Iran and to engage Iran to cooperate in stabilizing the region like the cooperation Iran and US had in defeating Taliban. Does entering Iran in the international community and giving it more power makes it more responsible? how could US rely on its enemy of 35 years to do so? Obama administration have had very fine investigations on Iranian power hierarchy, Iranian youth population, Iran leaders' motivations and perspectives, … to come to the conclusion that in fact they can expect these outcomes from today's agreement. I think this shows vision and having sympathy with your enemy in foreign policy, the same sympathy and vision Kennedy had when dealing with Russia nuclear crisis , the same sympathy and vision Johnson didn't have when causing Vietnam war.
3
I believe President Obama misspoke 48 seconds into his statement.
He said: "Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran's key nuclear facilities.
Iran* will have access to Iran's entire nuclear supply chain. . . "
At * surely he meant to say "Inspectors will have access . . ." not "Iran." Has a clarification to that statement been issued?
He said: "Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran's key nuclear facilities.
Iran* will have access to Iran's entire nuclear supply chain. . . "
At * surely he meant to say "Inspectors will have access . . ." not "Iran." Has a clarification to that statement been issued?
2
He did not mis-speak
In his own words President Obama today said that this agreement did not meet what his framework and red line was.
In his statement we will be allowed access to KEY nuke facilities. That translates to NOT ALL nuke facilities. I may not be a Harvard lawyer but even I can figure that one out.
Typical Clinton speak --- it depends on what the definition of is is.
In his own words President Obama today said that this agreement did not meet what his framework and red line was.
In his statement we will be allowed access to KEY nuke facilities. That translates to NOT ALL nuke facilities. I may not be a Harvard lawyer but even I can figure that one out.
Typical Clinton speak --- it depends on what the definition of is is.
That was just Obama being unconsciously truthful--the only kind of truth we will ever get from him.
If Iran's regime had ANY history , at all, of being trustworthy or believable, this might be a good idea. But it doesn't. This is about as useful as coming to an agreement with a rattlesnake, not to bite you. He is going to bite you anyway.
4
What so many critics of this agreement have and will overlook is that without an agreement of some kind, Iran would have continued its efforts to create nuclear weapons unabated. The sanctions hurt the Iranian people which is why they even agreed to negotiate, but they were not, preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. If this agreement buys the world a ten year respite in Iran's efforts to create nuclear weapons and gives the US and its allies that much time to forge a less hostile relationships and to establish economic ties that the Iranian people will value then it will be worth it. If the Iranians cheat, all the options the US had yesterday will still remain.
Reagan didn't win the Cold War by refusing to negotiate with the Soviet Union. He won it by opening up a dialogue with their government and establishing economic inroads.
Reagan didn't win the Cold War by refusing to negotiate with the Soviet Union. He won it by opening up a dialogue with their government and establishing economic inroads.
3
"Reagan didn't win the Cold War " period. Te USSR went broke trying to keep up with the USA in armaments and Gorbachev came along ended the cold war.
The part at the end irks me. Why are we still allies with Saudi Arabia? We label Iran a "state sponsor of terror"? While Iran has surely funded regional groups with regional aims, Saudi Arabia has consistently been the biggest sponsor of international terrorist activity. Before the late King passed away, he derided his cabinet for turning a blind eye to it.
We should be seeking better relations with Iran, to placate them and get them off Israels back, and we should be ratcheting up the pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop supporting groups like ISIS and AQ.
We should be seeking better relations with Iran, to placate them and get them off Israels back, and we should be ratcheting up the pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop supporting groups like ISIS and AQ.
8
In his own words President Obama today said that this agreement did not meet what his framework and red line was.
In his statement we will be allowed access to KEY nuke facilities. That translates to NOT ALL nuke facilities. I may not be a Harvard lawyer but even I can figure that one out.
Typical Clinton speak --- it depends on what the definition of is is.
In his statement we will be allowed access to KEY nuke facilities. That translates to NOT ALL nuke facilities. I may not be a Harvard lawyer but even I can figure that one out.
Typical Clinton speak --- it depends on what the definition of is is.
3
The fly in the ointment here is Netanyahu’s Likud dominated government brazenly continuing to ignore UN resolutions concerning their illegal land grab policies in West Bank settlements and the veritable strangulation, siege, and starvation of Gaza, shirking world opinion. They doggedly persist in the execution of these policies, emboldened by intractable US support, even though it is clearly stoking the fires of bitter entrenched hatred amongst the palestinians and arabs at large spanning generations. Israel is effectively a hegemonistic colonizer and a brutal occupation force having no right to exist, yet incredibly insisting on being formerly recognized as such. And the duplicitousness of its Prime Minister to attack an agreement with Iran to restrict its atomic energy program to peaceful objectives when Israel itself has a covert arsenal of at least 200 nuclear weapons, won’t sign the NPT and refuses to join the IAEA is beyond the pale. This dogged treachery and arrogance is the driving force behind the Hamas missle attacks and Iran´s push for nuclear weapons, no question.
11
How does the writer know how many nuclear weapons Israel has? Good of him to admit that Israel has no right to exist - then of course the Iran deal makes sense.
re "Good of him to admit that Israel has no right to exist"
It's not a matter of being "good" ... Israel clearly has no right to exist as effectively a hegemonistic colonizer and a brutal occupation force, no question.
It's not a matter of being "good" ... Israel clearly has no right to exist as effectively a hegemonistic colonizer and a brutal occupation force, no question.
1
Boy did we get taken. We couldn't even get the journalist imprisoned in Iran out for this. We can't even protect our own border, we blundered before 9/11 (Clinton failed to take out Osama when he could); Obama's Arab Spring turn into an Arab trickle and now the world has AtomicObama made possible by his desire to assure his place in history with that other appeaser.
5
Arnie...the Marine Corps wants you and your fellow Fox groupies today. Don't waste a minute..enlist now...the Israeli's need you to fight and die for the sake of God's Chosen People now. ISIS may just give-up knowing that you and Generals Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity will be parachuting in with fixed bayonets. Tell the US Mint to start making the scores of thousands of Medals of Honor required to honor the heroics of you and your tribe.... Warriors. Patriots. Well-Regulated Militiamen. True American Flag Lapel Pin Heroes.
Who was president on 9/11 and who invaded Iraq?
I am one of the editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and one thing I have noticed in all the media coverage is that everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that Iran will continue to be under tight financial restrictions by the outside world for a l-o-n-g time. This means that they will NOT have the money to spend on arming militias, propping up Syria etcetera, despite what some right-wingers have been saying. The financial stuff is really technical and detailed, but the Bulletins' Aaron Arnold gave what I thought was a stellar explanation in his story "How to Know if Iran Breaks Its Word: Financial Monitoring" http://thebulletin.org/how-know-if-iran-breaks-its-word-financial-monito... (Full disclosure: I was his editor on this piece and others he's done on the topic, so I may be biased in his favor!) :-)
9
Thank you for noting this about proliferation-related finance. There have been many experts involved beyond the diplomats.
Secretary Ernest Moniz's role in this agreement as well as the IAEA and other scientists is part of why I have confidence that this is a major accomplishment.
Secretary Ernest Moniz's role in this agreement as well as the IAEA and other scientists is part of why I have confidence that this is a major accomplishment.
From everything I have read bombing Iran (without a full scale invasion of years) only delays them from developing nuclear weapons by several years and takes diplomacy off the table for good. It also blows the door wide open for full scale war in the middle east involving at the least the US, Iran, Israel, and most likely Russia. Of all the people screaming bomb, bomb, bomb I have a strong suspicion that maybe 1% will actually enlist when that happens and 0% have any other viable option.
9
Now if we could just get Israel to give up the nuclear weapons it already has, because Iran certainly sees them as a threat to its existence, things would be even better.
18
Please elaborate. Has Israel ever, and I mean ever announced that it wants to wipe anyone in the world off the face of the map. Have they ever threatened to destroy an entire people. No, that would be Iran. Where do you people come from and do you have any sense of reality???
Iran is one of the most ancient civilizations in the world, along with China, Greece, and Egypt. Like each of those, its cultural and political history has fluctuated over the millennia; and like every mature society, the qualities that made it a civilization in the first place survive, even thrive, despite any long, slow ebb and flow on the world scene.
The Iranian people in general have long been highly cultured and educated -- in contrast to many of their formerly nomadic neighbors (they themselves are Indo-Aryans, not Arabic Semites) and others in the Islamic world across Asia. Their own experience with religious fundamentalism that overran their secular nation in 1979 might even be a valuable lesson for the U.S., as we face religious Christian fundamentalists in their unrelenting assault on our own secular freedoms.
There is a great deal we can gain from open relations with the great nation of Iran, if we approach them in a spirit of respect and even friendship rather than with the arrogance that has characterized our foreign policy for much of the past 35 years. Let's hope that the right-wing, Israel-uber-alles meddlers in and out of Congress don't succeed in undermining this agreement.
The Iranian people in general have long been highly cultured and educated -- in contrast to many of their formerly nomadic neighbors (they themselves are Indo-Aryans, not Arabic Semites) and others in the Islamic world across Asia. Their own experience with religious fundamentalism that overran their secular nation in 1979 might even be a valuable lesson for the U.S., as we face religious Christian fundamentalists in their unrelenting assault on our own secular freedoms.
There is a great deal we can gain from open relations with the great nation of Iran, if we approach them in a spirit of respect and even friendship rather than with the arrogance that has characterized our foreign policy for much of the past 35 years. Let's hope that the right-wing, Israel-uber-alles meddlers in and out of Congress don't succeed in undermining this agreement.
9
Well stated. If we want to be world leaders, we must step out of the dog-pit of conflict politics and bring Iran back to a more modernist role in the Middle East. This is the first step forward, proving complex diplomacy can achieve what thousands of lives and trillions of dollars cannot.
Let us carefully consider the motives of those who will argue against this historic agreement.
Let us carefully consider the motives of those who will argue against this historic agreement.
Ancient Persia and its history are certainly separate from that of the Arab nations.
When 9/11 happened, there were thousands of Iranians in the streets supporting the U.S. and the victims. In some of the Arab nations then, children danced in the streets in glee due to the terrorism.
When 9/11 happened, there were thousands of Iranians in the streets supporting the U.S. and the victims. In some of the Arab nations then, children danced in the streets in glee due to the terrorism.
That Nobel Peace Prize is at least partially deserved.
7
And right away, here comes Netanyahu to say how terrible this is. I just wish he he would shut up for once.
11
Meh. We plebes are only afforded the 'approved for distribution' parameters. The real deals done will never be released.
Several commenters herein wonder why there's no input from regional nations already engaged, in whatever manner, with Iran. If one thinks for a bit, the answer comes to you.
Several commenters herein wonder why there's no input from regional nations already engaged, in whatever manner, with Iran. If one thinks for a bit, the answer comes to you.
1
Having met and known a few Iranians (Persians?) in the U.S. over the last 40 years, some young professionals, I can only feel relief, and celebratory over this. Excellent, wonderful people deserve this. Think of the protest marches in Iran a year or 2 ago.
6
What seems to be forgotten is that a valuable lesson of history is being ignored. The failed attempt by President Carter in 1979 or thereabouts to rescue the embassy hostages amply illustration how geographically difficult and foolhardy it would be and in cost in lives and treasure to mount a successful military action against Iran. One Iraq is enough!
4
Now, contrast what just happened with the Iran deal with the shameful process that just went on in Brussels involving Greece, in which the Germans displayed their exquisite skills at diplomacy and compromise with a "My way or the highway" performance.
3
Obama did not read the White House memo.
He was supposed to get a deal that would leave the Middle East in peace, not "pieces."
Epic fail by a failed president with no clue about foreign policy.
He was supposed to get a deal that would leave the Middle East in peace, not "pieces."
Epic fail by a failed president with no clue about foreign policy.
6
Did you read the whole 100+ page agreement alreday?
How about the classified annexes?
Or are you just taking a total SWAG? Got any facts? (Oh, I forgot, righties never worry about facts ... )
How about the classified annexes?
Or are you just taking a total SWAG? Got any facts? (Oh, I forgot, righties never worry about facts ... )
Yes, new tricks are tough for old partisan dogs. Go back to the master who feeds you.
And no clue about anything else that would in any way benefit the people of the United States. Every time I think we have hit rock bottom with our elected officials, the bottom breaks away only to reveal a whole new bottom. The latest bunch of politicos vying for their parties' presidential nominations have already proven that there is no one in the mix fit for the job. But then the only thing politicians are interested in these days is feathering his own nests--invariably at the expense of We the People. Jeez I'm depressed.
It is ironic, maybe puzzling, that with the exception of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and the state of Israel, the entire world, including all our western European allies, Russia and China, and Pope Francis, are applauding this agreement.
7
Since the deal is a UN deal not a treaty with US and Iran the only thing the US Senate can do is maliciously interfere in order to block an achievement by President Obama. The accord will be supported by the vast majority of Americans so this will once again offer an opportunity for the Congress to show how out of touch it is with America. King Salman's bloody criminal war in Yemen will continue to have US support. And the US once again will say the stale nonsense about how Iran is behind the Yemeni war. But this is a great day for President Obama and Iran.
7
"Mr. Obama will also have to manage the breach with Mr.Netanyahu..."
I hope he doesn't expend a lot of time and energy on that.
I hope he doesn't expend a lot of time and energy on that.
26
If the Iranians actually adhere to the terms of this agreement after they get their frozen assets back, new trade agreements, etc. then it should give Saudia Arabia sufficient time to build its own nuclear capacity to match Iran's over the next 10 to 15 years. I guess the Obama administration and the State Department think of that as a good thing.
1
Why is it that with nuclear weapons it's always the case that they (not us) are the bad guy, and we're the good guy. Aren't we the ones who used the atomic bomb not once but twice? How does our absurd surfeit of nuclear weapons make us the good guy?
6
The U.S. was the sole nuclear power for a period of 10 years in the 40's and 50's and had sole capability to launch intercontinental nuclear missiles for 15 years (until the USSR caught up). Yet the US used the bomb only twice against Japan (it would have been once had Japan surrendered after Hiroshima) and that was to end WWII. The U.S. has had thermonuclear weapons for 50 years and has never used them. Do you think for one second that Iran, if it had been the sole nuclear power for 20 years, that it would have been self-restrained against its enemies in the middle east and abroad? The answer to that question (clearly not) answers your question why Iran isn't entitled to equal treatment.
What would you have done if you were Truman?
How exactly did Obama twist the Constitutional requirement that 2/3rds of the Senate approve a treaty into a requirement that it takes 2/3rds of both houses to reject a treaty?
We don't know much about this agreement so it's impossible to know whether it deserves support but starting out with a clear and egregious constitutional violation doesn't bode well for the rest.
We don't know much about this agreement so it's impossible to know whether it deserves support but starting out with a clear and egregious constitutional violation doesn't bode well for the rest.
2
"How exactly did Obama twist the Constitutional requirement that 2/3rds of the Senate approve a treaty into a requirement that it takes 2/3rds of both houses to reject a treaty?"....It was easy really. The Congress run by Republicans knows that the agreement is a good idea, but they don't want to have to vote for anything Obama does. Therefore they agreed to a vote that requires 2/3 to over ride a veto. That way the agreement will pass, but they make Obama use a veto, and they can tell there constituents they voted against it. If in fact they really really were against the agreement they would have required a 2/3 vote in favor.
3
Shame on the U.S. Congress for refusing to yield to a dictator and perform their constitutional duties.
It's not a treaty.
Too many members of Congress had rather wave the flag, and send more of other people's children to war again.
17
It seems really good that this agreement has been reached by peace. But, as I know how the US works and achieves it's goals internationally, I don't believe that government tells us everything they know and want. Everything seems legit, but there're too many discrepancies in their Middle East policy.
I don't usually quote from Wikipedia, but:
The phrase "Peace for Our Time" was spoken on 30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration. The phrase echoed Benjamin Disraeli, who upon returning from the Congress of Berlin in 1878 stated "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time."
The phrase "Peace for Our Time" was spoken on 30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration. The phrase echoed Benjamin Disraeli, who upon returning from the Congress of Berlin in 1878 stated "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time."
1
The only alternative that the opponents of this deal can muster is war, war, and more war. I say let them sign their children up.
Congratulations to President Obama and his negotiating team.
Congratulations to President Obama and his negotiating team.
11
Now let's see how long it takes Netanyahu to screw it up.
12
He will bluster, but I think he will be about as effective as his speech before Congress was. That was an absurd theatrical event intended to bolster his election prospects in Israel, and he would up with a one seat majority in a very fractious coalition. The more he talks, the bigger the problem he generates for himself.
Iran originally got much of it's technology from the US when we were allies, either directly or through US-educated Iranian scientists... the same way Pakistan and Israel did, as Cold War US proxies. Now at least we are sowing seeds of negotiation and diplomacy, so that by the time Iran is truly a "nuclear threat" they will once more be our allies.
Pakistan is the one everyone should be worried about; but at least the military dictatorship keeps their nuclear weapons away from religious fanatics.
Pakistan is the one everyone should be worried about; but at least the military dictatorship keeps their nuclear weapons away from religious fanatics.
7
The timeline is now pretty clear. The end point is a GOP dominated congress hellbent on wresting any kind of control Obama exerts over the Iranian nuclear issue and confronting Iran with ultimatums inevitably leading to yet another war ... all at the behest of the vast industrial military complex Eisenhower warned the nation against over sixty years ago. The starting point is the duplicitous Israel attack on an agreement with Iran to restrict its atomic energy program to peaceful objectives when Israel itself has a covert arsenal of at least 200 nuclear weapons, won’t sign the NPT and refuses to join the IAEA. Connect the dots.
9
The most important question - in this and any other international agreement - is whether it serves the long-term interests of the United States of America.
That assessment encompasses factors beyond the simple measures of Iran's nuclear capabilities. But by far the greatest argument in its favor is that it represents culmination of the most credible process to date among the world's principal nuclear powers to stand united against the creation of another nuclear state. That encompasses both the imposition and generally effective enforcement of sanctions leading to the agreement, and the negotiation of the agreement itself with a difficult rogue entity.
Had such a process been forged and followed with Pakistan and India, in particular, the risk of access to nuclear weapons by rogue states and groups would have been substantially lower than it is today.
That assessment encompasses factors beyond the simple measures of Iran's nuclear capabilities. But by far the greatest argument in its favor is that it represents culmination of the most credible process to date among the world's principal nuclear powers to stand united against the creation of another nuclear state. That encompasses both the imposition and generally effective enforcement of sanctions leading to the agreement, and the negotiation of the agreement itself with a difficult rogue entity.
Had such a process been forged and followed with Pakistan and India, in particular, the risk of access to nuclear weapons by rogue states and groups would have been substantially lower than it is today.
6
70% of people in iran are under 30. they were born after 1979 'revolution'. the majority there want cell phones, western stuff, etc. the old guard knows this, and sees the writing on the teheran wall. the cons are still hate the idea that nixon did a treaty with russia, so they will automatically hate this without any idea whats in it. to the cons, its better to, in the words of president mccain, bomb bomb bomb iran, while laughing.
5
Already, of course, the right, in its search for the perfect instead of the workable, is condemning this attempt at international harm control. It's the same right wing that kept us out of the League of Nations at the end of World War l. The result was Hitler.
11
I wish we would amend the Constitution so that President Obama could seek a third term.
17
Why won’t the Administration share with the American public Iran’s nuclear weapons long-term plans? What are they hiding and what is Obama afraid of now?
The straw-man argument that Obama is trying to sell that it’s either this or an “unbridled” Iran is political baloney. The real options for Iran are sign a deal or get strangled with sanctions (assuming the US government is willing to lead on the sanctions.)
It’s true that, assuming Iran actually waits for 15 years (not at all likely) it’s possible they could have a change of heart, sing kumbayh with the Israelis and stop being the leading sponsor of terrorism on the planet; and Chris Christie could jump over the moon…
The truth is the devil is in the details, fully analyzed by experts with an eye on Iran’s previous behavior. We won’t know until that is done in an open and fair manner and that won’t happen if Obama has any way of preventing it. Secrecy – the new transparency. Words have flexible meanings for progressives.
This is all about Obama’s facade of a legacy.
The straw-man argument that Obama is trying to sell that it’s either this or an “unbridled” Iran is political baloney. The real options for Iran are sign a deal or get strangled with sanctions (assuming the US government is willing to lead on the sanctions.)
It’s true that, assuming Iran actually waits for 15 years (not at all likely) it’s possible they could have a change of heart, sing kumbayh with the Israelis and stop being the leading sponsor of terrorism on the planet; and Chris Christie could jump over the moon…
The truth is the devil is in the details, fully analyzed by experts with an eye on Iran’s previous behavior. We won’t know until that is done in an open and fair manner and that won’t happen if Obama has any way of preventing it. Secrecy – the new transparency. Words have flexible meanings for progressives.
This is all about Obama’s facade of a legacy.
3
On to the next round in this saga which will play out in the United States Congress.
It’s an all or nothing proposition and with no room for battering. It is a forum in which Israel and the Israeli lobby and myriad and powerful support groups have considerable sway.
President Obama could yet find himself with a loosing hand.
Americans of every political persuasion need to make their voices heard.
It’s an all or nothing proposition and with no room for battering. It is a forum in which Israel and the Israeli lobby and myriad and powerful support groups have considerable sway.
President Obama could yet find himself with a loosing hand.
Americans of every political persuasion need to make their voices heard.
4
THIS is what "Support Our Troops" looks like: employing diplomacy to keep them out of harm's way in the first place.
17
The problem with the accord is that it violates Occam's razor: why did the agreement have to run 100 pages when all that we want to accomplish are the following:
(1) Limit the number of centrifuges running for a decade;
(2) Restrict the amount and strength of enriched nuke materials.
(3) Lift sanctions.
Also, this administration has no love lost with Russia, and the accord calls for shipping enriched materials to Russia for custody? Has Obama lost his marbles?
(1) Limit the number of centrifuges running for a decade;
(2) Restrict the amount and strength of enriched nuke materials.
(3) Lift sanctions.
Also, this administration has no love lost with Russia, and the accord calls for shipping enriched materials to Russia for custody? Has Obama lost his marbles?
1
You don't understand how diplomatic negotiations work, do you?
As the Protocols lay out, the IAEA does not have unrestricted inspection to any sites. Instead there is a "procedure" which I'm sure will take as much time as necessary to hide what needs to be hidden. Being able to inspect all rooms except one is no inspection at all. This is a fraud, pure and simple.
This agreement certainly sounds better that starting yet another war.
14
Obama's commitment to diplomacy should be lauded. His approach is distinct from the rabid Republicans...and their insecure Democratic enablers such as Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders would continue Obama's commitment to diplomacy.
Bernie Sanders would continue Obama's commitment to diplomacy.
6
Iran will never play by our rules, and has no problem signing a treaty in order to buy time to complete it's weapons program. I have a problem believing that Obama and his administration actually trusts that Iran will uphold any agreement.
3
This is a multi nation agreement that has been reached, but of course, you already knew that, right?
Who knew their were so many Nostradamus' in the Republican party?
The same people decrying this deal are the same people who thought the Iraq War was, and still was, "A great idea!".
After reading some of the comments, one has to wonder, what are we defending anyway? The right to be an idiot?
I guess that is a fundamental right is the U.S.
If Obama discovered the cure for cancer, you can bet the Republicans would side with cancer. Their intellectual dishonesty is nothing short of breathtaking.
Can we just have another civil war and settle this thing once and for all?
The same people decrying this deal are the same people who thought the Iraq War was, and still was, "A great idea!".
After reading some of the comments, one has to wonder, what are we defending anyway? The right to be an idiot?
I guess that is a fundamental right is the U.S.
If Obama discovered the cure for cancer, you can bet the Republicans would side with cancer. Their intellectual dishonesty is nothing short of breathtaking.
Can we just have another civil war and settle this thing once and for all?
13
Why didn't the New York Times divulge what was reported in the Washington Post and elsewhere: that the Iranians can deny or delay access by UN inspectors to military sites, giving them time to hide evidence of non-compliance. This is not, as Obama claims, an agreement based not on "trust" but " verification".
3
For those on the right lambasting the deal, propose an alternative. Criticizing is easy; finding real solutions is much harder. This deal does not mean that future sanctions or even military action is off the table if Iran does not comply. But to start from a position of threatening military action is not going to get any results other than a quick start to another long war. I don't hold much hope that this will be successful, but you have to make the attempt. If military action does become necessary, it puts us on much stronger moral ground.
13
The sanctions we had appeared t o be working, Why change anything?
The point of sanctions is to achieve a goal of changing the actions of the subjected nation. But to realize that goal, there needs to be a capitulation by the nation that was sanctioned. The negotiations were a chance to give Iran a chance to change their actions in a verifiable manner agreeable to all parties taking part. If you just continue sanctions without discussion or providing an opportunity for change, it leaves the subjected nation little recourse but to eventually respond with force.
The real purpose of this agreement is to allow the United States to free itself from the straightjacket of its special relationship with Israel, one of the last remnants of the first Cold War. The idea that these negotiations have been about Iran's pursuit of a nuclear capability is the manifest content; the forging of new relationships in the Middle East is the latent, and truly meaningful and long-lasting, content. Netanyahu can fulminate all he wants, but he has missed an opportunity to cement Israel's special relationship with the United States based on cooperation and a shared vision of the future. As it stands now, it rests only on very idiosyncratic American domestic political foundations, and those can shift over time.
11
A great deal of what Israel and its apologists have to say must be understood as attempts to throw dust in our eyes and to obscure this fundamental reality. The Palestinians are routinely depicted as irrational and intransigent savages just as colonized and subjugated people are always depicted by their oppressors who are eager to justify the clearly unjust arrangements they have established. Its never hard to depict dispossessed and desperate people this way. But it is dishonest.
No more US wars for AIPAC-Israel.
No more US wars for AIPAC-Israel.
The survival of Israel is a moral imperative and must always be a cornerstone of our foreign policy. That said, we do not serve the good of a friend if we are uncritical no matter what. If Bibi is planning to speak up in our internal politics, perhaps we should reciprocate. It amazes me that a people so talented and wise as the Israelis would choose a leader so self-destructive and dangerous to the very survival of their nation.
Oh wait: Nixon, Reagan, W.....
Oh wait: Nixon, Reagan, W.....
And the other principal powers in the world, which is part of this remarkable achievement.
We have spent decades hoping the small players in the ME can reconcile, and found they are all playing zero-sum games. None since Sadat and Begin have brought real vision to negotiations, and secured a better peace.
We have spent decades hoping the small players in the ME can reconcile, and found they are all playing zero-sum games. None since Sadat and Begin have brought real vision to negotiations, and secured a better peace.
It is easy to start a war, bomb targets, invade a nation and force them to capitulate. It is much harder to come up with a solution via diplomacy. Today diplomacy worked.
There are screams from Israel, and the GOP, but their alternative was only going to result in furthering war in the middle east. The Us track record, in the middle east, ha snot been a good one.
Now, Iran can rejoin the nations of the world, with sanctions lifted. It is hoped that lessons were leaned on both sides, by this experience. By the way, the world should now turn its attention to a nuclear Israel. They have brought a great deal of attention to themselves, with what amounts to hypocrisy.
from a US perspective, let's hope that this builds better relations between Iran and the US. If anything came out of this agreement is that the US and Iran can now be more trusting of each other. It could open the door to more trade and tourism.
There are screams from Israel, and the GOP, but their alternative was only going to result in furthering war in the middle east. The Us track record, in the middle east, ha snot been a good one.
Now, Iran can rejoin the nations of the world, with sanctions lifted. It is hoped that lessons were leaned on both sides, by this experience. By the way, the world should now turn its attention to a nuclear Israel. They have brought a great deal of attention to themselves, with what amounts to hypocrisy.
from a US perspective, let's hope that this builds better relations between Iran and the US. If anything came out of this agreement is that the US and Iran can now be more trusting of each other. It could open the door to more trade and tourism.
14
It's even easier to surrender.
1
Huh?