Mr. Khoshroo spoke the truth when he stated that it was the U.S. Who destabilized the region with our feckless war in Iraq.
4
See, this is how we waste time in America. Republicans are talking about 2013/2014, and Democrats are talking about 2015. What’s important, and every Presidential candidate ought to start thinking about it right now, is what we will do, if anything, when Iran violates the agreement—initially denying they’ve violated it, then claiming that we, in some way, violated it first, so the whole deal is now canceled. Plan ahead; they do. (“Snap-back”? We’re told both that supposedly crippling sanctions are what intimidated Iran to the table and that continuing these sanctions now, which is said to be unpopular among our “partners,” would not intimidate Iran.)
1
Congress has no say, not even an advisory role, in what the United Nations does. Period. End of story.
To suggest otherwise is incredibly arrogant.
To suggest otherwise is incredibly arrogant.
7
The great opposition in Congress is political selfishness, meanness,and shortsightedness. There was bound to be an outcry from Republicans and the Netanyahu followers. The outcry will continue. Israel's Mr. Netanyahu will never accept any international agreement that does not meet all of his specific outlandish requirements--many of which spring from his paranoia in a nation surrounded by what he considers threatening, ready to attack, evil-spirited nations. He ridiculed and insulted American efforts to negotiate any peace agreement with the Palestinians. And Republicans are dedicated to opposing and fighting, rationally or irrationally, tooth-and-nail against any and all political success sought by the Obama administration. The fact that the U.N. Security Council has effectively quickly endorsed the Obama-sponsored Iran nuclear deal has surprised the GOP Congress and thrown it into a hysterical fit. After all, the GOP did everything in its power--including unprecedented efforts to humiliate President Obama--to sabotage negotiations leading up to the final deal.
2
The NYTimes supports this deal. I believe because Obama does. The UN supports this deal, but there have been a lot of 'behind' the scenes criticisms. Most experts do not like this deal, saying it is no deal at all, but a kicking of the can down the road. When Iran lies and tells us what we want to hear about their nuclear endeavors, the pacifist in us is hopeful, but the realist in us should be wary.
Iran wants death to Americans and Israel. They are preached this hatred not just in their mosques, but by the Allytolah himself. There cannot be trust when a country calls for the death of another. Without trust, there is no 'deal.'
Iran wants death to Americans and Israel. They are preached this hatred not just in their mosques, but by the Allytolah himself. There cannot be trust when a country calls for the death of another. Without trust, there is no 'deal.'
1
My main worry is that extremists in the U.S. Congress and Senate, provoked, threatened and guided by Israel, will claim at every step of the inspections process that Iran's conformity cannot be indisputably 'verified'. They will then insist on inspection of Iran's military bases, in the same manner that the CIA inspected Saddam Hussein's military-industrial complex under cover of IAEA weapons inspections, thereby destroying the existing goodwill.
When we speak about trust and verification we should direct these warnings to both sides.
When we speak about trust and verification we should direct these warnings to both sides.
9
Another NYT article mentions that Iran's Supreme Leader assured Iranians that any deal wouldn't change Iran's hostile attitude toward the US, and that the usual chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" were heard in the crowd. John Kerry reportedly was "very disturbed" to learn this.
Why is that surprising? This deal is a deal, nothing more. There's nothing in there about Iran and the US becoming drinking buddies. Of course Iran's policies -- at least officially -- won't change. Nor will ours. Unofficially, of course, there may well be (and I hope there are) discussions about getting along more broadly. But on the surface, both countries' leaders will continue to rant and rave against the other country. That's how it's been for decades, and that's probably how it will continue to be -- on the surface.
Why is that surprising? This deal is a deal, nothing more. There's nothing in there about Iran and the US becoming drinking buddies. Of course Iran's policies -- at least officially -- won't change. Nor will ours. Unofficially, of course, there may well be (and I hope there are) discussions about getting along more broadly. But on the surface, both countries' leaders will continue to rant and rave against the other country. That's how it's been for decades, and that's probably how it will continue to be -- on the surface.
2
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/john-kerry-calls-ira...
Well, now. Kerry finds the supreme ayatollah's remarks "disturbing." Give the man a lollipop for finally saying something intelligent -- sort of, in a very limited way.
Oh, and the Dear Leader Ayatollah's remarks were "punctuated with chants of Death To America," according to NBC News. But of course we know that is merely boiler-plate.
I am a Democrat, and I sincerely hope Senate Democrats will join with Republicans in defeating this deal.
Well, now. Kerry finds the supreme ayatollah's remarks "disturbing." Give the man a lollipop for finally saying something intelligent -- sort of, in a very limited way.
Oh, and the Dear Leader Ayatollah's remarks were "punctuated with chants of Death To America," according to NBC News. But of course we know that is merely boiler-plate.
I am a Democrat, and I sincerely hope Senate Democrats will join with Republicans in defeating this deal.
4
I'm very proud of my American heritage. That being said, the arguments that this is a flawed or premature agreement are massively hypocritical.
We (the US) are killing people with drones in at least six countries on whom we have not declared war. How different is that from what Iran is doing/has done?
We (the US) have killed American citizens without due process (again with drones) because we "believed" they were going to do something against the country. How different is that from what Iran is doing/has done?
We (the US) invaded Iraq on false premises, and Afghanistan. How many countries has Iran invaded in the last 60 years?
How many times in the last 60 or so years has Iran overthrown the elected government of the US and installed a puppet dictator? And the other way around?
We (the US) entered Pakistan without permission and killed Osama bin Laden. As good as that deed is for the world, regarding international law we don't look much different than a rogue nation sending death squads to kill political opponents hiding in other countries.
I love the US, but we need to get off our high horse and deal with the world as it is, and not as we'd like it to be. The deal with Iran is a good one between major powers.
We (the US) are killing people with drones in at least six countries on whom we have not declared war. How different is that from what Iran is doing/has done?
We (the US) have killed American citizens without due process (again with drones) because we "believed" they were going to do something against the country. How different is that from what Iran is doing/has done?
We (the US) invaded Iraq on false premises, and Afghanistan. How many countries has Iran invaded in the last 60 years?
How many times in the last 60 or so years has Iran overthrown the elected government of the US and installed a puppet dictator? And the other way around?
We (the US) entered Pakistan without permission and killed Osama bin Laden. As good as that deed is for the world, regarding international law we don't look much different than a rogue nation sending death squads to kill political opponents hiding in other countries.
I love the US, but we need to get off our high horse and deal with the world as it is, and not as we'd like it to be. The deal with Iran is a good one between major powers.
12
When do you graduate?
"The alternative to this nuclear deal is war with Iran. This appears to be something Israel favors..."
I disagree that those are the only two alternatives. I used to think so, but now I think the US public is sufficiently tired of Middle East wars that a third alternative is more likely: just keep on keeping on. Americans largely don't understand that Iran is ALREADY heavily inspected by the IAEA, more than any other country in the world. That could simply continue -- though I think Iran should voluntarily commit to the Additional Protocol and modified Code 3.1 even if no deal goes through (though I recognize the chances of that happening are virtually nil).
If no deal happens, Iran will just do what it's going to do even if a deal does go through: tighten its ties to non-Western countries (notably Russia, China, India), so that it's less vulnerable to US/EU sanctions, try to pick off some EU sanctions-waverers, and count on the US public becoming even less willing to attacl Iran. Netanyahu and his ilk will continue to wave their arms and tell us the sky is falling. The US government will continue, publicly, to assure Israel that its security is not negotiable, while privately telling Netanyahu the US isn't going to attack Iran for Israel's benefit.
I agree Israel would like the US to believe there are only 2 alternatives -- a deal or US war against Iran -- and that, since any deal with Iran would be a bad one, the US has no choice but to attack Iran. But that's not so.
I disagree that those are the only two alternatives. I used to think so, but now I think the US public is sufficiently tired of Middle East wars that a third alternative is more likely: just keep on keeping on. Americans largely don't understand that Iran is ALREADY heavily inspected by the IAEA, more than any other country in the world. That could simply continue -- though I think Iran should voluntarily commit to the Additional Protocol and modified Code 3.1 even if no deal goes through (though I recognize the chances of that happening are virtually nil).
If no deal happens, Iran will just do what it's going to do even if a deal does go through: tighten its ties to non-Western countries (notably Russia, China, India), so that it's less vulnerable to US/EU sanctions, try to pick off some EU sanctions-waverers, and count on the US public becoming even less willing to attacl Iran. Netanyahu and his ilk will continue to wave their arms and tell us the sky is falling. The US government will continue, publicly, to assure Israel that its security is not negotiable, while privately telling Netanyahu the US isn't going to attack Iran for Israel's benefit.
I agree Israel would like the US to believe there are only 2 alternatives -- a deal or US war against Iran -- and that, since any deal with Iran would be a bad one, the US has no choice but to attack Iran. But that's not so.
'Mr. Khoshroo took aim at the American ambassador’s suggestion that Iran destabilizes the region, and retorted that it was the “feckless and reckless action” of the United States that had sowed crises in the Middle East.'
And he's wrong? (Well, about feckless, indeed he is.)
Dateline: years ago: Times of Israel: 'Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday called the US election a “battleground for capitalists” while speaking at a democracy forum a day after President Barack Obama was re-elected.'
Then Ahmadinejad, again, talking to the NY Times (9/26, 2008): "There are seven billion people living on this planet, close to 200 countries. Why is it that politicians here in the United States only rise to defend the Zionists? What commitment forces the U.S. government to victimize itself in support of a regime that is basically a criminal one? We can’t understand it."
Then of course there was Ralph Nader, years ago, being maligned for suggesting a $15-per-hour minimum wage.
Ever notice how, in the American media, it's always the most maligned that seem to make the most sense?
And he's wrong? (Well, about feckless, indeed he is.)
Dateline: years ago: Times of Israel: 'Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday called the US election a “battleground for capitalists” while speaking at a democracy forum a day after President Barack Obama was re-elected.'
Then Ahmadinejad, again, talking to the NY Times (9/26, 2008): "There are seven billion people living on this planet, close to 200 countries. Why is it that politicians here in the United States only rise to defend the Zionists? What commitment forces the U.S. government to victimize itself in support of a regime that is basically a criminal one? We can’t understand it."
Then of course there was Ralph Nader, years ago, being maligned for suggesting a $15-per-hour minimum wage.
Ever notice how, in the American media, it's always the most maligned that seem to make the most sense?
4
The UN Security Council should defer a review of this until after our Congress has a chance to review it and offer the position of the people of the United States. It is ironic that the president who would be king was offended by Netanyahu's visit to Congress as a breach in protocol, when he regularly snubs the Constitution of the United States with impunity.
The article reads:
“The hypocrisy knows no bounds,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said of the vote. He asserted that Iran had “systematically” violated prior Council resolutions . . . ."
“The best way to fight this hypocrisy is to tell the truth in a strong and unified manner,” Mr. Netanyahu told Israel’s Parliament.
If Mr. Netanyahu wants to talk about hypocrisy, let's do that some more.
On November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council. On May 1, 1968, the Israeli ambassador to the UN agreed to the Resolution’s terms.
Paragraph One requires:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the [Six-Day War] conflict.
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
Israel must now honor its previous commitment to the peace terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242!
Iran certainly does not have a monopoly on the use of hypocrisy does it, Mr. Netanyahu.
“The hypocrisy knows no bounds,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said of the vote. He asserted that Iran had “systematically” violated prior Council resolutions . . . ."
“The best way to fight this hypocrisy is to tell the truth in a strong and unified manner,” Mr. Netanyahu told Israel’s Parliament.
If Mr. Netanyahu wants to talk about hypocrisy, let's do that some more.
On November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council. On May 1, 1968, the Israeli ambassador to the UN agreed to the Resolution’s terms.
Paragraph One requires:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the [Six-Day War] conflict.
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
Israel must now honor its previous commitment to the peace terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242!
Iran certainly does not have a monopoly on the use of hypocrisy does it, Mr. Netanyahu.
12
Thank you for putting the whole issue in perspective. I may add much to its shame US has vetoed all the UN Resolution critical of Israel.Most of US vetoes in the Security Council has been used to shield Israel from well deserved strictures!
8
"Paragraph One requires:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the [Six-Day War] conflict."
David are you aware of the behind-the-scenes arm-twisting that led to this sentence written this way? Originally it was: ""from ALL territories occupied.."
Just the cost of doing business with the Israelis.
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the [Six-Day War] conflict."
David are you aware of the behind-the-scenes arm-twisting that led to this sentence written this way? Originally it was: ""from ALL territories occupied.."
Just the cost of doing business with the Israelis.
4
Most Americans are too young to remember the days when the United States would complain time after time about Russia using its veto on the U N Security Council to block the will and intention to act of the rest of the world.
At the time, the U. S. referred to Russia as a totalitarian regime; now, the same tactics are being used by a democracy.
At the time, the U. S. referred to Russia as a totalitarian regime; now, the same tactics are being used by a democracy.
1
“They say that this agreement makes war more distant,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “This is not true; this agreement brings war closer.”
The administration seems to agree with him, or why is it considering providing an extensive military package to Israel in the wake of the Iranian nuclear accord? Netanyahu rejected the notion of a reimbursement package Sunday, saying that no amount of compensation would be enough to confront a nuclear armed Iran “sworn to our destruction.”
“Why should we need to be compensated if the deal is supposed to make us safer?” he asked. “The deal endangers our security, our survival even, and the security of the Middle East and the world,” Netanyahu said.
The administration seems to agree with him, or why is it considering providing an extensive military package to Israel in the wake of the Iranian nuclear accord? Netanyahu rejected the notion of a reimbursement package Sunday, saying that no amount of compensation would be enough to confront a nuclear armed Iran “sworn to our destruction.”
“Why should we need to be compensated if the deal is supposed to make us safer?” he asked. “The deal endangers our security, our survival even, and the security of the Middle East and the world,” Netanyahu said.
The rejection by Mr. Netanyahu of the military package to Israel is great news for American taxpayers. Israel already had has the fifth most powerful military force on the planet. The citizens of the United States can use the money to improve our nation's decaying infrastructure. I hope that Mr. Netanyahu will also reject the $3 billion that the U. S. Congress gives to Israel each and every year. Those dollars could also be used to improve our nation's decaying infrastructure.
10
"Netanyahu rejected the notion of a reimbursement package Sunday, saying that no amount of compensation would be enough."
Oh, I'm betting he'll come up with a number. An amount, I mean. Of US taxpayer dollars, I mean. Money.
Oh, I'm betting he'll come up with a number. An amount, I mean. Of US taxpayer dollars, I mean. Money.
7
If Iran defies the accord, what can the international community do? According to Obama, sanction will be reinstated. If sanction is not working now, how is it going to work then? The only difference is that Iran has got tones of money.
In the real world, an agreement that neither party likes is likely to become an agreement that both parties look for ways to get around and performance, if any, is grudgingly given.
This agreement has all the ear marks of being an agreement that no one likes. In that case, no agreement might be better than what will come if Iran tries to cheat or renege on its performance, which seems to be a very real possibility to the Western negotiators given the terms they tried to put into the agreement.
Without any agreement, Iran would then have to find a way to live with sanctions, and the West would have to deal with the possibility that Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons capability. But we would not be living under the vain hope that the agreement is making a real difference.
This agreement has all the ear marks of being an agreement that no one likes. In that case, no agreement might be better than what will come if Iran tries to cheat or renege on its performance, which seems to be a very real possibility to the Western negotiators given the terms they tried to put into the agreement.
Without any agreement, Iran would then have to find a way to live with sanctions, and the West would have to deal with the possibility that Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons capability. But we would not be living under the vain hope that the agreement is making a real difference.
By your definition of an agreement-one that is liked by both highly adversarial parties- is an impossibility; as is one liked solely by one party, which by definition is unacceptable to the other- lest it is a complete surrender under duress. And Iran is not in that situation. Even harsher sanctions are unlikely to deter Iran to seek a nuclear weapon- if indeed that is their goal- a point amply demonstrated by North Korea. This agreement has enough strong points to test the claimed intentions of Iran for the next decade. It's prudent to give it a try, as opposed to scrapping it and let Netanyahu and his Congressional lapdogs dictate our foreign policy and possibly military intervention. Furthermore, the rest of the signatories will most likely follow the agreement if Iran demonstrates its compliance. Persuading our allies to follow our irresponsible way will get us nowhere, as both the UN and EU already have adopted the agreement. And frankly, our maintaining of sanction will only have a relatively minor effect on Iran.
3
All of these bleeding heart liberals that are so focused on telling the world how right, just and honest Iran is will be the first to cry "what have you done?" and "where were you?" when Iran refuses to comply with this agreement or starts WWIII. Unfortunately, it will be too late then and they will refuse to acknpwledge that they were and are the reason Iran started the world toward distruction. I hope each and every one that defends Iran today are the first to be taken out by Iran when she stabs the world in the back!
Congress will probably block the deal not because they see it as a bad initiative but because it's not theirs. The fate of humanity relies on these ego.
3
AIPAC is in total control of the US Congress. How's it feel to have our country run by a foreign government?
4
Once again an International Agreement diligently negotiated by the US together with her allied partners is threatened by the Israeli lobby. One would have thought that the entire P5
1 negotiations were about the Iranian nuclear activities that the US and her partners suspect harbours military intention. After years at the table, Israel which refused to ratify the NPT and has already developed the nuclear weapon wants to torpedo the agreement. Their greatest asset d the US Congress where the financial prowess of the Lobby is perhaps supreme. A failure to honour this agreement will dent the US's standing because Israel could have ratified the NPT and joined the negotiating team alongside other nations not this tantrums more for additional US military than anything else.
1 negotiations were about the Iranian nuclear activities that the US and her partners suspect harbours military intention. After years at the table, Israel which refused to ratify the NPT and has already developed the nuclear weapon wants to torpedo the agreement. Their greatest asset d the US Congress where the financial prowess of the Lobby is perhaps supreme. A failure to honour this agreement will dent the US's standing because Israel could have ratified the NPT and joined the negotiating team alongside other nations not this tantrums more for additional US military than anything else.
1
The true long term danger exposed here is not Iran's development of nuclear weapons. This deal demonstrates once again that an American President can if he likes, choose not to abide by the constraints of the US Constitution and laws, and that Congress and the courts have only limited ability to constrain him. The left generally supports Obama's actions because they agree with them, but they are not thinking about what could happen in the future because of the precedents set by the Obama administration. It is easy to imagine extra Constitutional or unlawful actions by future President they would not support. What will they do then?
Netanyahu ranting about ignoring UN resolutions. Israel does it constantly and trashes findings by UN commissions. In the specific matter of nuclear weapons of which it allegedly has 200 it hasn't signed the NPT and won't accept inspections.
24
"Might is right' may have served Israel well over the past decades - but in the end only a 'two state solution ' will achieve some degree of justice and stability in the region.
In the meantime the rest of the world will pay a heavy price for this intransigence.
In the meantime the rest of the world will pay a heavy price for this intransigence.
5
Well, it seems that the civilized world has spoken. One wonders if our Congress will opt to shake off its Neanderthal-istic tendencies and drag home a (hairy mammoth ... er, elephant) similar vote?
5
It is so very sad and laughable. The US is "supposed" to be the only super power yet it is being led by the nose by its supposed friend Israel and the US has to justify its actions of signing a treaty with Iran and get permission from Israel to do so. And the US congress men seem to owe their allegiance to Israel first and then their own country. Wake up Americans and demand that your congressmen put your own country first.
23
I agree, Darius. I've always found our Conngress representatives being paid by the AIPAC lobby a conflict of interest. They're in Congress to represent the interest of their constituents, not Israel's.
4
Bibi is a fine one to complain about ignoring UN resolutions! Anyone remember UNSC 242 and 338? Talk about hypocrisy!
19
Two thoughts inequality creates extremism, a prosperous Iran will not want war... this deal reduces extremism...
We managed to deal with the Soviet Union who had nuclear weapons through diplomacy.
We managed to deal with the Soviet Union who had nuclear weapons through diplomacy.
13
Thus...with US inequality at historical levels and poverty soaring, the planet should be very worried..
How dare a bunch of numbskull cowboys in the US (i.e."congress", in case they are too dim to know to whom I am referring), consider that they have a right to interfere with an international agreement which has been arrived at by 7 nation states (i.e. the P5 + 1), and Iran?
15
The new Security Council resolution has finally put an end to the most crippling sanctions imposed on Iran on the basis of her non-existent nuclear weapons. Iran has always provided full access to its nuclear sites by the IAEA and Iran is in fact the most inspected country in the world. So far, despite the lies by certain intelligence agencies, they have found absolutely no trace of a nuclear weapons program. This was also confirmed as early as 2007 by the NIE.
The Security Council resolutions provided some justification for unilateral sanctions imposed on Iran by Congress and the EU. Now after the Security Council has endorsed the nuclear deal between six world powers and Iran if some Congressmen follow “Bibi’s lead” and continue to oppose the deal, they will have no legal leg to stand on and they will isolate themselves even more in the world.
The Security Council resolutions provided some justification for unilateral sanctions imposed on Iran by Congress and the EU. Now after the Security Council has endorsed the nuclear deal between six world powers and Iran if some Congressmen follow “Bibi’s lead” and continue to oppose the deal, they will have no legal leg to stand on and they will isolate themselves even more in the world.
9
Bibi says that the best way to fight this hypocrisy, is to tell the truth in a strong an unified manner.
Well, Mr Prime Minister, unanimous is about as unified as you can get.
Well, Mr Prime Minister, unanimous is about as unified as you can get.
15
"..unified.." if the U.S. Congress is ignored. Liberals never did like that pesky Constitution.
The Constitution doesn't apply to the United Nations, in case you hadn't noticed.
1
" The hypocrisy knows no bounds,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said of the vote. He asserted that Iran had “systematically” violated prior Council resolutions..."
If one were to talk about Hypocrisy, it would be remiss of Israel to not mention how many U.N Resolutions it has followed or honored.
VERY FEW.
Not withstanding the fact that Israel ALSO decided BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS HAD EVEN BEGUN that ANY deal let alone this one was acceptable.
How can there even be a chance for peace with such an attitude as this?
And yet we "Insist" that ANY settlement of the Israeli /Palestinian Issue MUST be resolved by Israel alone between the Palestinians...
And look how well that has been going.
Yes...Iran did say it wanted to destroy Israel, but ONLY Israel has actually attacked and bombed Iran and actually done the destroying.
So why do those actions NOT SPEAK louder than the words Iran once said?
Hypocrisy is best left to those who do not display it themselves.
If one were to talk about Hypocrisy, it would be remiss of Israel to not mention how many U.N Resolutions it has followed or honored.
VERY FEW.
Not withstanding the fact that Israel ALSO decided BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS HAD EVEN BEGUN that ANY deal let alone this one was acceptable.
How can there even be a chance for peace with such an attitude as this?
And yet we "Insist" that ANY settlement of the Israeli /Palestinian Issue MUST be resolved by Israel alone between the Palestinians...
And look how well that has been going.
Yes...Iran did say it wanted to destroy Israel, but ONLY Israel has actually attacked and bombed Iran and actually done the destroying.
So why do those actions NOT SPEAK louder than the words Iran once said?
Hypocrisy is best left to those who do not display it themselves.
26
It has been obvious since 1948 that Israel is the outlaw of the Middle East . So how can the USA support such a despicable country ?
8
" Mr. Obama’s critics in Congress, including at least two senior Democrats, objected to the Council vote’s taking place before Congress has had a chance to debate the accord."
WHY? Congress needs to understand that it is NOT the center of the World and that everyone has to wait for their deliberations BEFORE anyone else Can.
They need to understand that this treaty with Iran is a MULTI NATION EFFORT and concerns the other 199 Countries of the World just as much as they.
They also need to realize that they have DONE NOTHING to help or encourage the 5 Nation talks with Iran and in fact have hindered cajoled and generally been of absolute NO HELP to get this historic agreement finalized.
Unless of course, you acknowledge some members of Congress to agree NOT to increase Sanctions or Declare War on Iran during this period as their idea of a helpful gesture.
So suck it up Congress...NOBODY is going to wait for you to decide ANYTHING. You have proven already that a large number of Congressmen are so against ANY agreement they have already decided this agreement with Iran is BAD and WRONG and Not good enough....without even have read any of its details!
Sorry Gentlemen, you need to earn that respect you so fervently believe is yours and which the World in your eyes needs to show abeyance to.
You have a LONG WAY to go before that honor is ever likely to be bestowed on so many of you.
WHY? Congress needs to understand that it is NOT the center of the World and that everyone has to wait for their deliberations BEFORE anyone else Can.
They need to understand that this treaty with Iran is a MULTI NATION EFFORT and concerns the other 199 Countries of the World just as much as they.
They also need to realize that they have DONE NOTHING to help or encourage the 5 Nation talks with Iran and in fact have hindered cajoled and generally been of absolute NO HELP to get this historic agreement finalized.
Unless of course, you acknowledge some members of Congress to agree NOT to increase Sanctions or Declare War on Iran during this period as their idea of a helpful gesture.
So suck it up Congress...NOBODY is going to wait for you to decide ANYTHING. You have proven already that a large number of Congressmen are so against ANY agreement they have already decided this agreement with Iran is BAD and WRONG and Not good enough....without even have read any of its details!
Sorry Gentlemen, you need to earn that respect you so fervently believe is yours and which the World in your eyes needs to show abeyance to.
You have a LONG WAY to go before that honor is ever likely to be bestowed on so many of you.
28
You need the learn some American Civics. By the U.S.C treaties need to be approved by Congress so they do get a say period. Dont't worry the thing will pass as it only needs 1/3 majority because the Republicans performed a parliamentary vote a few months ago to allow this under majority vote scheme. They did it to be able to have political cover when the actual approval came to the floor. This deal was decided/approved ,de facto, in Congress months ago and it was decided by Republicans. They gave Obama a blank check to get what ever the Iranian told him to give them. So all of this right now is political theater based on Republicans lying to third base that they were against the deal. They never were no matter how much fist pounding they do today. It's all made up.
2
Dear Sam,
With respect, you should learn that this multi-national agreement is NOT a treaty and therefore it does not require ratification by the Senate. I agree that the expected veto (by the President) will not be overridden in the Senate, and possibly not in the House.
With respect, you should learn that this multi-national agreement is NOT a treaty and therefore it does not require ratification by the Senate. I agree that the expected veto (by the President) will not be overridden in the Senate, and possibly not in the House.
4
IT is worth noting that ALL 15 Members of UN Security Council "Sponsored" this Resolution, which goes to show: "IF There Is A Will, There Is A Way".
THIS is as Unanimous as it could get and would be interesting to see if such "Strong Unifying Will" has ever been demonstrated on any other UN Resolution.
ON This Remarkable Backdrop, it is also worth noting that the Ten Non-Permanent Members of the UNSC who were not privy to the Negotiations, took "ONLY TWO DAYS TO MAKE A CALL" and the Voting was over in 15 Minutes!
AND the Congress has asked for TWO MONTHS!
THIS is as Unanimous as it could get and would be interesting to see if such "Strong Unifying Will" has ever been demonstrated on any other UN Resolution.
ON This Remarkable Backdrop, it is also worth noting that the Ten Non-Permanent Members of the UNSC who were not privy to the Negotiations, took "ONLY TWO DAYS TO MAKE A CALL" and the Voting was over in 15 Minutes!
AND the Congress has asked for TWO MONTHS!
15
Another NYT article today ("Iranian General Criticizes U.N. Resolution on Nuclear Deal") states:
"General Jafari’s remarks, reported in an interview with Iran’s Tasnim news agency, appeared to be primarily concerned with the restrictions in the Security Council resolution on Iran’s missile capabilities. They are not part of the nuclear accord."
Having just reread the UN resolution carefully for the second time (it's only 7 pages long, not 104), I have no clue what this general is talking about. There's nothing in that resolution about Iranian missiles, at least non-nuclear missiles. By contrast, the agreement does include restrictions that (arguably) apply to Iranian non-nuclear missiles. The statement above appears to have it backwards, though it's hard to know since the author of that other article doesn't report what this general actually said.
"General Jafari’s remarks, reported in an interview with Iran’s Tasnim news agency, appeared to be primarily concerned with the restrictions in the Security Council resolution on Iran’s missile capabilities. They are not part of the nuclear accord."
Having just reread the UN resolution carefully for the second time (it's only 7 pages long, not 104), I have no clue what this general is talking about. There's nothing in that resolution about Iranian missiles, at least non-nuclear missiles. By contrast, the agreement does include restrictions that (arguably) apply to Iranian non-nuclear missiles. The statement above appears to have it backwards, though it's hard to know since the author of that other article doesn't report what this general actually said.
1
There is no natural constituency within the U.S. clamoring for this deal. Iranian-Americans make up a tiny portion of the electorate, so why the stampede for a deal? The choice has been presented by the Iranian lobby as peace vs. war, when in fact the choice is peace for only five years and war will come anyway when we will have to strike at Iran AFTER it completes its nuclear facilities. All we’ve done is kick the can down the road for five years;
1
There is in fact a natural constituency pretty tired of middle east wars of choice, which we seem to lose at great cost.
There is no US natural constituency for another war over there.
There is no US natural constituency for another war over there.
24
"The ink is barely dry from last week's agreement, and the GOP-dominated Congress, along with Netanyahu, are itching to torpedo the accords."
The hard part will be for Obama and Kerry and other Administration officials to pretend respectfully that there's a snowball's chance in hell that this deal can be shot down by Congress. Obama must show due respect for Netanyahu too, of course, but in that case the emphasis should be on "due."
The hard part will be for Obama and Kerry and other Administration officials to pretend respectfully that there's a snowball's chance in hell that this deal can be shot down by Congress. Obama must show due respect for Netanyahu too, of course, but in that case the emphasis should be on "due."
3
The information, mentioned there is a bit doubtful, I wouldn't be so sure that new sanctions could curb such a powerful country, which interests are quite transparent and all these interests opposes interests of the United States
Raconteur writes:
"Israel's candidates for Prime Minister in the recent elections...Netanyahu AND Herzog...BOTH agree that Obama's Iran folly is a disaster for the U.S. and Israel. So...it's on to Chuck Schumer, and the other Congressional Democrats. How can they validate this catastrophe?"
Assuming this isn't a trick question, I'll venture a guess:
"Because they're Americans, not Israelis?"
"Israel's candidates for Prime Minister in the recent elections...Netanyahu AND Herzog...BOTH agree that Obama's Iran folly is a disaster for the U.S. and Israel. So...it's on to Chuck Schumer, and the other Congressional Democrats. How can they validate this catastrophe?"
Assuming this isn't a trick question, I'll venture a guess:
"Because they're Americans, not Israelis?"
8
"What did Winston Churchill say? 'Everything that seemed impossible... is now happening.""
It seems that Winston Churchill is credited with saying more things than any other human being who ever lived -- with the possible exception of Mark Twain. My favorites:
1. During a contentious debate in the House of Commons, a female MP said to Churchill: "Sir, I believe you are drunk" – to which Churchill replied: "That may be, Madam, but you are ugly. And tomorrow morning, I shall be sober."
2. During a break in another contentious debate in the House of Commons, shortly after WWII and involving the nationalization of British industry, Clement Attlee (the Labour Party leader and, I believe, Prime Minister at the time) and Churchill happened to walk into the same rest room, Attlee first. When Churchill walked to a urinal far past Attlee, Attlee turned to him and said: "Being rather unsociable, aren't you, Winston?" To which Churchill replied: "I'm just afraid that any time you see something big, you might try to nationalize it."
3. And this one, of which there are many versions, expressing Churchill's disdain for those who insist that a sentence should never end with a preposition:
"That is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."
Frankly, I have my doubts about many of the "Churchill said" stories, but most of them are humorous whether he actually said them or not.
It seems that Winston Churchill is credited with saying more things than any other human being who ever lived -- with the possible exception of Mark Twain. My favorites:
1. During a contentious debate in the House of Commons, a female MP said to Churchill: "Sir, I believe you are drunk" – to which Churchill replied: "That may be, Madam, but you are ugly. And tomorrow morning, I shall be sober."
2. During a break in another contentious debate in the House of Commons, shortly after WWII and involving the nationalization of British industry, Clement Attlee (the Labour Party leader and, I believe, Prime Minister at the time) and Churchill happened to walk into the same rest room, Attlee first. When Churchill walked to a urinal far past Attlee, Attlee turned to him and said: "Being rather unsociable, aren't you, Winston?" To which Churchill replied: "I'm just afraid that any time you see something big, you might try to nationalize it."
3. And this one, of which there are many versions, expressing Churchill's disdain for those who insist that a sentence should never end with a preposition:
"That is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."
Frankly, I have my doubts about many of the "Churchill said" stories, but most of them are humorous whether he actually said them or not.
3
As a liberal Democrat I hope the Republicans invest a lot of time and money in over-riding President Obama's expected veto. They will have wasted time and money in these efforts--the sanctions are not coming back, and the rest of the P5+1 will be pleased that they don't have to compete with American businesses in trading with Iran.
11
"So if [Iran] wanted peace, they would have given up most things in a deal and simply purchases nuclear fuel unable to be enriched to weapons grade."
Where would Iran find this "nuclear fuel unable to be enriched to weapons grade?" There's no such thing -- except, of course, for nuclear fuel that's already been processed into "plates" or "rods" for use in a reactor. The agreement deals specifically with such "plates" (likely to come from Russia), carving them out from the limits on how much enriched uranium Iran can keep around.
For many years now, Iran has made clear that it doesn't want to rely on foreign supplies. It's happy to buy nuclear fuel from the outside, but it doesn't want to depend on foreign sources. While it presently "trusts" Russia, Iran isn't even willing to trust Russia long-term. Iran trusts Iran. That's why Iran wants to be able to enrich uranium itself (and to do everything else itself that's necessary to run a peaceful nuclear energy program).
Maybe Iran is lying about its peaceful intentions -- I don't claim to know. But as for its desire to maintain the ability to run its own peaceful nuclear energy program, from soup to nuts, I certainly find that understandable. While the US and Western Europe pretend to be pure as the driven snow, Iran has learned the hard way that firm promises cannot be relied on.
Where would Iran find this "nuclear fuel unable to be enriched to weapons grade?" There's no such thing -- except, of course, for nuclear fuel that's already been processed into "plates" or "rods" for use in a reactor. The agreement deals specifically with such "plates" (likely to come from Russia), carving them out from the limits on how much enriched uranium Iran can keep around.
For many years now, Iran has made clear that it doesn't want to rely on foreign supplies. It's happy to buy nuclear fuel from the outside, but it doesn't want to depend on foreign sources. While it presently "trusts" Russia, Iran isn't even willing to trust Russia long-term. Iran trusts Iran. That's why Iran wants to be able to enrich uranium itself (and to do everything else itself that's necessary to run a peaceful nuclear energy program).
Maybe Iran is lying about its peaceful intentions -- I don't claim to know. But as for its desire to maintain the ability to run its own peaceful nuclear energy program, from soup to nuts, I certainly find that understandable. While the US and Western Europe pretend to be pure as the driven snow, Iran has learned the hard way that firm promises cannot be relied on.
7
My friends at the US State Department advise that Obama planned for this to sandbag any congressional objections. He's smarter (is that the right word?) than i gave him credit for previously.'
Charlie in NY is puzzled for the same reason I am:
"Under the separation of powers doctrine, the issue is whether this "agreement" constitutes a "treaty." It is not a matter of form (it's labelled an "agreement") but of substance ... I would like to see this issue explored a bit more thoughtfully. ... I, for one, just don't know."
Same here. But I can't imagine Obama hasn't had his lawyers research this ad nauseam already. Nor can I imagine his opponents in Congress wouldn't have raised this point if they thought they had a winning argument. Though I think this deal is a good one for the US, and thus would like to see it go through, I share your concern about whether the US constitution really allows this. As you say "I, for one, just don't know."
Maybe others who've looked into this a bit more can weigh in.
"Under the separation of powers doctrine, the issue is whether this "agreement" constitutes a "treaty." It is not a matter of form (it's labelled an "agreement") but of substance ... I would like to see this issue explored a bit more thoughtfully. ... I, for one, just don't know."
Same here. But I can't imagine Obama hasn't had his lawyers research this ad nauseam already. Nor can I imagine his opponents in Congress wouldn't have raised this point if they thought they had a winning argument. Though I think this deal is a good one for the US, and thus would like to see it go through, I share your concern about whether the US constitution really allows this. As you say "I, for one, just don't know."
Maybe others who've looked into this a bit more can weigh in.
1
These sorts of agreements were handed as "not treaties" during strategic arms talks with the Soviets, by several Presidents of both parties.
4
Assad embarked on a campaign of extreme atrocities aimed at crushing any and all forms of dissent against him. When this campaign of atrocities failed to end dissent, he recruited Russia to defend his faltering regime. Putin was only too happy to oblige. Millions of Syrians, including severely traumatized young children, were forced to flee for their lives. Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon accepted a flood of refugees international aid agencies, including the UN's, cannot feed or house. Extremist jihadist groups filled the vacuum created by Assad's foolish policy of self-preservation that even resorted to chemical toxins being used against sleeping families. When even this did not quell the rebellion, who helped Assad? Iran, of course. With crack troops, with weapons, with terrorist brigades from Hezbollah funded by Tehran, with diplomatic cover that reinforced even a wobbly Kremlin... Who is helping the refugees? Are they moving to Iran? To Russia? To UN HQ? How can such extremely inhumane governments, whose actions defy all the principles & ideals of the UN Charter, be rewarded by having sanctions lifted?
Assad "even resorted to chemical toxins being used against sleeping families."
Two years ago, when the "chemical weapons in Syria" issue was at its peak, my interpretation of the evidence led me to conclude that one just couldn't determine which side had used CWs, but that it was more likely the rebels than Assad's side. I knew then it was only a matter of time before even responsible journalists started writing stories from the premise that Assad's side had been using CWs. And that happened. It appears Ms. Ashot has been reading some of those stories.
Two years ago, when the "chemical weapons in Syria" issue was at its peak, my interpretation of the evidence led me to conclude that one just couldn't determine which side had used CWs, but that it was more likely the rebels than Assad's side. I knew then it was only a matter of time before even responsible journalists started writing stories from the premise that Assad's side had been using CWs. And that happened. It appears Ms. Ashot has been reading some of those stories.
5
The Syrian were always allied with Russia. Russia has had a naval base there quite a while. The Russians will never want peace in the Mid East. The Mideast in turmoil is great for Russia. Oil and Gas prices are higher and they sell lots of weapons and supplies. Lots of AK 47 rifles over there don't you know! Need bullets, tanks, RPGs etc. all the weapons you see being fired on the news by ME men are all made in Russia!
1
The UN resolution says that no sanctions will be lifted until the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), submits a report verifying that Iran has implemented the measures outlined in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Western powers had also agreed to extend the snap-back provision for an additional five years.
Ashton Carter told Netanyahu during his visit to Israel that "military action" still remained "an option", which drew criticism from Javad Zarif for not withdrawing the threat of military action against his country.
Is it enough to convince the Congress? What does it gain by being intransigent? Iran would still survive economically, despite sanctions. Moreover it would also have its nuclear weapons.
Ashton Carter told Netanyahu during his visit to Israel that "military action" still remained "an option", which drew criticism from Javad Zarif for not withdrawing the threat of military action against his country.
Is it enough to convince the Congress? What does it gain by being intransigent? Iran would still survive economically, despite sanctions. Moreover it would also have its nuclear weapons.
2
Simple what did Iran have to gain from being intransigent BEFORE the deal with years of sanctions. That same question applies. You have to consider the 2 premises: that they only want the nuclear fuel for peace, or they want a nuclear weapons. So if they wanted peace, they would have given up most things in a deal and simply purchases nuclear fuel unable to be enriched to weapons grade. They would have agreed to a different more peaceful deal The other premise is Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon regardless. So now, they have many OLDER old generation centrifuges and have low funds to sustain their nuclear plans. They may possibly be bombed. IF, the deal is accepted, they give some things up now, but can easily create new secret bases, buy ballistic missiles, buy a much better missile defense system... and in 5-6 years down the road (instead of a possible 2-3 with a smaller weapon) == they will have nuclear weapons that have a better delivery method and better defenses to protect them. So which would you rather have?!
Since when is it ILLEGAL to develop or Have Nuclear Weapons Anyway?
If that's the case America should put sanctions on a whole lot of countries...
Itself included.
Such a clear case of whats Good for the Goose is Not good for the Gander!
If that's the case America should put sanctions on a whole lot of countries...
Itself included.
Such a clear case of whats Good for the Goose is Not good for the Gander!
6
"And we always have the option of imposing sanctions at the slightest hint of bomb-making nuclear activity in a a matter of few hours."
Well, that's not quite right. Though the term "snap-back" is often used, the dispute-resolution procedure is pretty complicated, so that sanctions wouldn't "snap back" for several months in practice. True, if the US insists, it eventually can bring about this result, but it will be expected – even by its allies, I'll predict – to present actual evidence, not merely to toss out unsubstantiated allegations.
Though none of the US' European allies would ever say this publicly, I get the clear impression that most or all of them have had just about enough of the US making shoot-from-the-hip evidence-free allegations against Iran and expecting European "allies" simply to go along. Just as Iran has been demanding for a long time (albeit less politely), the US' European allies are telling the US to "put up or shut up."
Well, that's not quite right. Though the term "snap-back" is often used, the dispute-resolution procedure is pretty complicated, so that sanctions wouldn't "snap back" for several months in practice. True, if the US insists, it eventually can bring about this result, but it will be expected – even by its allies, I'll predict – to present actual evidence, not merely to toss out unsubstantiated allegations.
Though none of the US' European allies would ever say this publicly, I get the clear impression that most or all of them have had just about enough of the US making shoot-from-the-hip evidence-free allegations against Iran and expecting European "allies" simply to go along. Just as Iran has been demanding for a long time (albeit less politely), the US' European allies are telling the US to "put up or shut up."
6
It's really a matter of the Europeans, Chinese and Russians going after contracts for the soon -to-be-freed up funds. What do you think this is all about? As always, follow the money, or the promise of it. Do you think any of those really care if Iran goes nuclear...especially since North Korea and Pakistan already have and Saudi Arabia will soon follow. The Ironic thing is that, according to sources at the US State Department, the US is already in talks with the Saudis (no surprise) for nuclear weapon technology, but the Saudi's are alway reaching out to , of all people, Israel. Oh well, the enemy of my enemy....and all that rot. The really dirty little secret in the nuclear world is that Abe in Japan has the same long-term plans, .THAT is going to be a tough sell, but he's counting on China or North Korea to do something stupid so he has a good excuse. What did Winston Churchill say? 'Everything that seemed impossible... is now happening."
1
Mark Shyres -- If it was ONLY "follow the money" then there would never have been any sanctions, all done by those same people.
No, they just think they've done enough on this. They won't be conned into anything more, certainly not evidence-free or forged or another "Curve-Ball."
No, they just think they've done enough on this. They won't be conned into anything more, certainly not evidence-free or forged or another "Curve-Ball."
4
Under the separation of powers doctrine, the issue is whether this "agreement" constitutes a "treaty." It is not a matter of form (it's labelled an "agreement") but of substance (do its terms and conditions place certain duties and responsibilities on the U.S. in international affairs, among other criteria). If it is a treaty, then Congress cannot pass a law to avoid the Constitution's two-thirds approval requirement. Put differently, it cannot delegate this exclusive legislative power to the Executive branch. If it is an "executive agreement" then it is not binding on the US, regardless of whether Congress approves by majority vote or disapproves of it but cannot overturn the presidential veto.
I would like to see this issue explored a bit more thoughtfully. It does go to the core of our constitutional system and I'm not at all certain that President Obama has the better of the argument. I, for one, just don't know.
I would like to see this issue explored a bit more thoughtfully. It does go to the core of our constitutional system and I'm not at all certain that President Obama has the better of the argument. I, for one, just don't know.
2
The alternative to this nuclear deal is war with Iran. This appears to be something Israel favors especially when it will be the US who will be doing the fighting.
This agreement even in it's worst case scenario delays the onset of such a war for a period of time during which inspections and some degree of verification of Iran's adherence to the deal is being carried out. This is favorable over the status quo where Iran is continuing to enrich uranium and is developing ever more efficient and sophisticated means to do so.
This time delay or "kicking the can down the road" as critics of the deal like to characterize it is important because it allows the possibility of new thinking and new leadership in Iran to chart a new course for Iran. It also puts the onus of failure of the deal on Iran since US responsibilities towards the deal are much easier to verify (and thus less likely to be broken) than Iran's responsibilities.
This agreement even in it's worst case scenario delays the onset of such a war for a period of time during which inspections and some degree of verification of Iran's adherence to the deal is being carried out. This is favorable over the status quo where Iran is continuing to enrich uranium and is developing ever more efficient and sophisticated means to do so.
This time delay or "kicking the can down the road" as critics of the deal like to characterize it is important because it allows the possibility of new thinking and new leadership in Iran to chart a new course for Iran. It also puts the onus of failure of the deal on Iran since US responsibilities towards the deal are much easier to verify (and thus less likely to be broken) than Iran's responsibilities.
10
"It also puts the onus of failure of the deal on Iran since US responsibilities towards the deal are much easier to verify"
I wish.
I fully expect a blizzard of efforts by some in Congress to force US non-compliance.
I also expect a blizzard of forgeries and lies to accuse Iran of non-compliance. I expect this may include outright false flag operations meaning to blame it on Iran. Some of that will be in the form of forgeries, but some in practical acts.
I am prepared for bad faith and dishonesty on a stunning level.
If somehow a Republican is elected President, then it would be outright repudiation, followed by aggressive war. A war crime. I expect no less of any of them.
I wish.
I fully expect a blizzard of efforts by some in Congress to force US non-compliance.
I also expect a blizzard of forgeries and lies to accuse Iran of non-compliance. I expect this may include outright false flag operations meaning to blame it on Iran. Some of that will be in the form of forgeries, but some in practical acts.
I am prepared for bad faith and dishonesty on a stunning level.
If somehow a Republican is elected President, then it would be outright repudiation, followed by aggressive war. A war crime. I expect no less of any of them.
6
Israel has always fought its own fights. Israel has and never will rely on any other country to ensure its survival. Hence the reason that this deal will ensure a war between Israel and Iran, because Israel can not live with a nuclear powered Islamic republic in ten years from now.
2
This for Jay Darvish. You fight your fights with our money and our weapons. Your - Isreal - arrogance knows no bounds. If you can do it alone what was Netanyahu doing in the United States of America speaking before our Congress? Did he speak to the legislative bodies of England, France, Germany, Russis (ha) or China (ha)? No. I'll be called Anti-Semite but you not only have to much influence of both political parties but you want more. You bombed Syria because you could handle them. You.can.not.handle.Iran.alone. I apologize if after 10 plus years of wars in the middle east my loyalties are to American troops. No more wars unless absolutely necessary. I won't to give the agreement a chance.
6
Incidentally, for those who suggest Obama shouldn't have "committed" the US to anything before Congress gets to weigh in, Congress agreed several months ago to the process that Obama is now exploiting. If Obama wants the deal to go through but Congress doesn't, Congress has to approve some law prohibiting it, which Obama then can veto just like any other law.
What that means in practice is that this is a "done deal" unless Congress can muster enough votes to override Obama's promised veto. In other words, this is NOT analogous to Woodrow Wilson after World War I, returning from Versailles and traveling around the US trying to drum up enough support for the 2/3 Senate approval of the peace treaty he'd negotiated. Instead, justifiably or not, this Iran deal has been labeled as something other than a "treaty," with critical implications. Instead of Obama going to Congress, hat in hand like Wilson had to do, Obama can go forward with great confidence unless he worries (I don't) that opponents will must the 2/3 vote necessary to override his veto.
That's why Obama undoubtedly felt comfortable with the UNSC's decision to act now on this resolution. He knows Congress won't be blocking it, and he knows that all of the other countries on the UNSC (indeed, pretty much everyone in the world) knows this too.
What that means in practice is that this is a "done deal" unless Congress can muster enough votes to override Obama's promised veto. In other words, this is NOT analogous to Woodrow Wilson after World War I, returning from Versailles and traveling around the US trying to drum up enough support for the 2/3 Senate approval of the peace treaty he'd negotiated. Instead, justifiably or not, this Iran deal has been labeled as something other than a "treaty," with critical implications. Instead of Obama going to Congress, hat in hand like Wilson had to do, Obama can go forward with great confidence unless he worries (I don't) that opponents will must the 2/3 vote necessary to override his veto.
That's why Obama undoubtedly felt comfortable with the UNSC's decision to act now on this resolution. He knows Congress won't be blocking it, and he knows that all of the other countries on the UNSC (indeed, pretty much everyone in the world) knows this too.
5
Yeah don't you just love this silly theater the Republicans are displaying about how outraged they are and that they are against this. They will vote no! Except they voted yes long ago and now lie to their base about their anger for political cover. I'm not a Republican any longer. I will not be part of Failure Theater any longer.
1
An imperfect deal is better which can keep getting tweaked and tuned than a no deal because we now have starting point to engage in a dialogue and more transparency curbing nuclear ambitions. At the very least it buys us time. And we always have the option of imposing sanctions at the slightest hint of bomb-making nuclear activity in a a matter of few hours. So let's give Iran at a chance to prove themselves. We cannot expect Iran to comply with any proposal if they don't get anything in return. Iran is no Greece. Unlike Greece they have the choice of going full steam producing a bomb in a matter of few months, especially since they have been able to survive sanctions for so many years and they would in future too. But then we would be having a face-off with a nuclear Iran with a greater, dangerous, bargaining power. They have shown their constraint by not producing the bomb all these years even though they have the knowledge, scientists and facilities on the ready. So let's not put that last straw on the camel's back. The U.S. and the five other European counterparts have prevented just that. And the warmongering Congress and Israel better understand that especially Israel and they should realize that Iranians do have underground facilities that cannot be destroyed by all it's bombs not to mention all the criticism and denunciation from the rest of the world. If tin-pot regimes like Pakistan and North Korea can produce the nuclear bomb, Iran can too and will.
6
The "Deal" might diminish the chance of nuclear conflict but only by a minuscule degree because nuclear weapons are only valuable as a hypothetical threat. If a small country uses one - or has a proxy use one - then it's toast. If a large country uses several then nothing matters anyway. BUT, the deal enhances the chance of conventional conflict and hugely so. Iran's proxies, e.g., Hezbollah, will use the extra resources available to Iran post-sanctions to instigate battles and escalate battles into war. Count on it.
What?...do what America has been doing these last 15 years?
How dare Hezbollah even attempt to usurp America's proven role in that area?
We should attack them NOW, just in case they do!
How dare Hezbollah even attempt to usurp America's proven role in that area?
We should attack them NOW, just in case they do!
"What do you bet that most of the protestors in Congress have not read the agreement..."
That's a safe bet, though I'm not sure it matters. Both sides made up their minds about this long ago.
That's a safe bet, though I'm not sure it matters. Both sides made up their minds about this long ago.
4
It's so comforting to know that all the cheerleaders for the Iraq fiasco are opposed to the Iran deal. And that should be a good reason enough to support the Iran deal.
15
There's a tendency among commenters to refer to Congressional Republicans, but not Democrats, as cat's paws of Israel. If you consider this distinction valid, I strongly encourage you to check the voting records of Senators and Representatives on Israel-related matters. After you do, be sure to come back and let us all know whether you still feel that distinction is valid.
4
A commenter expresses exasperation at the veto rights held by permanent members of the UN Security Council:
"I have been a staunch supporter of the UN. But as I watch them increasingly fall hostage to the Kremlin agenda, due to a fatal flaw in their own rules that allow Russia to veto any resolution which might be critical of its key allies or its own crimes against humanity --,,, I feel my patience has been stretched to its natural limit."
To many, a veto right is the best thing since sliced bread whenever the US uses its veto right to veto a resolution aimed at Israel. But when some other country exercises its veto right -- well, not so much.
"I have been a staunch supporter of the UN. But as I watch them increasingly fall hostage to the Kremlin agenda, due to a fatal flaw in their own rules that allow Russia to veto any resolution which might be critical of its key allies or its own crimes against humanity --,,, I feel my patience has been stretched to its natural limit."
To many, a veto right is the best thing since sliced bread whenever the US uses its veto right to veto a resolution aimed at Israel. But when some other country exercises its veto right -- well, not so much.
4
Obama’s concessions to Iran bolster his own legacy and appear larger than what is being asked by the terrorists who are holding hundreds of American hostages; But according to Lisa Monaco, home-land security adviser to President Barak Obama and the National Security Council, the families of the hostages will be prosecuted for any action to raise ransom money for the release of their kin. World leaders are condemning the Iran concessions that are deemed, unacceptable, dangerous, and a threat to world peace, but Obama’s public glee is the happiest we have seen him in months; He proclaims he is leaving for vacation on Martha’s Vineyard and improve his golf. The President’s fire wall of indifference to American families was on display when he continued to play golf after being told of the decapitation of James Foley, American journalist. There is something amiss by the reactions and behavior of Obama. The same can be said of Geo W. Bush when he continued to read “My Pet Goat” after being informed of the 911 attacks on the World Trade Buildings. The media came down upon Bush like the screaming Banshees but have always taken a ‘hands-off,’ ‘tingly legs’ and ‘bow at the waist’ in response to any faux pas of Obama’s. Now the US media is bleating platitudes for the Syrian deal. There is something amiss with the reaction and behaviors of the US media, who fail to admit the 2016 presidential candidates, are as competent as the last two men who occupied the White House.
1
Rosemarie;
Truthful and having deep insight; hit the nail where it need the most. This marriage of convenience US-Iran has been signed with divorce papers ready....both partners don't an iota of integrity!!!
Truthful and having deep insight; hit the nail where it need the most. This marriage of convenience US-Iran has been signed with divorce papers ready....both partners don't an iota of integrity!!!
1
that policy has been changed - families may ransom their family members.
"President Obama has shown a willingness to gamble US security on a hunch that Iran will abide by the terms of the deal..."
Many things in life involve "gambles," and this "gamble" strikes me as a pretty good bet, even if Iran cheats. I'm pleased, for example, that Iran has agreed (at least provisionally) to the "Additional Protocol" and has agreed unequivocally to "modified Code 3.1." While these steps may seem unimportant to those who don't know what they mean, I consider them a big deal (and have long believed that Iran should have agreed to both long ago, unconditionally – a view that the Iranian government and its supporters consider naive).
The AP essentially extends the IAEA's inspection rights to several earlier and later steps in a country's nuclear-related activities. For example, uranium mines aren't subject to inspection under a basic Safeguards Agreement, but are under the AP.
Modified Code 3.1 essentially requires a country to disclose a nuclear facility when it decides to build it, rather than 180 days before it places "nuclear material" in the facility. This means, for example, that Iran would have had to disclose Natanz and Fordow much earlier than it did. Iran's failure to disclose those facilities earlier was permissible under the original Code 3.1.
Most NPT countries have adopted the AP, though several important countries have not. As for modified Code 3.1, Iran has been the only hold-out.
I'm glad to see Iran yield on both.
Good gamble, Obama.
Many things in life involve "gambles," and this "gamble" strikes me as a pretty good bet, even if Iran cheats. I'm pleased, for example, that Iran has agreed (at least provisionally) to the "Additional Protocol" and has agreed unequivocally to "modified Code 3.1." While these steps may seem unimportant to those who don't know what they mean, I consider them a big deal (and have long believed that Iran should have agreed to both long ago, unconditionally – a view that the Iranian government and its supporters consider naive).
The AP essentially extends the IAEA's inspection rights to several earlier and later steps in a country's nuclear-related activities. For example, uranium mines aren't subject to inspection under a basic Safeguards Agreement, but are under the AP.
Modified Code 3.1 essentially requires a country to disclose a nuclear facility when it decides to build it, rather than 180 days before it places "nuclear material" in the facility. This means, for example, that Iran would have had to disclose Natanz and Fordow much earlier than it did. Iran's failure to disclose those facilities earlier was permissible under the original Code 3.1.
Most NPT countries have adopted the AP, though several important countries have not. As for modified Code 3.1, Iran has been the only hold-out.
I'm glad to see Iran yield on both.
Good gamble, Obama.
14
The unanimous vote in the UN Security Council, which represents most of the negotiating parties, but is not limited only to them, underscores the degree to which opponents of the deal -- including congressional Republicans, Israel's government and regional players like Saudi Arabia -- are a distinct minority in the global community as compared to the many diverse nations, spanning multiple continents, that support this executive agreement.
Contrary to what Netanyahu and congressional Republican war hawks like Tom Cotton say about voting down the deal in order to strike a better bargain at the negotiating table, most neutral observers think the opponents' goal is quite different: a military confrontation with Iran to forcibly bring it to heel. There's no appetite among American voters or within the global community for another ill-considered, hugely expensive war in the Arab world, precipitated by hawkish neo-cons and the bellicose Netanyahu coalition.
If the global community insists that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon, then a multilateral accord that earns the approval not only of the U.S. and its allies, but also China, Russia and other states, is the way to do it. It ensures that the globe speaks with a single voice, while also warding off the threat of the costly, bloody, unnecessary war of aggression that some in Congress (and others elsewhere) seem to be itching for.
Contrary to what Netanyahu and congressional Republican war hawks like Tom Cotton say about voting down the deal in order to strike a better bargain at the negotiating table, most neutral observers think the opponents' goal is quite different: a military confrontation with Iran to forcibly bring it to heel. There's no appetite among American voters or within the global community for another ill-considered, hugely expensive war in the Arab world, precipitated by hawkish neo-cons and the bellicose Netanyahu coalition.
If the global community insists that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon, then a multilateral accord that earns the approval not only of the U.S. and its allies, but also China, Russia and other states, is the way to do it. It ensures that the globe speaks with a single voice, while also warding off the threat of the costly, bloody, unnecessary war of aggression that some in Congress (and others elsewhere) seem to be itching for.
14
Several Thoughts on the Current Celebrations:
1. The last day the United Nations got something completely correct was November 29, 1947. It’s been a long dry run since that time.
2. The ghouls couldn’t wait for the ink on the papers to dry before rewarding Iran for destabilizing the Middle East, running torture prisons, taking over Lebanon, arming Hamas, hanging people off of cranes and carrying out terror operations all over the world, to mention just a few of their accomplishments.
3. One might have thought that President Obama could have discovered a more lasting legacy for himself than a deal with Ayatollah – Death to America – Khomeini not worth the paper it is written on; but President Obama thought otherwise and, judging by the U.N.’s action today, apparently has been proven
correct. Of course the initial response to Mr. Chamberlain’s trip to Munich was very positive also.
1. The last day the United Nations got something completely correct was November 29, 1947. It’s been a long dry run since that time.
2. The ghouls couldn’t wait for the ink on the papers to dry before rewarding Iran for destabilizing the Middle East, running torture prisons, taking over Lebanon, arming Hamas, hanging people off of cranes and carrying out terror operations all over the world, to mention just a few of their accomplishments.
3. One might have thought that President Obama could have discovered a more lasting legacy for himself than a deal with Ayatollah – Death to America – Khomeini not worth the paper it is written on; but President Obama thought otherwise and, judging by the U.N.’s action today, apparently has been proven
correct. Of course the initial response to Mr. Chamberlain’s trip to Munich was very positive also.
4
I'm not sure what they are showing in the news, but if you had lived in Iran like me, you could see lots of these news that you are mentioning are upside down. When you look at Iran from an Iranian perspective you can see how powers kept the region unsafe to exploit oil, sell army equipments, and sometimes to trick their own people to get more funding for army. Almost everywhere governments use media to prove themselves being right; therefore, judging based on media neither in US nor in Iran nor any other places is not right and may lead to radical actions.
Human is human no matter where he belongs to. When there is a problem we should try to solve it, not ... .
Human is human no matter where he belongs to. When there is a problem we should try to solve it, not ... .
6
"...The ghouls couldn’t wait for the ink on the papers to dry before rewarding Iran for destabilizing the Middle East, running torture prisons, ...and carrying out terror operations all over the world, to mention just a few of their accomplishments..."
Oh...you meant Bush/Cheney and Blackwater???
Oh...you meant Bush/Cheney and Blackwater???
10
Israel's candidates for Prime Minister in the recent elections...Netanyahu AND Herzog...BOTH agree that Obama's Iran folly is a disaster for the U.S. and Israel.
So...it's on to Chuck Schumer, and the other Congressional Democrats.
How can they validate this catastrophe?
Can they?
So...it's on to Chuck Schumer, and the other Congressional Democrats.
How can they validate this catastrophe?
Can they?
What Israel wants for its own reasons is not the test. That's how they can validate it, just like the rest of the world except for Israel.
19
I'd prefer our foreign policy be conducted by our president, elected twice here in America!
9
I find it amazing that Mr. Netanyahu, the leader of a nation dominated by a group of religious extremists, itself sitting on a huge undeclared arsenal of atomic weapon, including hydrogen bombs, would so vocally oppose this sensible agreement. Perhaps the only thing more galling is that this tiny nation, the largest single recipient of US foreign aid over the last 4 decades, can skillfully use checkbook lobbying to so influence our Congress that there can be concern that Congress might torpedo the agreement.
Israel with at least 200 nuclear weapons is not a member of the IAEA, refuses to sign the NPT & allows no international inspections of its nuclear facilities. How is it possible that so many members of Congress blithely condone this behavior while criticizing the agreement with Iran. The answer is money spread widely throughout the halls of Congress by the clever operatives of the AIPAC. And we learn late last week that the organization is setting up a new lobby organization funded with $20 million to attempt to buy more opposition in our Congress to the agreement.
Israel with at least 200 nuclear weapons is not a member of the IAEA, refuses to sign the NPT & allows no international inspections of its nuclear facilities. How is it possible that so many members of Congress blithely condone this behavior while criticizing the agreement with Iran. The answer is money spread widely throughout the halls of Congress by the clever operatives of the AIPAC. And we learn late last week that the organization is setting up a new lobby organization funded with $20 million to attempt to buy more opposition in our Congress to the agreement.
57
What's that you say Richard, "clever operatives" of AIPAC? Not evil, cunning, shrewd, crafty, tricky, sly, wily, Machiavellian, unprincipled, or my all-time favorite, money-grubbing?
2
In a (slightly satirical) nutshell:
Are you saying, the US is funding Israel to build an atomic arsenal and to finance lobbyists to buy US politicians so we do their bidding and finance more of their military adventures?
Nice circle of money here!!
(A nod to Kerry and Obama who are obviously independent-minded statesmen)
Are you saying, the US is funding Israel to build an atomic arsenal and to finance lobbyists to buy US politicians so we do their bidding and finance more of their military adventures?
Nice circle of money here!!
(A nod to Kerry and Obama who are obviously independent-minded statesmen)
1
This is a really, really, really premature and ill-considered. Most of my life, I have been a staunch supporter of the UN. But as I watch them increasingly fall hostage to the Kremlin agenda, due to a fatal flaw in their own rules that allow Russia to veto any resolution which might be critical of its key allies or its own crimes against humanity -- and now, as I watch this spectacle of a 'unanimous' decision to lift sanctions even as Iran continues to fund Hezbollah and send its forces on expansionist, hegemonic missions that lead to greater suffering and ever widening instability in the ME -- and most particularly when I look at the daily swelling tide of new refugees being created directly as a result of these and other UN failings to become more than a nonstop talking shop -- I feel my patience has been stretched to its natural limit. I can no longer support or applaud this travesty. This preliminary agreement with Iran -- preliminary because it is meaningless unless approved by Congress, and also because the leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei has yet to declare himself bound by any of its points -- is nowhere near being the kind of document that could warrant the lifting of sanctions that were first applied precisely because Iran's actions were so dangerous, expansionist, aggressive, intransigent and extremely hostile towards anyone who does not share their particularly narrow set of fundamentalist religious beliefs.
7
It is not premature. It is agreed. It is done, by the UN and the EU.
The US would be done too, but for the Israel Lobby making a last stand.
The US would be done too, but for the Israel Lobby making a last stand.
32
Maria;
Excellent comments; couldn't be expressed better however Iran has been slaughtering civilians (tens of thousands women children alike) in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen and after committing these horrendous atrocities to awe and shock of world citizenry getting away with it. UN resolution and 'western' diplomacy to sign this nuclear accord and lifting sanctions is rewarding Iran for killing hundreds and thousands of civilians in the burning 'middle east'. 'west' has exposed that its values of democracy, social justice, freedom are not skin deep but quite a 'hogwash'. Iran is a terrorist state and Israelis are not angels either. Hypocrisy and double standards at their best!!!!
Excellent comments; couldn't be expressed better however Iran has been slaughtering civilians (tens of thousands women children alike) in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen and after committing these horrendous atrocities to awe and shock of world citizenry getting away with it. UN resolution and 'western' diplomacy to sign this nuclear accord and lifting sanctions is rewarding Iran for killing hundreds and thousands of civilians in the burning 'middle east'. 'west' has exposed that its values of democracy, social justice, freedom are not skin deep but quite a 'hogwash'. Iran is a terrorist state and Israelis are not angels either. Hypocrisy and double standards at their best!!!!
5
Now let's see Maria, which country are you referring to when you state "extremely hostile towards anyone who does not share their particularly narrow set of fundamentalist religious beliefs"? Iran or Israel?
9
Incidentally, the Times may be misleading readers – intentionally or not – by this statement in a companion piece (click on "The Iran Deal in 200 Words" and then click on the link in that document to the more detailed explanation of the Iranian nuclear dispute):
"For most power reactors in the West, uranium is enriched up to 5 percent. Bomb grade is above 90 percent and Iran had been processing ore to 20 percent enrichment."
What can the gentle reader conclude from this – other than that Iran's enrichment up to the 20% level means it's up to no good? In fact, as well-informed readers know (probably including the NY Time writer who wrote this), there is indeed a good reason for Iran to enrich up to the 20% level: That's the purity needed to run the Tehran Research Reactor. That reactor can't run on the 5% fuel that's sufficient to run power reactors. Keep in mind too, on this point, that the TRR -- built for Iran by France, as I recall – originally required bomb-grade fuel to run, but that Iran voluntarily (and, presumably, at great expense) converted it many years ago to run on less-than-bomb-grade fuel (20%).
"For most power reactors in the West, uranium is enriched up to 5 percent. Bomb grade is above 90 percent and Iran had been processing ore to 20 percent enrichment."
What can the gentle reader conclude from this – other than that Iran's enrichment up to the 20% level means it's up to no good? In fact, as well-informed readers know (probably including the NY Time writer who wrote this), there is indeed a good reason for Iran to enrich up to the 20% level: That's the purity needed to run the Tehran Research Reactor. That reactor can't run on the 5% fuel that's sufficient to run power reactors. Keep in mind too, on this point, that the TRR -- built for Iran by France, as I recall – originally required bomb-grade fuel to run, but that Iran voluntarily (and, presumably, at great expense) converted it many years ago to run on less-than-bomb-grade fuel (20%).
11
How does this deal compare to the one that Clinton and the UN had for surveillance of the Iraqi nuclear
plants?
That arrangement had on-site inspections and must have been effective. We know that when the US invaded Iraq under false reports of WMDs, absolutely nothing was found in Iraq.
plants?
That arrangement had on-site inspections and must have been effective. We know that when the US invaded Iraq under false reports of WMDs, absolutely nothing was found in Iraq.
11
Let's just hope that Congress realizes that voting against this deal would be an exercise in futility. Many of our partners reluctantly imposed sanctions while trusting us to find a path towards a deal. Those very sanctions hurt our allies (with whom Iran had extensive trade relations) much more than they hurt us.
We cannot and should not expect our allies in this process to reimpose those sanctions if we unilaterally reject this deal.
We cannot and should not expect our allies in this process to reimpose those sanctions if we unilaterally reject this deal.
30
This was a very smart move on Obama's part. The sanctions are effectively lifted, regardless what the US Congress does. If the Congress votes "no", then we will be isolated again, while the rest of the world does business with Iran. Iran really does not need our banking or other business. This should give some recalcitrant Dems cover to vote yes, the excuse being that the alternative is worse.
All in all, this is a good day.
All in all, this is a good day.
26
Another commenter properly emphasizes:
"So I think the agreement may not be 100 percent of what the US wanted but the world wanted this agreement."
Western news media haven't entirely ignored the point that John Kerry seemed to emphasize in some comments over the weekend, but they've certainly downplayed it. Kerry said, essentially, that the US has noticed (and Iran undoubtedly has noticed) that the US-inspired "sanctions regime" is starting to crumble. Only UNSC-approved sanctions are binding on UN members – and even those, reportedly, were being rather loosely enforced. (Keep in mind, for example, that Dubai is a very wealthy Persian Gulf country but has no oil. Dubai's wealth comes from trade, which makes one wonder whether it's significant that Dubai is a short motorboat-ride away from the Iranian coast.)
Apart from the UNSC-approved sanctions – a fairly small subset of the total – the "sanctions" have been imposed only by the US and/or Western European countries. They're not binding, for example, on China, Russia or India, and it probably goes without saying that none of those countries has seen fit to impose its own unilateral sanctions on Iran.
Reportedly (though most Western media downplay this), some of the US' "sanctions partners" have been grumbling lately. Why, they wonder, should some Belgian company sit back and let lucrative business with Iran be snatched away by a Russian company that isn't subject to the same restrictions as the Belgian company?
"So I think the agreement may not be 100 percent of what the US wanted but the world wanted this agreement."
Western news media haven't entirely ignored the point that John Kerry seemed to emphasize in some comments over the weekend, but they've certainly downplayed it. Kerry said, essentially, that the US has noticed (and Iran undoubtedly has noticed) that the US-inspired "sanctions regime" is starting to crumble. Only UNSC-approved sanctions are binding on UN members – and even those, reportedly, were being rather loosely enforced. (Keep in mind, for example, that Dubai is a very wealthy Persian Gulf country but has no oil. Dubai's wealth comes from trade, which makes one wonder whether it's significant that Dubai is a short motorboat-ride away from the Iranian coast.)
Apart from the UNSC-approved sanctions – a fairly small subset of the total – the "sanctions" have been imposed only by the US and/or Western European countries. They're not binding, for example, on China, Russia or India, and it probably goes without saying that none of those countries has seen fit to impose its own unilateral sanctions on Iran.
Reportedly (though most Western media downplay this), some of the US' "sanctions partners" have been grumbling lately. Why, they wonder, should some Belgian company sit back and let lucrative business with Iran be snatched away by a Russian company that isn't subject to the same restrictions as the Belgian company?
17
Don't be intimidated by this:
"... the resolution — 104 pages long including annexes and lists..."
The actual resolution is only 7 pages long (including the preamble). It balloons up to 104 pages only because the "deal" document is attached to it.
Apart from the second part of numbered paragraph 3 – which appears to require Iran to give the IAEA whatever it requests ("Iran shall cooperate fully as the IAEA requests to be able to resolve all outstanding issues as identified in IAEA reports") even if an IAEA request goes BEYOND what the parties previously hammered out in the "Roadmap" referred to in the first paragraph of page 2, this resolution appears to be exactly what we were told it would be.
I'm confident the one possible ambiguity I've identified either (a) doesn't actually exist, other than in my mind; or (b) will be worked out by sticking to the agreed Roadmap if the IAEA ever asks Iran for more than the IAEA is entitled to get under the Roadmap.
It probably depends on whether "all outstanding issues" is interpreted broadly to mean not only what Iran is required to provide but also to include the IAEA's "wish list" expressed in several IAEA reports – i.e. "any time, anywhere" access to whatever the IAEA might find interesting. If Iran's reluctance to honor the IAEA's "wish list" (beyond the extent to which it agreed in the Roadmap) is considered an "outstanding issue," then the ambiguity I mention appears to be there – otherwise, not.
"... the resolution — 104 pages long including annexes and lists..."
The actual resolution is only 7 pages long (including the preamble). It balloons up to 104 pages only because the "deal" document is attached to it.
Apart from the second part of numbered paragraph 3 – which appears to require Iran to give the IAEA whatever it requests ("Iran shall cooperate fully as the IAEA requests to be able to resolve all outstanding issues as identified in IAEA reports") even if an IAEA request goes BEYOND what the parties previously hammered out in the "Roadmap" referred to in the first paragraph of page 2, this resolution appears to be exactly what we were told it would be.
I'm confident the one possible ambiguity I've identified either (a) doesn't actually exist, other than in my mind; or (b) will be worked out by sticking to the agreed Roadmap if the IAEA ever asks Iran for more than the IAEA is entitled to get under the Roadmap.
It probably depends on whether "all outstanding issues" is interpreted broadly to mean not only what Iran is required to provide but also to include the IAEA's "wish list" expressed in several IAEA reports – i.e. "any time, anywhere" access to whatever the IAEA might find interesting. If Iran's reluctance to honor the IAEA's "wish list" (beyond the extent to which it agreed in the Roadmap) is considered an "outstanding issue," then the ambiguity I mention appears to be there – otherwise, not.
2
What do you bet that most of the protestors in Congress have not read the agreement, or can not name the other five nations involved in making it come to fruition, or will not admit that the UN Security Council vote reflects international support for this diplomatic victory. Other world powers will go on to lift sanctions and open doors to Iran while Congress & Netanyahu pout and throw hissy fits, refusing to admit that the US is far from being the decisive world power that it once was.
11
I do not see the linkage. The UN sanctions are the UN's business and the U.S. sanctions are Congress'. The Security Council does not create international law and its endorsement of an agreement to which it is not a party can have no legal effect on the legality of Congressional action. Perhaps from a public relations standpoint, the Security Council resolution to lift sanctions suggests a certain level of international support, even if the majority of the 15 countries who voted have little risk. In the event of Iranian bad faith, most of the world will quietly look to the U.S. military to set things right.
President Obama has shown a willingness to gamble US security on a hunch that Iran will abide by the terms of the deal and, in the next decade, will also moderate its aggressive actions abroad while liberalizing at home. Congress appears less willing to trust Iranian intentions, and the upcoming debate should center of whether the inspection regime is sufficiently robust.
Ambassador Power's sudden mention of the three "detainees" and the missing American may be the beginning of a scripted drama to allow Iran to gain valuable international credibility when it releases them all as a humanitarian gesture and a show of "cooperation."
President Obama has shown a willingness to gamble US security on a hunch that Iran will abide by the terms of the deal and, in the next decade, will also moderate its aggressive actions abroad while liberalizing at home. Congress appears less willing to trust Iranian intentions, and the upcoming debate should center of whether the inspection regime is sufficiently robust.
Ambassador Power's sudden mention of the three "detainees" and the missing American may be the beginning of a scripted drama to allow Iran to gain valuable international credibility when it releases them all as a humanitarian gesture and a show of "cooperation."
5
Iran's major trading partners are the EU, China, and Turkey. US-only sanctions only would harm the US if the EU (mainly Germany) and China resume trade. The day is past when the US had the power to do something like this unilaterally.
9
The ink is barely dry from last week's agreement, and the GOP-dominated Congress, along with Netanyahu, are itching to torpedo the accords. The deal has been thoroughly and meticulously worked through by Kerry and his team. How about if Congress, for once, tried to show a unified face with America rather than with Likud?
23
NM, I see you've bought Obama's triangulation of Israel and the Republicans being straw men. Unfortunate that he did that.
There are intelligent minds in Congress who want to see some sort of agreement and are not 'enemies of Obama.' Many are Democrats, and they're not just bought off. We send them to Washington to represent our interests in foreign affairs and in this area several have experience, savvy and wisdom. I have not been happy to watch the President do all sorts of end runs around Congress, instead of respecting and benefitting from their contributions and their role. He did that when he had to team up with those very Republicans to get presidential authority to fast track a secret gargantuan corporate power arrangement called TPP. Democrats were representing their constituents.
This isn't a campaign. It's not black and white, us against them. There's a common interest here, and resources need to be tapped.
There are intelligent minds in Congress who want to see some sort of agreement and are not 'enemies of Obama.' Many are Democrats, and they're not just bought off. We send them to Washington to represent our interests in foreign affairs and in this area several have experience, savvy and wisdom. I have not been happy to watch the President do all sorts of end runs around Congress, instead of respecting and benefitting from their contributions and their role. He did that when he had to team up with those very Republicans to get presidential authority to fast track a secret gargantuan corporate power arrangement called TPP. Democrats were representing their constituents.
This isn't a campaign. It's not black and white, us against them. There's a common interest here, and resources need to be tapped.
1
Good Afternoon m sq,
Well, I’d say that Netanyahu made the schism when he circumvented President Obama this Spring and addressed Congress (his previous snubs toward Obama notwithstanding). Some representatives, including my own Congresswoman, Nita Lowey, who has previously been reliably aligned with the Prime Minister, said she had asked him not to proceed in the divisive manner he chose. Some Democratic representatives also chose not to listen to the address in solidarity with President Obama. And yes, there are those in Congress well-versed in foreign relations, but they should have shown more respect towards John Kerry, with his own solid career in the Senate. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. Best regards.
Well, I’d say that Netanyahu made the schism when he circumvented President Obama this Spring and addressed Congress (his previous snubs toward Obama notwithstanding). Some representatives, including my own Congresswoman, Nita Lowey, who has previously been reliably aligned with the Prime Minister, said she had asked him not to proceed in the divisive manner he chose. Some Democratic representatives also chose not to listen to the address in solidarity with President Obama. And yes, there are those in Congress well-versed in foreign relations, but they should have shown more respect towards John Kerry, with his own solid career in the Senate. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. Best regards.
5
Just because the world is eager to make money by doing business with Iran does not mean this is a good deal. In ten years the Islamic Republic will be far richer and a nuclear power, and they will still be our mortal enemy. Islamic Republic's ideology has not changed since its beginning and it will not change by hugs and kisses.
6
Looking at Iran's demographics, it is actually not hard to imagine a change in Iranian government. Median age being 28 and 60% under 30 years old, the young population will take over control sooner or later. This is just a fact no speculation. Yes, their ideology hasn't change since the revolution, but that's because the same group of individuals has been in power since then, but I do believe Iran is going toward a more liberal government and it has to. I think its way too simplistic to assume that their ideology will not change. It simply has to with generation change !
5
Islamic Republic has a very tight grip on power, the youth are busy trying to survive and will not be bothered fighting this fearsome blood thirsty regime. The money, power and influence will remain at the hands of Islamic Republic and its supporters. And that money, power and influence will come from no other than our dear president, Barak Hussein Obama.
and you think tighter sanctions will make it any better? since you know the youth are busy trying to survive? and you did not get my point. whether anyone likes it or not, by nature, this young population will take over control. Khamenei is 75 year sold right now. Just a guess that he will not live for another 30 years. This is just a shift that no one can control
"critics in Congress, including at least two senior Democrats, objected to the Council vote’s taking place before Congress has had a chance to debate it."
Contrary to GOP delusions, the US Congress has no authority over UN Security Council decisions.
Contrary to GOP delusions, the US Congress has no authority over UN Security Council decisions.
23
I hear the powers that be in Iran exhorting crowds with "Death to America!"
I don't hear the Ayatollah's warlike raging against any other member nation of the Security Council.
"the US Congress has no authority over UN Security Council decisions." And vice-versa, RRiversong.
I don't hear the Ayatollah's warlike raging against any other member nation of the Security Council.
"the US Congress has no authority over UN Security Council decisions." And vice-versa, RRiversong.
1
Then we should stop funding them since they stand on their own
Under this accord, the UN embargo on ballistic missile technology will be lifted eight years from now for a hostile Tehran. The Obama administration has said that there are other protocols preventing Iran from acquiring this kind of technology. If these were sufficient, then why was a UN embargo established in the first place? Moreover, if Iran's intention for its nuclear program is purely peaceful, then why does it want ballistic missiles? This particular point undermines the coherency of the positions of the negotiating parties. In my opinion, Congress should not abide by an agreement that presents an incoherence, especially when it addresses the issue of a hostile regime and its nuclear program.
4
Wherever one falls on the debate over sanctions on Iran, this story is a useful reminder that the decision will not be up to the U.S. Congress alone. As hard as it may be for some U.S Senators and Representatives to admit, there are other countries involved in this issue. Their attempts to scuttle the deal will have major diplomatic ramifications and will likely have the opposite effect of speeding up Iran's nuclear production. It would be nice if American legislators listened more to voices other than Netanyahu's and their campaign pollsters for a change.
42
Islamic republic has been saying Death to America, not Russia or China or France... U.S. has to do what is good for U.S. and that does not include legitimizing its mortal enemy on the world stage.
I have only had the warmest of interactions with Iranian-Americans. They come across as a peace loving group. I am happy that this resolution was passed by the UN. Thank you John Kerry, Obama and the rest of the world leaders involved. The World is a safer place today because of your actions.
29
Rohan;
Iranian civilians are ofcourse peace loving but this dreadful Iranian regime is responsible for genocide/mayhem of almost one million Iraqis, half million Syrians, Lebanese PM Rafik Harari and other political assassinations in Lebanon, and Iran's endless killing spree in Yemen. Iran is totalitarian, despotic, demonic regime and currently in bed with UN and 'west'. It's such a shame that 'west' and US has exposed/compromised it's decency, civilization, and democratic values to the extent that their is no coming back. Iran has been rewarded for the 'state terrorism' delinquent behavior. This will haunt the 'west' till the dooms day!!!!
Iranian civilians are ofcourse peace loving but this dreadful Iranian regime is responsible for genocide/mayhem of almost one million Iraqis, half million Syrians, Lebanese PM Rafik Harari and other political assassinations in Lebanon, and Iran's endless killing spree in Yemen. Iran is totalitarian, despotic, demonic regime and currently in bed with UN and 'west'. It's such a shame that 'west' and US has exposed/compromised it's decency, civilization, and democratic values to the extent that their is no coming back. Iran has been rewarded for the 'state terrorism' delinquent behavior. This will haunt the 'west' till the dooms day!!!!
2
The UN Security Council unanimously passed the resolution required for an effective nuclear accord. In addition, the European Union has also approved this landmark deal with Iran. Yet I find it worrisome that our Republican-led Congress, joined by some Democrats, may try to quash what hopefully will be one of the most important diplomatic feats of this young century. Perhaps, the GOP needs to think back at two of its own party's presidents, Nixon and Reagan, and what they respectively did with China and the USSR. Perhaps, it also needs to take notice that our strongest allies, Britain, France, and Germany, were instrumental in two years of delicate negotiations. My biggest concern, however, is that one person, Netanyahu, who is not an American, who is not our elected leader, will have the audacity to sway our Congress with his vitriol and Armageddon-like "predictions." This attempted influence needs to stop, but unfortunately I fear we are represented by a group which is guided by a collected self-serving lack of conscience.
36
The agreement must be prevented. The Munich "appeasement" comparison is apt.
3
This article refers to Israel's "furious" response, yet Prime Minister Netanyahu's quoted statements do not justify that characterization at all. While forceful, they are nevertheless dignified and measured. If anything, Iranian response was both surprising under the circumstances and far more aggressive in tone.
6
The world community represented by the United Nations has spoken with a unanimous voice of approval for the Iran nuclear deal and the lifting of "economic sanctions." As an American of Jewish background, I heartily applaud this new, major step toward peace in the Middle East. I hope the Congress will now follow with its approval which is in the best interest of the U.S. and the entire Middle East rather than subcontract its mandate to "preserve and protect" to Israel. To do otherwise, would isolate the U.S. politically, allow Iran to quickly develop nuclear weapons while regaining most of their funds frozen by the sanctions that the other nations and the U.N. will be lifting, and create a nuclear arms race in the Middle East which is already awash in sectarian warfare in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Congress, especially the Democrats, have to realize that there can be no return to the "status quo ante" the Iran nuclear deal and that many in the American Jewish community feel it would be utter insanity not to approve it.
15
It is easy to sit in America and say how great this agreement is and how Iran is to be trusted. Israel is there, surrounded by those that wish to destroy her. As has been said, "If Israel were to cease to fight and put down all her weapons, she would be immediately destroyed by her neighbors. If her neighbors were to cease to fight and put down all their weapons, there would be immediate peace in the region." Who is really to be trustd and hailed as the aggressor?
I hope and expect that the insane and unnecessary sanctions on Iran will be scrapped asap. The world is now a better place after the nuclear deal. However, to force Israel to come to terms with Palestinians ( after all the occupation of Palestine by Israel is the crux of the middle east instability ), it is necessary that the countries and corporation Bycott, Divest and Sever ( BDS) relations with Israel.
17
" [Netanyahoo] asserted that Iran had “systematically” violated prior Council resolutions..."
Mind-boggling hypocrisy from the leader of the country that has ignored at least forty UNSC resolutions and that refuses to sign the NPT.
Mind-boggling hypocrisy from the leader of the country that has ignored at least forty UNSC resolutions and that refuses to sign the NPT.
56
I'm surprised that, given his concern that the agreement will make war more likely, Mr. Netanyahu would not support it. He has been itching for a war with Iran for years. More than one U.S. President has had to encourage him to proceed with more caution. He is not a credible critic of the agreement.
15
Right or wrong as, our influence in the world changes, (of our own doing), it seems obvious other powers are free to pursue their objectives. Russia in eastern europe, China in Asia, and now both Saudi and Iran in the middle east. Germany has yet another model to serve their interest in the so called EU. All of this is of course to avoid an armed conflicts. Regional wars and genocide will be tolerated.
1
THIS Vote, Sponsored & Ratified Unanimously By ALL 15 Members Of UNSC, is a Testament that the World Community has NO Faith in the ability of the Congress to Do What Is Right, as the P5+1 and Iran's Negotiators know well that the Congress Is Bent On Killing Any Deal, No Matter If It Is The Best Deal For Global Peace & Security.
MY guess is that they also know that a vast number of US Politicians are NOT working to Protect and Advance the US Government, Business and Labor Interests on this Deal as their Primary Allegiance is to AIPAC and Israel-Firsters.
SO this seems to be a Brilliant Tactical move by the EU/Russia/China and Iran so to Neutralize Any Such Machinations and NOT Be Taken Hostage By The Usual Suspects.
IN essence the Congress Can ONLY Blame Itself as it started Playing Politics with a Vital Multi-Lateral Accord, and "Now That They Are Beaten In Their Own Game, They Are Crying Foul.
IN The event the US Congress continues its Anti-Obama Crusade, the US Will Be The ONLY Isolated Party, Iran can keep its end of the Bargain, In-Whole or In-Part, and do Business with the rest of the World while the US Business & Labor Would End Up Being The Ultimate Losers (THE German Vice-Chancellor & Economy Minister is in Iran as we speak with a Trade Delegation to be followed by similar Delegations from France, Italy, Spain, Austria, China, Russia, Japan, Korea et al).
AND That Would Be "A Total Lose-Lose-Lose Proposition For The US Leadership, Credibility and Economy".
MY guess is that they also know that a vast number of US Politicians are NOT working to Protect and Advance the US Government, Business and Labor Interests on this Deal as their Primary Allegiance is to AIPAC and Israel-Firsters.
SO this seems to be a Brilliant Tactical move by the EU/Russia/China and Iran so to Neutralize Any Such Machinations and NOT Be Taken Hostage By The Usual Suspects.
IN essence the Congress Can ONLY Blame Itself as it started Playing Politics with a Vital Multi-Lateral Accord, and "Now That They Are Beaten In Their Own Game, They Are Crying Foul.
IN The event the US Congress continues its Anti-Obama Crusade, the US Will Be The ONLY Isolated Party, Iran can keep its end of the Bargain, In-Whole or In-Part, and do Business with the rest of the World while the US Business & Labor Would End Up Being The Ultimate Losers (THE German Vice-Chancellor & Economy Minister is in Iran as we speak with a Trade Delegation to be followed by similar Delegations from France, Italy, Spain, Austria, China, Russia, Japan, Korea et al).
AND That Would Be "A Total Lose-Lose-Lose Proposition For The US Leadership, Credibility and Economy".
19
Couldn't agree more! Let's not forget Bibi's speech and how he called this deal a "Bad deal" before it was even reached !
5
Game, set, match sanity. Can we now stop with this infantile claim that this is a deal between Pres. Obama and Iran exclusively.
32
Great to see the whole world agree on something. It is the right thing to do.
I guess that comical bomb drawing Netanyahu brought to the UN didn't win the day.
I guess that comical bomb drawing Netanyahu brought to the UN didn't win the day.
33
The world pretended the king was dressed when he was naked until one person spoke the truth. The majority is not always right, and the majority of the world could not care less what is good for the future of the United States.
The whole world agrees? Honestly did we take a vote somewhere?
1
"Iran has pledged to let in international monitors to inspect its facilities for the next 10 years...."
Intentionally or not, the author leaves many readers with the impression that, ABSENT this agreement, Iran DOESN'T allow "international monitors to inspect its facilities." That's not true, as anyone who follows these matters knows. Iran is inspected more thoroughly than any other country in the world under its existing Safeguards Agreement. That's been true for a long time. What's also true is that those "international monitors" (the IAEA) are NOT claiming Iran is in violation of its Safeguards Agreement.
Not only is all this true, it's not even disputed or disputable. Yet I think few Americans understand this. They either believe Iran doesn't allow inspections at all, or that it's continually and repeatedly said to be in violation of its SA. Neither is true, or even claimed to be true, by the IAEA or anyone who follows these matters.
Intentionally or not, the author leaves many readers with the impression that, ABSENT this agreement, Iran DOESN'T allow "international monitors to inspect its facilities." That's not true, as anyone who follows these matters knows. Iran is inspected more thoroughly than any other country in the world under its existing Safeguards Agreement. That's been true for a long time. What's also true is that those "international monitors" (the IAEA) are NOT claiming Iran is in violation of its Safeguards Agreement.
Not only is all this true, it's not even disputed or disputable. Yet I think few Americans understand this. They either believe Iran doesn't allow inspections at all, or that it's continually and repeatedly said to be in violation of its SA. Neither is true, or even claimed to be true, by the IAEA or anyone who follows these matters.
60
Why does congress thinks it runs the world?
This was a agreement between many counties and was negotiated over many weeks of all the parties with many difficult decisions worked out by very smart people. So I think the agreement may not be 100 percent of what the US wanted but the world wanted this agreement. And as I see it Congress is just a political propaganda for the political parties and has nothing to do with the signed agreement. And everything I have read about the agreement has put many checks and balances in place. More than we had with Sanctions. The world has spoken.
This was a agreement between many counties and was negotiated over many weeks of all the parties with many difficult decisions worked out by very smart people. So I think the agreement may not be 100 percent of what the US wanted but the world wanted this agreement. And as I see it Congress is just a political propaganda for the political parties and has nothing to do with the signed agreement. And everything I have read about the agreement has put many checks and balances in place. More than we had with Sanctions. The world has spoken.
26
This whole discussion reflects the US Congress and the Republicans in particular denial of the limits of US power.Our squandering of our power in a war of choice is coming back to haunt us. We rejected the Treaty of Versailles in the US Senate because we did not want to limit our sovereignty and free use of our power. We then proceeded to squander this "freedom". We are doing it again. Nixon did not do this with China. Reagan did not do this with Russia.
2
And the secret underground nuclear facility in Fordo they denied existed until April of this year inspire not apprehension in you?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/world/middleeast/nuclear-plant-in-iran...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/world/middleeast/nuclear-plant-in-iran...
1
All of the countries that supported sanctions on Iran's oil, arms purchases and participation in the international finance system just made crystal clear that they will not continue to support sanctions. The U.S. cannot enforce effective sanctions with Russia, China and France selling arms to Iran; with China, the U.K., Germany and France buying oil from Iran; and with all other countries including Iran in the international finance system.
If Congress refuses to approve the deal and leaves U.S. sanctions in effect, Congress will only be hurting the U.S. and Israel. Iran will be free to work on a nuclear weapon, will sell oil and buy a lot of arms because they will know that the only option the U.S. and Israel would be left with is to bomb them.
If Congress thinks a better deal is to be had, let them pursue it via Israel. Let's see how many important economies Netanyahu can get to impose crippling sanctions upon Iran.