Someone please telling me how allowing any country proclaiming "death to America" to develop nuclear weapons in the near future (if they don't cheat) is a good idea. And please don't tell me the alternative is war. It seems Iran is headed in that direction as soon as the get a nuclear weapon.
1
Do-nothing Conservative Republicans are consistent in opposing progress. As long as they have a brainwashed electorate they can continue to sell their elixir
from the back of the wagon. It's old and stale and never cured anything to begin with.
from the back of the wagon. It's old and stale and never cured anything to begin with.
2
When a country has enrichment capability, it has already gone 2/3 of the way if it ever decides to build a nuclear weapon. The only better deal than this one was for Iran to completely stop enrichment and that wouldn't happen with any amount of sanctions or incentives (John Kerry read the Bush administration's very generous offer that Iranians had turned down in 2008). So the only reliable way to absolutely ensure that Iran will never make a bomb is to militarily invade and occupy it.
What other P5 1 nations TV stations - besides the U.S -
has the Israeli lobby broadcast political commercials against the Iran nuclear agreement on?
has the Israeli lobby broadcast political commercials against the Iran nuclear agreement on?
3
For the Republicans and Netanyahu, it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMDs. It only took 4000+ dead Americans, many more dead Iraqis, and trillions of dollars wasted to validate what others feared or suspected, i.e. that the WMD claim was false. Now, these same people are back, assuring us that the Iran accord is a bad deal, and slam dunking us that Iran will certainly cheat, and we'd best prepare for war. I really have to admire them. With such a failed record on Iraq, lesser people than they might have said "we had proven ourselves to be thoroughly and massively wrongheaded; it's probably best that we rest on our laurels and stop with the claims/assertions on Mideast policy". Not these guys, though, for whom failure only emboldens the more.
7
For some reason I feel that poison gas may be classified as a weapon of mass destruction.
Watching and listening to Obama, Kerry, and the rest of the quislings that define and control the Democrat Party today defending the deal with Iran leaves me embarrassed as an American. The land of the free and home of the brave - not exactly; a land of laws not men - not exactly; a reliable and trusted ally - not exactly; a country populated by educated and moral citizens, the prerequisite to any successful Republic or Democracy surviving - not exactly; a foreign policy accomplishment of legacy proportions - not exactly. Indeed if it were within my power I have Iran pay for Kerry's travel expenses because he clearly wasn't working for the US during these negotiations.
Did anyone believe that Obama's repeated statements that war was an option still on the table seriously? I didn't and I don't know anyone who did. So if you didn't we have to agree that Obama lied to us for years.
Looking at Hillary, at best an ethically challenged, morally and intellectually bankrupt, pocket padding politician as front runner in the believed that war was an option always on the table and st President Obama
Did anyone believe that Obama's repeated statements that war was an option still on the table seriously? I didn't and I don't know anyone who did. So if you didn't we have to agree that Obama lied to us for years.
Looking at Hillary, at best an ethically challenged, morally and intellectually bankrupt, pocket padding politician as front runner in the believed that war was an option always on the table and st President Obama
Secretary John Kerry can invest all his energies and expertise in convincing the Republican senators about the benefits of the nuclear treaty with Iran, but he is likely to have little or no success. The UN Security Council has approved it and the world public opinion is in support of the treaty.
The Republicans, however, are not listening to Kerry, as their minds are already made up. They will be convinced only if they receive a signal to do so from the Israeli ambassador or the Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. However, neither is likely to do so, as the fear of Iran and the birth of a Palestinian state have kept Mr. Netanyahu in power all these years and his popularity high.
Why would he abandon a winning strategy?
The Republicans, however, are not listening to Kerry, as their minds are already made up. They will be convinced only if they receive a signal to do so from the Israeli ambassador or the Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. However, neither is likely to do so, as the fear of Iran and the birth of a Palestinian state have kept Mr. Netanyahu in power all these years and his popularity high.
Why would he abandon a winning strategy?
8
A "bulwark?" That's what "the Party of no" has become? Bad deal for the world, let alone the USA, allowing Iran to build a nuclear bomb and a delivery system? AND enhance their conventional weapons so they can attack (again) their neighbors? Yeah, ok, "peace in our times."
Just like with Iraq, Bush won the war only for Obama to give it away.
Just like with Iraq, Bush won the war only for Obama to give it away.
If you follow the link it will take you to a story about President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program. " http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/atoms_for_p... "
You will see that America's involvment with Iran's nuclear program goes back to it's very beginnings. There is, literally, NO WAY today for the United States on it's own to stop Iran from doing anything. Unless of course you want to sent in the entire U.S. Military and have a full blown war, which is a rather assinine solution to the problem. We have an opportunity, with the agreement of OTHER nations involved in the negotiations, to at least attempt a peaceful resolution to a serious problem.
You will see that America's involvment with Iran's nuclear program goes back to it's very beginnings. There is, literally, NO WAY today for the United States on it's own to stop Iran from doing anything. Unless of course you want to sent in the entire U.S. Military and have a full blown war, which is a rather assinine solution to the problem. We have an opportunity, with the agreement of OTHER nations involved in the negotiations, to at least attempt a peaceful resolution to a serious problem.
5
The deal is very very bad, for not only the U.S., but the world.
Iran only wants sanctions lifted. The deal, to them, has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Doesn't matter if Congress does not approve....the rest of the signers of the deal are moving ahead. A monster vision has been unleashed. As Iran's top religious leader echoed a few days ago: death to Israel and death to the U.S., may Allah hear our prayers....quote unquote....As most know who keep up with this sort of nightmare, Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the region, if not the world.
I guess everyone here has forgotten 911 which is the top symbol of Islamic fanatacism concerning the U.S.
The deal is the needed green light for jihadists around the world....wonder just how long it will take before we see ramped up violence....if we see it, news media may not pass info along....
Iran only wants sanctions lifted. The deal, to them, has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Doesn't matter if Congress does not approve....the rest of the signers of the deal are moving ahead. A monster vision has been unleashed. As Iran's top religious leader echoed a few days ago: death to Israel and death to the U.S., may Allah hear our prayers....quote unquote....As most know who keep up with this sort of nightmare, Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the region, if not the world.
I guess everyone here has forgotten 911 which is the top symbol of Islamic fanatacism concerning the U.S.
The deal is the needed green light for jihadists around the world....wonder just how long it will take before we see ramped up violence....if we see it, news media may not pass info along....
1
Kerry says that without signing the deal as is, “a great big green light for Iran to double the pace of its uranium enrichment, proceed full speed ahead with a heavy water reactor, install new and more efficient centrifuges, and do it all without the unprecedented inspection and transparency measures that we have secured.”
So signing a deal that allows for inspection (right) and removes sanctions (Hmmm) and still allows Iran to build nuclear weapons (down the 'road') as well as purchase weapons from Russia and China are good things. All of this and Kerry and Obama and the NYTimes quote the Iran President as being the diplomat voted in to make this happen. Do US leaders and the media believe that the President runs the country?! He does not.
This isn't really a deal and the US and Europe know that. However, they don't really no what to do with the hatred spewed by Iran, so they hope. What happens when radical Islam (a.k.a. Iran, etc.) has nuclear weapons? I don't know. But it can't be good given the daily news of bombings, smuggling, corruption, rape, robbery, and lack of recognition of human rights from the 'leaders' in most of the middle east.
So signing a deal that allows for inspection (right) and removes sanctions (Hmmm) and still allows Iran to build nuclear weapons (down the 'road') as well as purchase weapons from Russia and China are good things. All of this and Kerry and Obama and the NYTimes quote the Iran President as being the diplomat voted in to make this happen. Do US leaders and the media believe that the President runs the country?! He does not.
This isn't really a deal and the US and Europe know that. However, they don't really no what to do with the hatred spewed by Iran, so they hope. What happens when radical Islam (a.k.a. Iran, etc.) has nuclear weapons? I don't know. But it can't be good given the daily news of bombings, smuggling, corruption, rape, robbery, and lack of recognition of human rights from the 'leaders' in most of the middle east.
Now we will how much loyalty AIPAC funding brings from these politicians and whether they are willing to sell out their own country for the interests of a foreign one.
2
Hopefully as much as Democrat vote buying among core constituency groups has been
Let's think a little broader here.
The Middle East doesn't want this deal, and it's not just Israel. As soon as the deal is signed, many players in the Middle East will look to partner up with whomever, to obtain nukes as well.
This deal insures the continuation of the current Iranian leadership. The only ones that really need this deal is the Iranian leadership. The sanctions are working, and may result in a change in Iranian leadership(i.e. the best solution to this issue).
Russia and China's economy needs the US a lot more than they need Iran. France, Germany, England will follow the US provided the US shows some leadership. Oh well--- Therein lies the Rub.
The Middle East doesn't want this deal, and it's not just Israel. As soon as the deal is signed, many players in the Middle East will look to partner up with whomever, to obtain nukes as well.
This deal insures the continuation of the current Iranian leadership. The only ones that really need this deal is the Iranian leadership. The sanctions are working, and may result in a change in Iranian leadership(i.e. the best solution to this issue).
Russia and China's economy needs the US a lot more than they need Iran. France, Germany, England will follow the US provided the US shows some leadership. Oh well--- Therein lies the Rub.
2
The search for a "legacy deal' was paramount in these negotiations, and since the Iranians observed this desperation as weakness, they grew increasingly contemptuous of the American team and kept moving the ball towards their goal line.
The Administration position that the outcome had to be a deal, even a deal that was not in our best security interests, or war is ridiculous. There are other options than war.
If they really believe this, someone should ask them if the Congress fails to approve the deal, since their only other option is war, will they ask for a Declaration of War?
I think not.
The Administration position that the outcome had to be a deal, even a deal that was not in our best security interests, or war is ridiculous. There are other options than war.
If they really believe this, someone should ask them if the Congress fails to approve the deal, since their only other option is war, will they ask for a Declaration of War?
I think not.
3
There is no agreement that could have been negotiated by the Obama Administration that would be acceptable to its implacable opponents in the Republican Party. At 68, I'm old enough to remember when "politics stopped at the water's edge." No more. Even our national security is fair game for the partisan meat-grinder that is Washington.
1
Deals with dictators don't work; not between Hitler and Stalin, Russia and the US, North Korea and the US, no where. You can't name one treaty that has ever lasted a minute longer than it has worked to the dictator's advantage. Therefore anyone opposing this deal is on terra firma where ever or whoever they are.
1
Yeah, deals with adversaries, especially with adversaries that are trying to kill you and wipe you off the map don't work.
1
John Kerry revealed his state of mind while commenting before Senate committee on Iran this Friday, stating the world would blame Israel if the Iran deal will fall. Using fear as a tactic used is lame when Kerry refused to deal with the real issue of how Iran endanger Israel. Additionally, Kerry's critical state mind of Israel continues with a slip of a tong when he says that if Iran fails to comply with what it agreed, the U.S. will then reapply all the sanctions and I quote Kerry: "all the way to the most dracoaian options we use today. " Which plainly means that Kerry resent those sanctions used today against Iran. Which Kerry ' s statements does not necessarily makes the sanctions "Draconian" when Iran contemplated of the destruction of Israel. Which is more ddraconian I ask you?
3
What bothers me is that it appears to me as if we are being subjected to some sort of political theater in Washington that uses divisive rhetoric and insult to generate the impression that we have a vibrant, contentious, two-party government with a well-considered truth emerging from the debate. That is an illusion. We have a government which is dominated by corporate and banking interests, and the elites of both Republican and Democratic Parties; in short, a one-party system, a 'corporate party' if you will, which is maintaining the pretext of two-party rule by outrageous theatrics. Whatever happens with the Iran deal, just as with the TPP deal, will be what is beneficial to corporate and financial interests. It is unfortunate that we have to be treated to reality TV in the process.
1
I am, once again, disappointed in Republican Party leaders.
How on Earth has the 'Iran Deal' become a partisan issue? The Republican representative do not seem to be looking at the merits of this deal and deciding if it is in the best interests of the USA. Instead thsi is being used as a vehicle to make our President look foolish on the world stage.
I tend to believe that our European bretheren have done a good job of insisting that this deal will do what it is intended to do, stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons. Letting party politics undermine the years of hard work and compromise simply to embarrass President Obama is shameful. This will only serve to destroy the ability of the US to remain as a leader.
Congress and the House need to analyze the deal and give it a up or down vote without party politics playing any role..The issue is simple, will the 'Deal' prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons with in the next 1--15 years?
I am embarrassed by how my party leaders are behaving...
How on Earth has the 'Iran Deal' become a partisan issue? The Republican representative do not seem to be looking at the merits of this deal and deciding if it is in the best interests of the USA. Instead thsi is being used as a vehicle to make our President look foolish on the world stage.
I tend to believe that our European bretheren have done a good job of insisting that this deal will do what it is intended to do, stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons. Letting party politics undermine the years of hard work and compromise simply to embarrass President Obama is shameful. This will only serve to destroy the ability of the US to remain as a leader.
Congress and the House need to analyze the deal and give it a up or down vote without party politics playing any role..The issue is simple, will the 'Deal' prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons with in the next 1--15 years?
I am embarrassed by how my party leaders are behaving...
2
In my view the dichotomy "deal or war" argued in Congress and everywhere by the supporters of the Iranian deal, clearly indicates that in Iran´s big strategy, the development of the atomic bomb is a decision already taken by the Ayatollahs and they will not stop until they get it. If this is not the case, why could a "no deal" provoke a war? Why the US, Israel or any other country would involve in a war with Iran if a threat of an Iranian nuke were a fantasy? Thus, the third alternative could have been to keep the sanctions, thus preventing Iran to get the billions of dollars they will raise from the business deals the Western world is ready to sign, and keep them without enough budget to maintain their nuclear initiative and at the same time their economy running. They recognize that without a deal, they would have fall into a Stone Age Economy. But now, they are ready to move forward.
Will the signatories of this agreement have the capabilities to check all the existent sites, where Iran develops its nuclear activities, openly or in secret, to prevent the continuation of their strategy to get the bomb?
Iran hates the US and the West and the closest demonstration of that occurred days ago during the al Quds day, when they burnt Americans, British and Israeli flags, shouting against the big Satan, with the presence of the highest authorities ruling the country.
Is this a reliable "partner"?
Will the signatories of this agreement have the capabilities to check all the existent sites, where Iran develops its nuclear activities, openly or in secret, to prevent the continuation of their strategy to get the bomb?
Iran hates the US and the West and the closest demonstration of that occurred days ago during the al Quds day, when they burnt Americans, British and Israeli flags, shouting against the big Satan, with the presence of the highest authorities ruling the country.
Is this a reliable "partner"?
2
It would seem obvious to a former Strategic Air Command Pilot that YES, - there is an alternative to the Congress NOT signing the Iran Nuclear Deal. The solution is quite obvious, - an Immediate Conflict in which the USAF, and the USN bring about full attacks with Bombs and Missles, - including the use of MOABS, (The Mother Of all - NON )- Bombs on Iranian Nuclear Facilities. Perhaps those Members of Congress who are all out for trashing the agreement might just like to 'Strap Into The Backseat' of a Bomber headed in Irans direction. OH, - I forgot, - there are only very few in Congress who ever served in the Military, but would be the 1st to put American Airmen at risk!
3
So, can we assume that Sen. Corker will be the next clown to announce bis candidacy for President?
In fact, why don't ALL of the 42 signers of the infamous pro-Israel/Anti-President letter just get it over with and all announce right now that they are ALL running for President!
In fact, why don't ALL of the 42 signers of the infamous pro-Israel/Anti-President letter just get it over with and all announce right now that they are ALL running for President!
6
At great risk to the nation, Republicans are making an undefined "better deal" the enemy of a "good deal," indeed, a very good deal. A rejection of the deal on the grounds that America can go it alone to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them constitutes a threat to America's standing in the world. Friends and foes alike would realize that the United States cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith. The sanctions would collapse, and unilateral sanctions would be folly and have no effect. Their failure would leave the US with no options to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons than by unilateral actions: attacks on Iran's actual or suspected facilities, perpetual war with and possible occupation of Iran, or a nuclear onslaught to destroy the country. In short, America would define itself as an international bully from which many countries might think they had to develop the means to defend themselves--precisely what Iran has thought. America's belligerent exceptionalism is making enemies, not making peace. Rejecting the treaty makes the world, not a safer, but a more dangerous, place.
8
Thank you for the sane comment. The Republicans are too quick to shed American troops' blood for no good reason which will happen if, somehow, they scuttle diplomacy.
Not sure if anyone can believe the Secretary of State who initially claimed the Iran nuclear deal would include UN inspections "anytime-anywhere." That is not the case; an article Congress members ought to read before they cast a vote on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is written by Clifford D. May, Tuesday July 21, 2015. It can be accessed on the Internet. http/www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/21/clifford-may-scuttle-obamas-iran-deal-or-surrender/ Mr. May is President of the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times.
1
Kerry Defends Iran Nuclear Deal Before Senate Dumps It, I hope.
Our new America. 50 separate "countries"; 100 Secretaries of State who don't think as one anymore. If the 100 secretaries reject the "deal", the embargos will dissolve, Iran will be free to continue its nuclear weapons development and five countries who negotiated "the deal" with the U.S. will distrust doing business with us again and our leadership role will be lost forever.
Why is this happening? Follow the money to who and why many of these "secretaries" are rejecting the "deal."
Why is this happening? Follow the money to who and why many of these "secretaries" are rejecting the "deal."
An alternative to this bad deal is not war. We should seek a better deal when Iran is deeper in the financial hole and Obama is not desperate to solidify his legacy before he becomes a lame duck president.
2
Please take out the word :duck". Thank you.
This treaty is only a start. The steps must be carried out for it to have any chance of working. The only alternative to not having a deal is war. One has to only look at the fiasco in Iraq to see the folly in that. I wonder how many children of the Republican members of Congress are willing to put themselves on the line if war comes.
All Congressmen loyal to Israel are by definition of split loyalty and/or corrupt. If so, they should be disbarred from public office. They are of course free to dislike and turn down the agreement, but not because Israel wants them to.
All that said, they may have a technical point about a weakness in the agreement - and that is the 24 day process for granting inspections. There is no reason to trust the Government of Iran and every reason to suspect they are fully capable of covering-up any threat of detection in time should this procedure be triggered. It is fundamentally important to the building of confidence in this agreement that experts in weapons inspection programs can convince the world that the 24 day noticing process cannot impair the effectiveness of the inspection program. If they cannot do this, the agreement is fundamentally flawed and needs to be reopened. If they can do it, the agreement should be passed, as the alternative would be much worse. Netanyahu is fantasizing if he believes a sanctions regime can remain effective indefinitely, or that the world owes him the costly maintenance of this program forever after.
All that said, they may have a technical point about a weakness in the agreement - and that is the 24 day process for granting inspections. There is no reason to trust the Government of Iran and every reason to suspect they are fully capable of covering-up any threat of detection in time should this procedure be triggered. It is fundamentally important to the building of confidence in this agreement that experts in weapons inspection programs can convince the world that the 24 day noticing process cannot impair the effectiveness of the inspection program. If they cannot do this, the agreement is fundamentally flawed and needs to be reopened. If they can do it, the agreement should be passed, as the alternative would be much worse. Netanyahu is fantasizing if he believes a sanctions regime can remain effective indefinitely, or that the world owes him the costly maintenance of this program forever after.
Your point, our country.
By your logic all members of Congress during WW2 with loyalties to France and England are corrupt. But it should be noted that embers of congress already have split loyalties. By definition they represent the interest of their home state as well the United States. This includes not just the citizens, the resources and corporations and the employes of both. Any loyalty to any other country is based on mutual security and mutual self interest. Churchill was half American and was loyal to both America and England. I guess he was, by your words, corrupt,
By your logic all members of Congress during WW2 with loyalties to France and England are corrupt. But it should be noted that embers of congress already have split loyalties. By definition they represent the interest of their home state as well the United States. This includes not just the citizens, the resources and corporations and the employes of both. Any loyalty to any other country is based on mutual security and mutual self interest. Churchill was half American and was loyal to both America and England. I guess he was, by your words, corrupt,
We should expect our representatives to be skeptical. Unfortunately that requires intellect, information, reflection, logic, moral courage -- and a wise electorate to send them to the halls of Congress in the first place. What we've seen so far in these hearings (and those on Benghazi, etc.) is generally not skepticism but a sideshow of sanctimonious posturing, pandering to ignorant opinion, and kicking the can down the road.
The President has said that the bottom line alternative is war. Would such an outcome escalate into an Iraq-like "troops on the ground" post-bombing inspection force, an occupation force, Iran retaliation against Israel and a general conflagration requiring a draft? What will the cost of lives and treasure be? These are some of the questions that should also be addressed by the Senate hearings. The other-side-of-the-coin scenario is so far solely missing from the discussion.
No agreement is stronger than the willingness of the parties to perform it. Does anyone really think that Iran will willingly perform this agreement given the well documented hostility Iran has shown towards the United States?
2
"Mr. Kerry mocked the belief in “some sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran’s complete capitulation” as “a fantasy, plain and simple.”
No, it was our complete capitulation. We went from anytime anywhere to 24 days and then we send the request to a committee for further consideration. I mean, are we that stupid? Perhaps we are.
No, it was our complete capitulation. We went from anytime anywhere to 24 days and then we send the request to a committee for further consideration. I mean, are we that stupid? Perhaps we are.
2
As a person who felt the Jewish people should have been given one-third of Germany as partial reparation following WWII, I suggest we offer Isreal the opportunity to become the 51st state with all the benefits and obligations therein. Welcome!
1
Iran may just be the ally we need to curb the spread of ISIS. We created a power vacuum in Iraq that was a perfect breeding ground for terrorism.
Have the Republicans learnd nothing? Where were they when they had to take their history classes?
Have the Republicans learnd nothing? Where were they when they had to take their history classes?
3
After Bush invaded Iraq, what did you expect Iran to do? Getting the big one, before getting invaded!
“I continue to support a negotiated solution and think it preferable to war,”
Sure, but what when the said negotiations will lead to an unprecedented war that will be far more destructive and horrific than the ones in the past? What will be the only response to an Iran that is showing more and more belligerent and audacious, saying it hates the US 100 times more than before the negotiations, who chants at every occasion: "Death to America", will certainly extend its hold on the three major international traffic sea roads ? Do we need this unspeakable deal? Can the Americans trust the words and promises of a president that cheated so many times, uses Veto that equals coercion, to push a most questionable deal, silenced two secret sided-deals with the IAEA concerning the military nuclear activities of Iran in the hope that when disclosed, than too late? A president who promises peace but offers to send an unprecedented compensation weapons delivery to Israel, who does not considers his allies´ legitimate concerns, trusting more a state known for funding terrorism around the world, responsible for the death of hundreds of Americans, which is known for its cheating and not respecting its engagements.
Would you trust someone continually and shamelessly saying in our face: "I´ll kill you?", "You´re bad!". "You deserve to be destroyed!"?
No deal is better than a rotten one. Beware of the unfathomable suffering it bears!
Sure, but what when the said negotiations will lead to an unprecedented war that will be far more destructive and horrific than the ones in the past? What will be the only response to an Iran that is showing more and more belligerent and audacious, saying it hates the US 100 times more than before the negotiations, who chants at every occasion: "Death to America", will certainly extend its hold on the three major international traffic sea roads ? Do we need this unspeakable deal? Can the Americans trust the words and promises of a president that cheated so many times, uses Veto that equals coercion, to push a most questionable deal, silenced two secret sided-deals with the IAEA concerning the military nuclear activities of Iran in the hope that when disclosed, than too late? A president who promises peace but offers to send an unprecedented compensation weapons delivery to Israel, who does not considers his allies´ legitimate concerns, trusting more a state known for funding terrorism around the world, responsible for the death of hundreds of Americans, which is known for its cheating and not respecting its engagements.
Would you trust someone continually and shamelessly saying in our face: "I´ll kill you?", "You´re bad!". "You deserve to be destroyed!"?
No deal is better than a rotten one. Beware of the unfathomable suffering it bears!
When the time comes for Iran’s leaders to launch a final nuclear assault on Israel, they will not be consulting their peace loving, young people about it. It will just be missiles away.
Take this advice from this old 70 year old fart US Navy veteran 1963 - 1967.
I've got news for those opposing this deal and in their reasoning they are wrong. 1. Our technology as such that we can view every site in Iran via satellite and via the intelligence agencies. 2. Their is a certain amount of trust one has to start before other concerns can be negotiated. 3. Iran is the only country fighting ISIS fully the rest Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Israel are just making it worse. 4. It is an international deal not just the United States 5. You don’t have the Constitutional authority. 6. You will lose whatever credibility we have with NATO and the UN.
I've got news for those opposing this deal and in their reasoning they are wrong. 1. Our technology as such that we can view every site in Iran via satellite and via the intelligence agencies. 2. Their is a certain amount of trust one has to start before other concerns can be negotiated. 3. Iran is the only country fighting ISIS fully the rest Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Israel are just making it worse. 4. It is an international deal not just the United States 5. You don’t have the Constitutional authority. 6. You will lose whatever credibility we have with NATO and the UN.
1
The idiocy of Kerry and the Obama administration on the Iran agreement is beyond belief! It has been apparent from the beginning that Obama would force our negotiators to agree to anything that Iran wanted, thus removing all leverage on our part.
The alternative? Deny Iran the capability to develop nuclear weapons by bombing all development sites and continuing to do so until they stopped development.
As it stands, it is inevitable that one day the U.S. will face an attack on our soil by an Iranian-developed nuclear weapon. History has shown us that early and comprehensive military action against adversaries results in far less casualties and damage than delay and then facing a larger, costlier conflict.
The alternative? Deny Iran the capability to develop nuclear weapons by bombing all development sites and continuing to do so until they stopped development.
As it stands, it is inevitable that one day the U.S. will face an attack on our soil by an Iranian-developed nuclear weapon. History has shown us that early and comprehensive military action against adversaries results in far less casualties and damage than delay and then facing a larger, costlier conflict.
One of the key problems often mentioned in this context is that 'Iran cheats' and has a history of prevaricating and duplicity etc. Now will someone please explain what was George Bush Jr. doing when he accused Saddam Hussain of Iraq of having WMDs and was trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. This was never established by the IAEA inspectors and the then DG, IAEA Hans Blix quit in disgust and Gen. Colin Powell later apologised for misleading the UN General Assembly, but by then George Bush had already bombed Iraq into the Stone Age and had pushed Saddam Hussain under a manhole.
But this is not lying. This is just the way the Republicans function. If you have any doubt, recall the famous song of John McCain "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", during his Presidential campaign in 2008.
But this is not lying. This is just the way the Republicans function. If you have any doubt, recall the famous song of John McCain "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", during his Presidential campaign in 2008.
As a Jewish democrat, I am concerned about Iran getting a nuclear weapon, and I am also concerned about the growing rift between Israel and the Democratic Party in the U.S.
To many, these issues are merely political. But to me, and many other Jews, both issues are deeply troubling and freighting.
The truth is that no country has more to gain or more too lose by this agreement than Israel.
So I, for one, hope it works.
To many, these issues are merely political. But to me, and many other Jews, both issues are deeply troubling and freighting.
The truth is that no country has more to gain or more too lose by this agreement than Israel.
So I, for one, hope it works.
1
I have seen no technical rebuttal to this deal from the opponents. The opponents ignore the explanations of the Administration's experts, and simply make blanket, unsupported statements that this is a bad deal. If the opponents have factual data to contradict the Administration, they should lay it out, not simply express their emotion-driven, baseless opinions.
The Republicans (and some Democrats, I fear) are marching to the tune of the Israeli lobby and the Israeli ambassador. He should be declared personna non grata. Since when does the ambassador of a foreign country openly campaign against the stated policy of the host government?
1
I do not understand how any responsible person can oppose this treaty and suggest doing nothing as an alternative. I'm sure that this treaty is not perfect - negotiated settlements seldom are. But doing nothing, which as far as I can tell is the Republican alternative, seems like a much worse option to me.
Maybe I am missing something or maybe the Republicans are just taking another opportunity to thwart President Obama at the cost of doing what is best for our country.
Maybe I am missing something or maybe the Republicans are just taking another opportunity to thwart President Obama at the cost of doing what is best for our country.
4
It is the latter. And they have been successful: they will keep him from being elected to another term.
What's really depressing is the depth and breadth of Republican ignorance and ideological blinkering on display for all the world to see. The very fact, for example, that they excoriate the administration for not simply keeping the sanctions on indefinitely until Iran caves unconditionally - the very antithesis of a negotiation - flies in the face of the reality that our international partners, not to mention the rest of the world, would not go along with a US that was so completely intransigent. And our own sanctions would be ineffective without the international community. But, clearly, for the know-nothing GOP the rest of the world hardly exists.
It's an embarrassment that we have voted for such people to control our Congress, and their shame is ours.
It's an embarrassment that we have voted for such people to control our Congress, and their shame is ours.
With a national election little more than a year away, the Republicans are not about to do anything other than stonewall, and/or pontificate, and/or pretend to be foreign policy experts. Their fecklessness is predictable. As for their stable of presidential candidates, what a bunch of horse manure. The idea that anyone would listen to the likes of Marco Rubio on foreign policy would be hilarious if it weren't so very, very sad.
Of course he has to considering that they conceded unjustifiable concessions to the mullahs. Forgoing six Security Council resolutions, forgoing anytime/anywhere inspections, and revoking many sanctions are all unacceptable mistakes. This comes at a time when due to its extremely fragile and critical condition, had the P5+1 showed firmness, the regime would have had no choice but to completely retreat and permanently abandon its nuclear weapons project and to forgo all uranium enrichment. The Iranian regime was far too weak to impose its will in the negotiations. Such a feat was also possible back in November 2013. Had the international community showed resolve, the Iranian regime would have been forced to completely shelve its nuclear weapons program as it could not face the prospect of further sanctions and domestic uprisings. This is arguably the worst international accord not just in American history or modern history and everyone knows it.
1
Congress has lowered its standard of deliberation
so much that it doesn't even deserve much consideration.
Consitution does give congress the responsibility
of oversight. However, founding fathers neither
anticipated so much partisanship and crass debates
nor imagined corrosive influence of money
and foreign government excercising stragulating
influence on the congress through their wealthy
American supporters who will undermine their own
government to show loyalty to a foreign leader.
so much that it doesn't even deserve much consideration.
Consitution does give congress the responsibility
of oversight. However, founding fathers neither
anticipated so much partisanship and crass debates
nor imagined corrosive influence of money
and foreign government excercising stragulating
influence on the congress through their wealthy
American supporters who will undermine their own
government to show loyalty to a foreign leader.
Kudos to Secretary Kerry for surviving this most disrespectful display by his former colleagues in the Senate, none of whom actually understand or have even read the agreement. I would have been tempted to walk out of the hearing room when attacked personally and when Senator Rubio threw his grenade and left the hearing, obviously uninterested in any other points of view. Seriously, is this what passes for "advice and consent" as prescribed in the Constitution regarding treaties? Disgusting!
So suppose the deal is rejected, then what? Do the opponents think they can get the other 5 powers, including Russia and China, after 4 years of work, to come back and to the table? That isn't going to happen. What will happen is that the sanctions will collapse and there will be no inspections at all, not even perfect ones. Iran will get its money, most off which is not in US bank,s and will be free to trade with the entire world other than the US. I have yet to hear an answer regarding this from any opponent of the deal, so I throw out the challenge to the readers here.
yup, prevent the deal from being put into action, and watch how Russia and China swoop in on Iran, leaving the US in the sidelines in embarrassment.
If you wanted to distill down the state of the nation, Marco Rubio's hollow contemptuous response to American foreign policy initiatives in the Senate hearings today is quintessential. You can argue about the facts, and parse the agreement, but the bottom line is that Republicans -- and short-sighted, self-serving Republican presidential candidates -- are quite willing and able to undermine American foreign policy, regardless of merits of the policy. The only bright spot today is that Trump, the frontrunner, may run as a third-party candidate. Or is that a new low for the country?
Sen. Corker, I was very depressed to see your snarky, un-statesmanlike treatment of Secretary Kerry and the administration. Even though you tried to change your words from "You were fleeced" to "We were fleeced' you only extended your insult to thousands of Americans who have worked to control the spread of nuclear weapons, including those in your home state at Oak Ridge, Tenn. This is not what the country expects from the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I cannot imagine Sen. Lugar behaving as you did today. I can only hope you were still affected by the terrible events in Chattanooga.
Kerry could have had a deal where Iran agreed to wholly convert to Christianity, disband their military, and end their nuclear program by blowing up all their nuclear facilities and the GOParty of no (ideas) would have refused to accept it because it came from Obama.
A commenter asks:
"If Benjamin Netanyahu had expressed approval of the agreement, would congressional Republicans then also vote to approve it?"
If "Benjamin Netanyahu had expressed approval of the agreement," then, as Clint Eastwood might say: "We wouldn't even be having this debate."
"If Benjamin Netanyahu had expressed approval of the agreement, would congressional Republicans then also vote to approve it?"
If "Benjamin Netanyahu had expressed approval of the agreement," then, as Clint Eastwood might say: "We wouldn't even be having this debate."
"What is anyone’s guess about much longer the coalition’s sanctions regime could be maintained, let alone expanded or strengthened?"
Maintains? Not very long.
Expanded or strengthened? Never.
Kerry and Obama seem to understand this, and I'm confident Kerry will get it across to the Congressional leaders before the 60-day gnashing-of-the-teeth session is over.
Maintains? Not very long.
Expanded or strengthened? Never.
Kerry and Obama seem to understand this, and I'm confident Kerry will get it across to the Congressional leaders before the 60-day gnashing-of-the-teeth session is over.
Chris, of San Francisco, repeats an assertion many make:
"Iran has repeatedly said it was to incinerate Israel."
Ever notice that no one who says this ever gives an example?
There's a reason for that. Either the person making that assertion just made it up, or they heard it somewhere and assumed it must be true.
It's not true. Someone just made it up. It's time we all started facing reality here, and that would be a good place to start.
"Iran has repeatedly said it was to incinerate Israel."
Ever notice that no one who says this ever gives an example?
There's a reason for that. Either the person making that assertion just made it up, or they heard it somewhere and assumed it must be true.
It's not true. Someone just made it up. It's time we all started facing reality here, and that would be a good place to start.
"Senator Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho"
Who is this clown? And from whence comes this notion that "we're going to trust Iran to do its own testing?" Maybe I'm handicapped because I've actually read the agreement, but I have no idea what he's even talking about.
Who is this clown? And from whence comes this notion that "we're going to trust Iran to do its own testing?" Maybe I'm handicapped because I've actually read the agreement, but I have no idea what he's even talking about.
A commenter thinks Congress would be insane to approve this deal:
"I question the sanity of any member of congress that votes for this deal."
My hunch is that Congress will pass some anti-deal resolution, approved by Republicans and a handful of AIPAC Democrats. Obama will veto it, Congress won't have enough votes to override the veto, the deal will go through, and the opponents will tell Obama: "This is all on you."
To which Obama will reply: "Correct. I can live with that."
So can I.
"I question the sanity of any member of congress that votes for this deal."
My hunch is that Congress will pass some anti-deal resolution, approved by Republicans and a handful of AIPAC Democrats. Obama will veto it, Congress won't have enough votes to override the veto, the deal will go through, and the opponents will tell Obama: "This is all on you."
To which Obama will reply: "Correct. I can live with that."
So can I.
Why are the Republicans unable to discuss vital issues and potential solutions in adult, sincere, and honest ways?
And why doesn't the media challenge the Republicans when they are so disrespectful, uninformed, and insincere in trying to solve any problems during President Obama's terms in office?
And why doesn't the media challenge the Republicans when they are so disrespectful, uninformed, and insincere in trying to solve any problems during President Obama's terms in office?
Really Mr. Kerry... and the Agreement which keeps Iran's Nuclear Infrastructure intact and and helps to "Protect" Iran's Nuclear Infrastructure does not constitute a "Green Light" for Iran ??...
-------
According to the Agreement - Page 142/ Article 10:
" E3/EU+3 parties , and possibly other states, as appropriate, are prepared to cooperate with Iran… to strengthen Iran's ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems…[and]... to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage …"
----
This clause is tantamount to providing Iran with a safeguard of its Nuclear facilities... So, not only does this Agreement NOT prevent Iran from obtaining Nuclear Weapons in about 10 Years ( if not sooner... ), this Agreement guarantees Iran's ability to do so...
(Note: Not even the infamous Munich (Chamberlain) Agreement of 1938 provided Hitler with a guarantee of its industrial and military infrastructure)
- Not only will the United States become the Guarantor of a State sponsor of Terrorism, whose mantra is " Death to America" - but in doing so, the Obama Administration may facilitate an enemy of its Allies , as well as facilitate an enemy of The United States, itself....
-------
According to the Agreement - Page 142/ Article 10:
" E3/EU+3 parties , and possibly other states, as appropriate, are prepared to cooperate with Iran… to strengthen Iran's ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems…[and]... to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage …"
----
This clause is tantamount to providing Iran with a safeguard of its Nuclear facilities... So, not only does this Agreement NOT prevent Iran from obtaining Nuclear Weapons in about 10 Years ( if not sooner... ), this Agreement guarantees Iran's ability to do so...
(Note: Not even the infamous Munich (Chamberlain) Agreement of 1938 provided Hitler with a guarantee of its industrial and military infrastructure)
- Not only will the United States become the Guarantor of a State sponsor of Terrorism, whose mantra is " Death to America" - but in doing so, the Obama Administration may facilitate an enemy of its Allies , as well as facilitate an enemy of The United States, itself....
1
Iran is widely reported to have been 3 months from obtaining a nuclear weapon when it agreed to put everything on hold and negotiate in 2013.
Critics say war is NOT the alternate to approving the agreement, but I wonder: if Congress were to reject the agreement and override Obama's veto, would the critics be willing to vote to authorize war against Iran within 3 months to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon? After all, the U.S. and Israel have committed to using force if necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Critics say war is NOT the alternate to approving the agreement, but I wonder: if Congress were to reject the agreement and override Obama's veto, would the critics be willing to vote to authorize war against Iran within 3 months to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon? After all, the U.S. and Israel have committed to using force if necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
This is an International Treaty not just a treaty between the US and Iran.
The US Congress doesn´t have the power to disallow an International
Treaty that includes other important world players.
The US Congress doesn´t have the power to disallow an International
Treaty that includes other important world players.
5
It is ridiculous for Iran to be treated this way. An ancient civilization that's among the first to codify law & permits civil rights (including rights of slaves), the most educated and most democratic country in the Middle East after Israel (any maybe Turkey) is being barred from even conducting research into metallurgy. The argument that Iran have enough oil to power its industries so any research into nuclear power must be for weapons holds no water as U.S., Canada, Russia and UK all have advanced nuclear research and sits on top of huge oil wells.
8
1936 It is ridiculous for Germany to be treated this way. An ancient civilization that's among the first to create classical music....permits civil rights , the most educated and most democratic country in Europe
AmateurHistorian... you are clueless. Iran ancient civilization was not controlled by mullahs and uyou did forget they attacked Greece and other countries in the region.
AmateurHistorian... you are clueless. Iran ancient civilization was not controlled by mullahs and uyou did forget they attacked Greece and other countries in the region.
The regime of Islamic Republic has nothing to do with the ancient civilization of Iran. In fact they have changed the history books and they only teach history of Islam in schools. Unfortunately we are not dealing with people of Iran.
Unbelievable !!! Corker and so many other Republicans resist diplomacy. Waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan was apparently so successful that the U.S. should continue, and bomb and invade Iran.
13
The Republicans are Bibi's little puppets . The American People do not want endless war . But Israel does as long as others do the fighting while Israel continues to confiscate Palestinian land .
A fair point:
"NYT says "Republicans Have Minds Made Up on Day 1". But the same is also true for NYT and the Senate Liberals."
Second-term presidents traditionally focus on foreign policy, and they usually get something significant done only if it doesn't require Congressional approval – which second-term presidents sometimes don't have at all and almost never have when the issue involves Israel.
Obama is first and foremost a politician, and I'm sure he's done his homework well on this one. He knows the opponents won't come close to mustering enough votes to override the veto that he's made very clear he's going to exercise.
Done deal – please wake us all up when the posturing and teeth-gnashing is over.
"NYT says "Republicans Have Minds Made Up on Day 1". But the same is also true for NYT and the Senate Liberals."
Second-term presidents traditionally focus on foreign policy, and they usually get something significant done only if it doesn't require Congressional approval – which second-term presidents sometimes don't have at all and almost never have when the issue involves Israel.
Obama is first and foremost a politician, and I'm sure he's done his homework well on this one. He knows the opponents won't come close to mustering enough votes to override the veto that he's made very clear he's going to exercise.
Done deal – please wake us all up when the posturing and teeth-gnashing is over.
4
Re "minds made up" you are correct. There is absolutely no objectivity in politics or government. One among many as why it is so dysfunctional.
"...Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, one Republican presidential candidate, warning that the next administration would be “under no obligation” to abide by the deal..."
That's correct, of course, but I'd put the odds of that at "extremely low" -- somewhere in the under-1% range.
That's correct, of course, but I'd put the odds of that at "extremely low" -- somewhere in the under-1% range.
6
A commenter says it's better that our foreign policy be dictated by Israel than by Iran:
"I prefer that Israel not Iran will tell USA how to conduct its foreign affairs."
Might there be a third alternative?
"I prefer that Israel not Iran will tell USA how to conduct its foreign affairs."
Might there be a third alternative?
7
Europe and the UN are in charge under this agreement. For example, Annex III apparently prescribes that the E3 + 1 help Iran to harden its nuclear assets against cyber attacks. It may indeed call on the E5 + 1 to defend against a cyber attack (from say Israel). Senator Rubio asked the three Secretaries about this and Kerry's answer was oblique to say the least.
Corker's right about this:
"Mr. Corker said ... that administration officials had engaged in “hyperbole” by saying the choice was “between this deal and war.”"
There's a third choice: no deal, no war. On the off-chance that this deal doesn't go through, that "third choice" is far more likely than war.
Iran will just keep submitting to IAEA inspections, as Iran has been doing for a long time. The IAEA will just keep reporting that Iran is not violating its Safeguards Agreement, as the IAEA has been doing for a long time (while assuring its critics, of course, that, gosh-darn, it sure wishes Iran would let it poke around Iranian military bases whenever the mood strikes it). Netanyahu will just keep yammering that Israel isn't going to take this lying down, and we'll do our best to stifle a yawn. And the Iranian military will quietly place more and more ready-to-fire (conventional) missiles out in the Iranian desert, all armed and aimed at Israel, just in case Israel ever actually does more than trot out Netanyahu to tell us all the sky is falling.
And then maybe in a year or two, many ill-informed Americans who think this is a bad deal will reconsider their views when they finally figure out that we'd be getting a lot more information out of Iran if we'd done this deal.
That's what will happen if this deal doesn't go through.
"Mr. Corker said ... that administration officials had engaged in “hyperbole” by saying the choice was “between this deal and war.”"
There's a third choice: no deal, no war. On the off-chance that this deal doesn't go through, that "third choice" is far more likely than war.
Iran will just keep submitting to IAEA inspections, as Iran has been doing for a long time. The IAEA will just keep reporting that Iran is not violating its Safeguards Agreement, as the IAEA has been doing for a long time (while assuring its critics, of course, that, gosh-darn, it sure wishes Iran would let it poke around Iranian military bases whenever the mood strikes it). Netanyahu will just keep yammering that Israel isn't going to take this lying down, and we'll do our best to stifle a yawn. And the Iranian military will quietly place more and more ready-to-fire (conventional) missiles out in the Iranian desert, all armed and aimed at Israel, just in case Israel ever actually does more than trot out Netanyahu to tell us all the sky is falling.
And then maybe in a year or two, many ill-informed Americans who think this is a bad deal will reconsider their views when they finally figure out that we'd be getting a lot more information out of Iran if we'd done this deal.
That's what will happen if this deal doesn't go through.
5
There really is no third choice. If I'm Iran, still siting under sanctions, it's in my best interests to sprint for a bomb because that's my leverage in the international community. So your third choice is a nuclear Iran, long before your ill-informed american's reconsider anything.
I question the sanity of any member of congress that votes for this deal. Obama is a hopeless Iranian partisan and his record since taking office bears this out.
The Iranians haven't abandoned their pursuit of nuclear weapons or their aggression toward the West as Obama would have us believe. To the contrary, the Iranian mullahs have recently reaffirmed their support of terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas and will undoubtedly continue supporting groups like the Taliban and Haqqani Network that have been attacking and killing US soldiers.
The Iranians haven't abandoned their pursuit of nuclear weapons or their aggression toward the West as Obama would have us believe. To the contrary, the Iranian mullahs have recently reaffirmed their support of terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas and will undoubtedly continue supporting groups like the Taliban and Haqqani Network that have been attacking and killing US soldiers.
7
Sir are you aware that Iran has a literacy rate of 97 per cent, that 60 per cent of college graduates are women and 65 per cent of advanced degree holders are women. The Prime Minister was elected to provide jobs and improve the economy. Iran's people are Persian not Arabs. Yes the Ayatollah is the Supreme Leader but the population is well educated and donot always follow his lead.
Whatever the Obama administration proposes, the GOP opposes.
Sheesh.......but this is so tiresome. Where are our representatives in Congress who care deeply about governing, making wise decisions for our country and who can rise above the endless political rhetoric? Where?
Sheesh.......but this is so tiresome. Where are our representatives in Congress who care deeply about governing, making wise decisions for our country and who can rise above the endless political rhetoric? Where?
5
I blame Tim Kaine and other Senate Democrats who in their attempts to seem relevant and pander to conservative constituents have played right into a trap set by GOP leadership - to give Congress powers that it didn't have under the Constitution regarding the sanctions - so Obama (and the American people) could be denied a foreign policy victory.
5
What is anyone’s guess about much longer the coalition’s sanctions regime could be maintained, let alone expanded or strengthened? What price in diplomatic or political capital would the US have had to pay to persuade not only adversarial members of the coalition, but also allies to continue the regime and even expand it? Kerry’s warning that “we’re on our own” if the accord is rejected is a cold realistic assessment of what is at stake and our place in the world today.
Our reputation as a moral authority, our reliability, and others’ faith in our judgement have all been eroded by our deceitfulness and bullying prior to the Iraq invasion, our negligence, unpreparedness and incompetence in the invasion’s aftermath, and our dishonorable and shameful interrogations-by-torture and the discreditable rationalizations concocted to defend them. All of this has reduced us, nearly bankrupted us morally, and left us considered as little more than a brutish military power dangerously throwing its weight around.
Long-lasting sanctions have coerced others such as South Africa to repent, reform and end their alienation, but the practical reality here is different: Iran’s location is strategic and the world wants its oil, to invest in its economy, hard realities that are difficult to counter even with moral authority. Calls to hold firm, strengthen sanctions, and further isolate Iran would ironically soon serve more to isolate the US and indirectly empower Iran. A consequence to beware.
Our reputation as a moral authority, our reliability, and others’ faith in our judgement have all been eroded by our deceitfulness and bullying prior to the Iraq invasion, our negligence, unpreparedness and incompetence in the invasion’s aftermath, and our dishonorable and shameful interrogations-by-torture and the discreditable rationalizations concocted to defend them. All of this has reduced us, nearly bankrupted us morally, and left us considered as little more than a brutish military power dangerously throwing its weight around.
Long-lasting sanctions have coerced others such as South Africa to repent, reform and end their alienation, but the practical reality here is different: Iran’s location is strategic and the world wants its oil, to invest in its economy, hard realities that are difficult to counter even with moral authority. Calls to hold firm, strengthen sanctions, and further isolate Iran would ironically soon serve more to isolate the US and indirectly empower Iran. A consequence to beware.
8
If Iran had capitulated in a deal, they would still get all of the sanctions lifted and all of their money that is frozen in bank accounts in the world. Right? So what do the Republicans propose upon the rejection of this present deal and Iran's total capitulation under their deal? That Iran does not get the sanctions lifted and they do not get their money? Why then would Iran agree to the Republicans' deal of capitulation?
2
To Expat, I prefer that Israel not Iran will tell USA how to conduct its foreign affairs.
3
As for me, I'd prefer responsibility for US foreign policy in the Middle East be returned to the US Department of State, where it was before the 6-Day War.
There certainly is politics in the GOP reaction, however this really is not a good deal. Iran has repeatedly said it was to incinerate Israel. This is not a one off comment, it's a central tenet of the leadership and military in that country. Why should the U.S. not take them at their word as to their genocidal intentions, but assume that they can be taken at their word in this deal? In the end, it may well be the best deal this administration could get, but that is largely because it ceded its main points of leverage (green lighting Israel to bomb Iran, or threatening action, or covert attacks on Iran) before the negotiations even began. The fault is not Kerry's, it's the strategy from Day 1. The Iranians knew Obama needed a deal and was going to do anything to get it, and they could bargain hard, and fracture the allies, with no downside. America would never act alone or with Israel against it. In the 1930s a demagogue talked repeatedly about killing Jews, and the chattering classes did not believe him either.
4
The most ridiculous part of all this is how the objectors of the Iran Agreement because of the "risks it may present", are the same folks are going gaga over arming the Syrian opposition and totally dismissing the likelihood of those weapons ending up in the hands of our enemies as they have been in the past.
Hypocrites!
Hypocrites!
10
I am amazed at the Times' comment, which is accurate as far as I can tell, that congressional Republicans are loyal to Israel. Aren't they supposed to be working for this country? They have accused President Obama of appeasing Iran, but it is really congressional Republicans who are appeasing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by rejecting the agreement. If Benjamin Netanyahu had expressed approval of the agreement, would congressional Republicans then also vote to approve it? There is something very wrong here.
25
I watched the hearings and Israel was not mentioned by the Chairman in his introductory statement and was not the focal point of the Republican attack on the deal. US security concerns of the deal's many weak points and the state sponsorship of terrorism by Iran were the main complaints. Did you watch the hearings or are you just repeating the anti-Israel mantra that you appear to believe in?
I admittedly did not watch the hearing, but the Israeli influence can be felt in the overt hostility to the agreement. It would be an obvious dereliction of duty for a member of Congress to say outright in a formal hearing, "I am against the agreement because Israeli leaders have expressed opposition to it." It is more subtle than that. BTW, I am Jewish and I generally support Israel. I just think that members of Congress should be concerned with serving the people of the United States, and giving our president the respect he deserves, rather than appeasing a foreign leader.
Apparently Donald Trump is the new paradigm for the Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Dr.Moniz vaporized the argument that a 24 day inspection wait was a reason to oppose the nuclear deal. Since they had no hard evidence or other alternatives with which to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, they adopted Trump's methodology of name calling and no substance.Saying that Kerry and Moniz, and by implication the rest of the world,were "fleeced and bamboozled", while the Republicans and Bibi were not, is another Tina Fey, "I can see Russia from my house moment".
19
Incredible to see so many comments and text (including the article itself) discussing the criticism with no one mentioning what the criticism is about, so we can judge for ourselves.
The deal, as reveled for the first time publicly in the Senate hearing, allows Iran to collect the samples by itself. That is -- without a 3rd party collecting it. This is true for Parchin for example, which is considered a military reactor. This is regardless of the 24 days they have before they have to allow inspectors to come in. That's absolutely crazy, nothing is stopping them from deceiving, once again, the west and hiding their nuclear activity.
Instead of just writing about the objections and criticism I'd expect the writers (and commenters) to comment on the actual facts!
The deal, as reveled for the first time publicly in the Senate hearing, allows Iran to collect the samples by itself. That is -- without a 3rd party collecting it. This is true for Parchin for example, which is considered a military reactor. This is regardless of the 24 days they have before they have to allow inspectors to come in. That's absolutely crazy, nothing is stopping them from deceiving, once again, the west and hiding their nuclear activity.
Instead of just writing about the objections and criticism I'd expect the writers (and commenters) to comment on the actual facts!
5
Good morning John B.
There is an excellent article with JCPOA analysis written by Clifford D. May, Tuesday July 21, 2015. It can be accessed on the following Internet URL. http/www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/21/clifford-may-scuttle-obamas-iran-deal-or-surrender/ Mr. May is President of the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times. p.s. the scope of the JCPOA is such, that unless readers are Middle East historical professors or Policy gurus - the content can be difficult to comprehend - ask John Kerry or Obama!
There is an excellent article with JCPOA analysis written by Clifford D. May, Tuesday July 21, 2015. It can be accessed on the following Internet URL. http/www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/21/clifford-may-scuttle-obamas-iran-deal-or-surrender/ Mr. May is President of the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times. p.s. the scope of the JCPOA is such, that unless readers are Middle East historical professors or Policy gurus - the content can be difficult to comprehend - ask John Kerry or Obama!
The media by its choice of words inordinantly influences debate. Republican opponents of the Iran deal should not be called friends of Israel. The implication is that supporters of the deal are not friends of Israel. J-Street supports the deal. It is a Jewish organization which is very much friends of Israel. IAPAC which has a lot more money to spend in supporting political candidates and to lobby with in general opposes the deal. That does not make IAPAC more friendly to Israel than J - Street. Why don't we call IAPAC a collection of rich people who buy American politicians to support their positions. Or better, why don't we acknowledge that there is no loss to seeing if the deal can be implemented?
6
As a comparison point for "buy[ing] American politicians," the Koch Brothers and their affiliates gave about $140,000,000 for lobbying efforts in 2012 alone. AIPAC in 2007-2009 (three years) spent $100,000,000. That is, in one year Koch Brothers gave more than AIPAC did over three years. So, who is the greater threat to democracy by being a "collection of rich people who buy American politicians to support their positions?
1
A basic fact here is that many, if not most, Republicans had decided (if "to decide" is the correct verb) long ago that they would not support this or any other "deal". In this sense they are but Netanyahu clones.
For example, there's Rubio. In his comments this morning he demonstrated not simply that he was a "no" vote, but that he could do little more than offer the old usual negativity and pander to "the base".
He should take the time to supplement his evident youth with a bit of study. In particular he should review the conservative criticisms of Ike during the Korean matter, of Nixon with respect to China, and of Reagan as regards to talks with the USSR. Perhaps he could detect in each case some useful principles concerning the difficulties, constraints, and limits of such international "deals".
But then, maybe not.
For example, there's Rubio. In his comments this morning he demonstrated not simply that he was a "no" vote, but that he could do little more than offer the old usual negativity and pander to "the base".
He should take the time to supplement his evident youth with a bit of study. In particular he should review the conservative criticisms of Ike during the Korean matter, of Nixon with respect to China, and of Reagan as regards to talks with the USSR. Perhaps he could detect in each case some useful principles concerning the difficulties, constraints, and limits of such international "deals".
But then, maybe not.
9
What the war mongering class forget, (Neocons, Likud Party, Netanyahu, Republicans, Industrial War Complex) is that President Obama was elected and reelected precisely because Americans have seen through the folly of the war mongers' hysteria. Americans wised up after losing over 4,500 troops, 40,000 wounded and upwards of 600,000 Iraqi civilians; diplomacy is clearly much more preferable.
Besides where were all of these warmongers when North Korea developed their nuclear weapons capability? Exactly. President Obama has set America back on the path to peace, hopefully true sustainable prosperity will follow, because war is indeed lucrative for the warmongers.
Besides where were all of these warmongers when North Korea developed their nuclear weapons capability? Exactly. President Obama has set America back on the path to peace, hopefully true sustainable prosperity will follow, because war is indeed lucrative for the warmongers.
16
Republican congressional representatives and political candidates all criticized this deal before they had read or been briefed about it. They have proposed no alternative. They have not said how without this agreement they would prevent Iran from proceeding immediately to build a bomb. They have not said they have any other solution than to bomb Iran. How effective would that be, how long would it last and what military reaction would Iran unleash? They have not said how the U.S. could enforce sanctions that cripple Iran to the point that it would agree to give up nuclear weapons forever. Now that the U.N. Security Council - including Russia, China, England, Germany, France that helped make the sanctions effective - approved the deal, Republicans have not explained how the U.S. can enforce sanctions when those countries will buy oil from Iran, will sell it weapons and will include Iran in international finance.
The fact is Republicans haven't proposed anything better and apparently can't. Instead, they are engaging in partisanship that makes it harder for the U.S. to stand solidly behind the deal and insist that Iran also stand behind the deal and honor it.
U.S. Republicans and Iran's Revolutionary Guard are acting more like comrades in arms in opposing this deal than they are representatives of their countries.
The fact is Republicans haven't proposed anything better and apparently can't. Instead, they are engaging in partisanship that makes it harder for the U.S. to stand solidly behind the deal and insist that Iran also stand behind the deal and honor it.
U.S. Republicans and Iran's Revolutionary Guard are acting more like comrades in arms in opposing this deal than they are representatives of their countries.
11
This man is an embarrassment to intelligence. I have never heard more ignorance out of man's mouth until I heard him explaining the nuclear deal with Iran!
2
This is all a "dog and pony" show. "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing." Regardless of what Congress does or does not do, this Obama Iran Nuclear "Accord" is a "done deal". The U.N. and the U.N. Security Council have already approved it. The Parliaments of the U.K., France, Russia and China are likely to follow suit quickly. "The train has left the station boys." Anything they say or do in Washington, short of an armed assault against the Iranian nuclear installations, are not going to impact the ayatollahs ruling in Tehran or the Persian people. The sanctions are going to be gradually but steadily lifted off Iran. Every decent person's sincere hope and prayer is that the "Islamic Republic" will hold up their end of the bargain because if they do not the only alternative to stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon will be a thorough bombing campaign----possibly by Israel alone but more likely in combination with the U.S. Air Force leading the way. This would undoubtedly lead to a regional conventional war, but anything is preferable to Iran acquiring and probably using weapons of mass destruction. Iran getting "the bomb" would set off an arms race throughout the Middle East and possibly lead to a nuclear holocaust that might destroy the world. No sane person wants such an end for mankind. The politicians on Capitol Hill are acting for the cameras and Jewish votes and campaign donations. In the end it is meaningless. Give peace a chance!
11
While I agree with the main point of your comment, let me point out that the "Jewish vote" represents about 1.5% of the voting age-population. Moreover, like other Americans, there is no Jewish-block vote on this issue. There is lack of consensus among Jewish voters just as there is among the other 98.5% of the voting public. The posturing is much more likely to be directed at the conservative core of the Republican Party than at Jewish voters.
3
There is already a nuke arm race in Middle East. Everybody wants to the 2nd nuke state so they won't be regularly bombed.
It is easy to observe how vastly greater than their numbers is pervasive Jewish influence upon our Administrators and legislators. Regrettably, that disproportionate influence too often benefits Israel rather than the USA.
None of us - and by "us" I mean the lay public as well as politicians here and in all affected countries - know where this thing is headed. The situation with Iran is far more complex than just divining their intentions with nuclear capabilities. They are a non-Arab state in a region predominately Arabic and are a major promoter of Shi'ite in a region of many Islamic sects. Their internal politics are contentious and unclear whether cool heads will prevail. It is really hard to know what lifting sanctions will do in regards to regional politics but given Iran's penchant for involvement with other countries of the region, I imagine a more aggressive push to export and promote Shi'ism is likely.
My concerns about Iran acquiring a nuke are not as high as my concerns with what will happen within the region if Iran realizes its full economic potential. While that is a different problem from the nuclear one, the existence of the sanctions have unfortunately linked the two tightly.
My concerns about Iran acquiring a nuke are not as high as my concerns with what will happen within the region if Iran realizes its full economic potential. While that is a different problem from the nuclear one, the existence of the sanctions have unfortunately linked the two tightly.
5
Finally, a more insightful analysis
Wasn't John Kerry confirmed by the Senate 94 to 3 in January 2013 to be the U.S. Secretary of State? If indeed the Senate republicans believe he's incompetent, got "bamboozled" and "fleeced", is it even remotely possible that they would own up to their dereliction of their constitutional duty to provide advice and consent? Is it even remotely possible that they would own up to this negotiated outcome in any way? Political theater is fine until matters of war and peace are involved. Then it becomes ignorant and dangerous and the embodiment of today's republican mindset.
2
It is clear that Kerry is better on the bicycle than on the negotiating table.
7
Let's say those who oppose this deal are right - that despite the agreement to not do so, Iran secretly builds and tests an atomic weapon. Well before that time it will be clear they have broken this agreement. And a test would confirm it. Then they are fair game for the US , Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc.
They will be on the receiving end of bunker busting bombs capable of exploding hundreds of feet if not more underground. A rational person would say any nuclear threat will be neutralized before it occurs, in just about any conceivable set of circumstances.
So what is the point of opposing an agreement that at least may have its intended effect, buys time for political change once 76 year old Khamenie is gone, and would lead to a destroyed nuclear capability if they are non compliant?
They will be on the receiving end of bunker busting bombs capable of exploding hundreds of feet if not more underground. A rational person would say any nuclear threat will be neutralized before it occurs, in just about any conceivable set of circumstances.
So what is the point of opposing an agreement that at least may have its intended effect, buys time for political change once 76 year old Khamenie is gone, and would lead to a destroyed nuclear capability if they are non compliant?
2
What is best (or least bad)?
1) a poor Iran under sanctions, eventually with a nuclear bomb.
2) a richer Iran though lifted sanctions that will continue its Shiite agenda in the region with more money, but without a nuclear weapon
Which is the biggest treat for the region, Israel, the US and the World.
Which holds the most opportunity to transform Iran, and stabilize the region.
1) a poor Iran under sanctions, eventually with a nuclear bomb.
2) a richer Iran though lifted sanctions that will continue its Shiite agenda in the region with more money, but without a nuclear weapon
Which is the biggest treat for the region, Israel, the US and the World.
Which holds the most opportunity to transform Iran, and stabilize the region.
1
Bob Corker, Republican Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stated to John Kerry: “You have turned Iran from being a pariah to now, Congress being a pariah.” In actuality it is Congress that has turned Congress into a pariah. How can anyone have any respect for this institution at this point. All the Members of Congress who have decided to not like this deal without having read it because it would be bad for Obama to get a foreign policy victory, or because their benefactor AIPAC has told them to not like it, are the same Members that haven't been correct about any foreign policy issue over the past 15 years. How can these people expect anyone not like minded to take their positions seriously when they have pre-judged on the issue without having even pretended to take the time to consider the evidence.
6
As I watched Kerry explain and defend the Iran agreement I could not help but wonder how this obviously intelligent and erudite man could possibly lose the presidency in 2004. The contrast between Kerry and his Republican detractors was obvious. Kerry testimony was reasoned, the others simply shrill. And the fact that Marco Rubio is considered a viable candidate for the presidency is indicative of all that is wrong with this country.
8
NYT says "Republicans Have Minds Made Up on Day 1". But the same is also true for NYT and the Senate Liberals. For the left it is an article of faith to back Obama, and praise Kerry whatever he does. For the conservatives it is no nuclear Iran under any circumstances.
So, why point fingers at one side without doing the same at the other? At present it seems that the only winner is Iran. They could have had peace any time they wanted, but seemingly opted for the nuke.
So, why point fingers at one side without doing the same at the other? At present it seems that the only winner is Iran. They could have had peace any time they wanted, but seemingly opted for the nuke.
6
You're right. The headline should have read "Republican's Have Minds Made Up on Day 1 Of Obama's Presidency To Oppose Everything This President Does. Much more accurate.
4
The Republicans really know no shame. We know all their domestic malfeasance. And we are constantly reminded of their dreadful positions on foreign affairs. Gingoistic, aggressive, offensive to one and all. They've never been satisfied with hurting the Cuban people for only 54 years; they want more. They don't want to deal with Iran, or Russia or China or France or Britain or Germany and, certainly they hate to have to deal with the United Nations. The only partner they can tolerate is Israel with no regard whatever to what happens to Palestinians.
Lord knows what would happen if we didn't have Obama for President and had a Corker or a Rubio or a Cruz. These people are just happy to have us accumulate enemies all over the world. And have our young people go an sacrifice their lives for the fantasies of these machos.
Lord knows what would happen if we didn't have Obama for President and had a Corker or a Rubio or a Cruz. These people are just happy to have us accumulate enemies all over the world. And have our young people go an sacrifice their lives for the fantasies of these machos.
7
By insulting our Sec of State and making this a partisan issue right off the bat, the Senate Republicans have insured that they will not get the Democratic support they need to overcome a Presidential veto. It's this kind of short term' infantile strategizing that makes me glad they were not involved in the negotiations with Iran.
6
Swiftboating and insulting Democrats passes for substantive debate for the GOP. Now with The Donald amping up the demagogic rhetoric, it looks like loud, bullying acting out behaviors will continue, if nothing else, just to be heard. Sad. For. US.
4
Oh, the power of the Israel Lobby. These senators are subservient to the Lobby, and represent Israel and not their states, and their constituents are so "bamboozled" by the Lobby that they think that's good. Israel whines about Iran's nonexistent push for a bomb while sitting on multitudes of nuclear weapons itself. Israel has shaken us down for billions in aid and given us nothing but trouble in return. It's past time to end this one-way "special relationship."
14
More and more I resent Israel telling the US how to conduct its foreign policy.
17
Those, who oppose the nuclear deal in the Congress, do it for purely political reasons, just to make themselves relevant, because they don't have any concrete solution to ending the dispute. They can't distinguish between rhetoric and reality in Iran.
Tehran has always been aware of the multiple risks involved in building nuclear weapons, knowing that it would face attack by a militarily more superior Israel, alone or supported by the US. It also knows that the Sunni Arabs would move quickly to acquire their own nuclear weapons. No doubt Tehran wants the country to move on, not to be mired in perpetual tensions. Most of all the Supreme Leader has said many times that nuclear weapons were un-islamic. The past months of negotiations have shown that the Iranians seem to be pragmatic and there is hope that they want to come in from the cold again.
Tehran has always been aware of the multiple risks involved in building nuclear weapons, knowing that it would face attack by a militarily more superior Israel, alone or supported by the US. It also knows that the Sunni Arabs would move quickly to acquire their own nuclear weapons. No doubt Tehran wants the country to move on, not to be mired in perpetual tensions. Most of all the Supreme Leader has said many times that nuclear weapons were un-islamic. The past months of negotiations have shown that the Iranians seem to be pragmatic and there is hope that they want to come in from the cold again.
6
Those who support the deal do so for purely political reasons.
How do I know? Because neither Kerry nor Obama can defend the deal on its merits. They simply choose to attack the critics personally. That speaks volumes.
Rather than defending the deal on the merits, Kerry now says "well, okay, but if you oppose this deal, you're on your own."
Thank you John - I'd rather be on our own without a horrific deal than a yesman with one.
How do I know? Because neither Kerry nor Obama can defend the deal on its merits. They simply choose to attack the critics personally. That speaks volumes.
Rather than defending the deal on the merits, Kerry now says "well, okay, but if you oppose this deal, you're on your own."
Thank you John - I'd rather be on our own without a horrific deal than a yesman with one.
1
"Hope" is not good enough.
1
I thought the Republicans' knee-jerk opposition was useful during the negotiations--and Obama played them beautifully--"no, please don't oppose concessions, please don't throw us in that brier patch!" So we got a stronger deal than if they had been more sanguine. But now, we stare the prospect of war, brought on by ideological insanity, in the face.
7
Easy words from the Republican chairman, sitting comfortably while others do the hard work of diplomacy. Typical Republican hyperbole, given, yet again, from a position of entitlement and obstruction.
12
Naivete? Really? How about the notion that Iran ever would have agreed (short of defeat in war) to the sort of terms the agreement's critics demand? That's naivete.
Also, how is it that two senators -- Corker and Risch -- with no notable (or extensive) foreign policy experience presume to have the credibility to tell a serving U.S. Secretary of State and prior longtime member and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that they know more about this than he does, and that he was "fleeced" and "bamboozled" by Iran?
Gimme a break.
Also, how is it that two senators -- Corker and Risch -- with no notable (or extensive) foreign policy experience presume to have the credibility to tell a serving U.S. Secretary of State and prior longtime member and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that they know more about this than he does, and that he was "fleeced" and "bamboozled" by Iran?
Gimme a break.
17
I agree with those who think sanctions against any country should be made illegal. Harming a people for the actions of a leader should never be tolerated.
If the US wants to be the only country to implement sanctions, then we are free to do so. However, the UN must NOT ratify any future sanctions on any country.
If the US wants to be the only country to implement sanctions, then we are free to do so. However, the UN must NOT ratify any future sanctions on any country.
4
I like what Obama said on John Stewart. There are people who think we shouldn't negotiate with Iran at all; yet Iran is only just beginning to make a bomb. In the early sixties we negotiated with USSR even though they had THOUSANDS of missiles pointed right at us. (Thanks JFK, a treaty and several more followed.) Besides, if Iran wants to go the way of India, i.e.; "Half our population is barely alive, but we have the bomb!"; let 'em.
4
Secretary of State John Kerry is a profile in courage and honor. Once again, this veteran who was Swift boated with lies is standing for peace and negotiations as opposed to war. The Republicans offer no options. If the Republicans do Israel's bidding and make the agreement fall apart, there will be no constraints on Iran's nuclear efforts. The U.N., European Union, and other countries are ending sanctions. This is a historic agreement worked out with great effort on the part of all negotiators. The nuclear expertise of the Secretary of Energy has helped ensure some of the controls, and the snapback option is a good one. Previous secretaries of state and more than 100 former ambassadors support the agreement. Give peace a chance. Stop the temper tantrums and warmongering.
26
I'm am astounded at how insular the thinking of many Americans can be. Don't Republicans in the Senate know that the "sanctions" they so love are internationally imposed and involve all the Western nations?
Even if the US were to reject this treaty, the rest of world can (and will) approve this treaty and move ahead by lifting their sanctions. There would be many big losers including (in no particular order) the US companies who would not be allowed to do business with companies in Iran; US influence in the world; the ability to reconnect with the millions of Iranians who simply yearn to be free and help facilitate change from the inside.
And don't forget, the option of renewing sanctions and/or taking military action is always there, so is there any real risk in giving this treaty a chance?
Even if the US were to reject this treaty, the rest of world can (and will) approve this treaty and move ahead by lifting their sanctions. There would be many big losers including (in no particular order) the US companies who would not be allowed to do business with companies in Iran; US influence in the world; the ability to reconnect with the millions of Iranians who simply yearn to be free and help facilitate change from the inside.
And don't forget, the option of renewing sanctions and/or taking military action is always there, so is there any real risk in giving this treaty a chance?
46
What GOP fails to realize is that even before the sanctions were imposed (after 1979 revolution), Iran was doing business with European companies mostly anyway. Iran will be happy just getting European business back. Therefore, rejecting this deal will only isolate us and make us unreliable. Months before reaching this deal, European companies were getting ready to start doing business with Iran as soon as the deal is reached. They are not going to give their business opportunity up in a country with 2/3 of it's population under 30 years old and very tech savvy, just to satisfy Bibi's desire.
Actually, it is the good people of Tennessee who have been fleeced. I'm sure they thought they voted for a statesmen and what they got, instead, was a partisan stooge.
12
Who seems to represent Tel Aviv and not his constituents in Tennessee.
3
I am outraged that a foreign government and ally, is campaigning against an agreement (and the President) that is in the best interests of the US by playing to the right's "end of days" supporters and through political donations to influence the vote in Congress.
I am surprised that the Republicans, as the party of business interests, would be against the agreement. Lifting the sanctions will open up business opportunities for American companies, but if the US doesn't sign on, these opportunities will go to the EU, Russia and China. Lifting sanctions will strengthen moderate forces in Iran, by bringing the educated Iranian middle class into the world economy, and making it less likely Iran would risk war by violating the nuclear deal. A lot can change in 10 years, especially if Iran becomes a more open and prosperous country.
Specific sanctions can still be applied if Iran continues to support terrorism, while keeping the inspection of nuclear facilities in place. And if Iran violates the agreement, then the justification for attacking their nuclear facilities would be clear. But not approving the agreement, and then attacking would only destabilize the region and show the US (and Israel) to be the aggressors.
Not to support this deal, would be the "historic mistake".
I am surprised that the Republicans, as the party of business interests, would be against the agreement. Lifting the sanctions will open up business opportunities for American companies, but if the US doesn't sign on, these opportunities will go to the EU, Russia and China. Lifting sanctions will strengthen moderate forces in Iran, by bringing the educated Iranian middle class into the world economy, and making it less likely Iran would risk war by violating the nuclear deal. A lot can change in 10 years, especially if Iran becomes a more open and prosperous country.
Specific sanctions can still be applied if Iran continues to support terrorism, while keeping the inspection of nuclear facilities in place. And if Iran violates the agreement, then the justification for attacking their nuclear facilities would be clear. But not approving the agreement, and then attacking would only destabilize the region and show the US (and Israel) to be the aggressors.
Not to support this deal, would be the "historic mistake".
17
Does anyone remember why there are sanctions to begin with?
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), in answering "Why are there sanctions?" writes:
"Since Iran's nuclear programme became public in 2002, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been unable to confirm Tehran's assertions that its nuclear activities are exclusively for peaceful purposes and that it has not sought to develop nuclear weapons.... The United Nations Security Council has adopted six resolutions since 2006 requiring Iran to stop enriching uranium - which can be used for civilian purposes, but also to build nuclear bombs - and co-operate with the IAEA. Four resolutions have included progressively expansive sanctions to persuade Tehran to comply. The US and EU have imposed additional sanctions on Iranian oil exports and banks since 2012".
How about the human right violations ( especially against Christians...)?
How in good conscience can we sign a deal with a country that tortures an American Christian Pastor for the sole reason of holding a prayer service.
I guess if it was a Muslim prayer service, it would be "all good".
But, Christians have no rights in this country and all pleas to Obama to bring home our four Americans has fallen on deaf ears.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/obama.defends.iran.deal.its.the.on...
Obama defends absence of Pastor Saeed Abedini from Iran nuclear deal terms
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), in answering "Why are there sanctions?" writes:
"Since Iran's nuclear programme became public in 2002, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been unable to confirm Tehran's assertions that its nuclear activities are exclusively for peaceful purposes and that it has not sought to develop nuclear weapons.... The United Nations Security Council has adopted six resolutions since 2006 requiring Iran to stop enriching uranium - which can be used for civilian purposes, but also to build nuclear bombs - and co-operate with the IAEA. Four resolutions have included progressively expansive sanctions to persuade Tehran to comply. The US and EU have imposed additional sanctions on Iranian oil exports and banks since 2012".
How about the human right violations ( especially against Christians...)?
How in good conscience can we sign a deal with a country that tortures an American Christian Pastor for the sole reason of holding a prayer service.
I guess if it was a Muslim prayer service, it would be "all good".
But, Christians have no rights in this country and all pleas to Obama to bring home our four Americans has fallen on deaf ears.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/obama.defends.iran.deal.its.the.on...
Obama defends absence of Pastor Saeed Abedini from Iran nuclear deal terms
1
Oh, now you're worried about Christians in Iran? Perhaps you should read the other NYT article about the disappearance of Christians in ME thanks to Bush's war in Iraq. Or maybe you can start worrying about zionist extremists burning down Churches in Israel, the latest merely a few weeks ago.
Why would a Pastor or anyone else be part of an Iran deal Cathy?
Why would a Pastor or anyone else be part of an Iran deal Cathy?
1
In my view, the NYT summarized the reason why the Treaty should be rejected in its 200 word summary of the agreement, that is: "How can the U.S. be sure Iran won't cheat? It can’t. Iran agreed to provide inspectors more access to its nuclear program and allow investigation of suspicious sites, but there are no guarantees."
2
All these "controversial" details aside, the real question is: Do you want to try diplomacy before war--or just go straight to war? Evidently Corker et al prefer going to war . . . just like they all did with Iraq. Pretty disgusting for the supposed "most deliberative body on the planet."
13
Everyone supporting this deal acts like its with Canada, not Iran. It's been a long time, if ever, that Iran has acted like a country that wanted to contribute to the greater good of this world. It's OK to be skeptical of a deal Obama has been pushing for. His history of getting mopped up at the negotiating table is well known..
If we don't call and write to our Representatives, WAR is exactly what we are going to get.
At a rally in Times Square yesterday, the speakers urged their supporters to threaten senators if they voted yes. Unless we provide higher number of calls/letters, we will end up going to war.
At a rally in Times Square yesterday, the speakers urged their supporters to threaten senators if they voted yes. Unless we provide higher number of calls/letters, we will end up going to war.
6
I believe we have been fleeced,” Corker said.
Fleeced? You mean, you couldn't start a war in the middle east on false pretenses this time around?
Sure then, you have been fleeced, Senator Corker.
Fleeced? You mean, you couldn't start a war in the middle east on false pretenses this time around?
Sure then, you have been fleeced, Senator Corker.
8
I think Obama/Kerry dropped the ball. We should just take a hard line, like W did with North Korea. That way, Iran would never get the bomb.
Wait... What? They did? Years ago? Oh. Never mind.
Great work guys!
Wait... What? They did? Years ago? Oh. Never mind.
Great work guys!
1
BTW why is it that everyone in the room keeps avoiding the elephant in the room? How can we trust Israel which through an illegal nuclear program has amassed a stockpile of 200 nuclear weapons. Not fissile material, mind you, but actual weapons that can be delivered through the ballistic missiles and submarines in their US paid for arsenal! The hypocrisy is astounding!
11
O.k. So we helped get rid of their first democratically elected president in '53 in favor of our man, the Shah. If they did that to us would we still be carrying a grudge? I'd like to think we'd be better than that!
But, we supported none other than Saddam in his invasion of Iran. We even doubled the military aid to iraqui's even giving them some 'controversial' materials to be used against them. A problem? C'mon!
Didn't we support sanctions against them mainly on the words of an idiot president (yes, they had one too) who was subsequently voted out of office, about 'destruction of Israel? Well, many countries resent the longest occupation of an indigenous people in modern history by our 'client' state, but is that a reason to be mad at us?
A cyber war? Alright maybe we did cause some problems; and the murder of only 5 scientists on a public street didn't go over well either. Some would even call that terrorism but that's only when the same happens to us (and they should know that).
But now, even though our intelligence tells us Iran never had a decernoble nuclear program and 'deliberate ambiguity' is limited to one certain ally, we pick up even more resentment from people unclearly ungrateful for all our efforts to promote security for all, especially the Shia minority throughout the region. We've already shown how capable of that we were/are in Iraq, but then again we're dealing with unreasonable Iranian people.
But, we supported none other than Saddam in his invasion of Iran. We even doubled the military aid to iraqui's even giving them some 'controversial' materials to be used against them. A problem? C'mon!
Didn't we support sanctions against them mainly on the words of an idiot president (yes, they had one too) who was subsequently voted out of office, about 'destruction of Israel? Well, many countries resent the longest occupation of an indigenous people in modern history by our 'client' state, but is that a reason to be mad at us?
A cyber war? Alright maybe we did cause some problems; and the murder of only 5 scientists on a public street didn't go over well either. Some would even call that terrorism but that's only when the same happens to us (and they should know that).
But now, even though our intelligence tells us Iran never had a decernoble nuclear program and 'deliberate ambiguity' is limited to one certain ally, we pick up even more resentment from people unclearly ungrateful for all our efforts to promote security for all, especially the Shia minority throughout the region. We've already shown how capable of that we were/are in Iraq, but then again we're dealing with unreasonable Iranian people.
5
I agree with much of what you say but, when you suggest that Iran never had a discernible nuclear program you overstep the mark. Iran did, and does, have a clearly discernible nuclear weapons program. Much of their, "peaceful" nuclear program makes no sense unless one considers the dual use (nuclear power/research and nuclear weapons) of the technology. The reactor technology they were using was specifically designed to generate weapons grade plutonium (easy to remove the plutonium before it is poisoned with too much Pu240), and even the incredibly costly decision to perform their own uranium 235 separation, when such services are available from EU, Russia, America and China (India and Pakistan as well). And finally, one even wonders why a country with a huge amount of oil and sun (fossil fuels and renewables) would even want to spend a bunch of money on nuclear .
research?
I am all for the deal, I just want to be clear that Iran was clearly working on the technology for bomb making, if not actually working on a bomb.
research?
I am all for the deal, I just want to be clear that Iran was clearly working on the technology for bomb making, if not actually working on a bomb.
Republicans are bragging they have no alternatives and propose nothing. They are so used to being unconstructive they cannot move from being destructive. The Republican concept of “forward thinking” is thinking days ahead. Republicans have no bona fides to talk ten years hence. Having seamlessly segued into being school yard bullies, Republicans eschew conceptualizing our national interest. They are following the lead of Iran’s worst.
6
Kerry. Intelligent? Obviously does not extend to dealing with a scorpion. Scorpions sting - that is what they do - Iran is the scorpion that exports hate terrorism, and destruction. Kerry.Intelligent? How many wars has Israel fought? And will still have to fight? This time the stakes are the highest they have ever been. Kerry. Intellligent?
The opposition to this accord is stunning given the recent history, specifically the mindless invasion of Iraq. In a piece published in August 2003 in the WSJ, Brent Scowcroft warns against invading Iraq. His primary concern is how the chaos could strengthen Iran and undermine our anti-terrorism policies. Well, we see he was 100% correct and overtly ignored by the neocons. Now, Obama's team, along with 5 other global powers agree to this accord and there is mindless opposition. No viable alternatives are offered and ignoring the issue would prompt Iran to a bomb within 3 years. The complaint is that the accord grants Iran nuclear capabilities in 10 years, while advocating a position that will give them that within 3 years. Absurd? No. Not if you want them to get the nukes so you have a pretext for attack.
8
Not only do these comments show an overwhelming love for Obama despite his disastrous Presidency, many here show the "soft" anti-Semitism of accusing Congressmen of disloyalty to the US because they are concerned about Israel, our one true ally in the awful ME. Here's a quote: "As representatives of The People of the United States these politicians should get both their priorities and their loyalties straight."
First, I note the bigotry of so many commentators here. Our Pres is black so he can't be terrible. And Israel is per se a bad actor that is manipulating and corrupting US congressmen. Disgusting. (And so typical of the majority of the NYT readership.)
Second, it is Obama himself who threw away our NON-war leverage over Iran. Our sanctions were biting. That's why Iran came smiling to us. A President with any savvy (or concern for the US's position in the world) would have smiled back and just ... waited ... and tightened the screws ... until Iran started pounding the mat. Victory WITHOUT war.
And now, with this terrible agreement, Iran will re-arm, have $100 Billion to fund its terrorist proxies and likely start a conflagration in the ME.
If war comes, will the commentators here admit they were dead wrong?
First, I note the bigotry of so many commentators here. Our Pres is black so he can't be terrible. And Israel is per se a bad actor that is manipulating and corrupting US congressmen. Disgusting. (And so typical of the majority of the NYT readership.)
Second, it is Obama himself who threw away our NON-war leverage over Iran. Our sanctions were biting. That's why Iran came smiling to us. A President with any savvy (or concern for the US's position in the world) would have smiled back and just ... waited ... and tightened the screws ... until Iran started pounding the mat. Victory WITHOUT war.
And now, with this terrible agreement, Iran will re-arm, have $100 Billion to fund its terrorist proxies and likely start a conflagration in the ME.
If war comes, will the commentators here admit they were dead wrong?
2
If we have peace, will you admit you were dead wrong? The sooner the US is out of the Middle East, the better. Israel opposes Iran because Israel is for the status quo. Israel avoids the Palestinian question by focusing the attention on an Iranian nuclear issue. They sit there with 600 atomic bombs and express concern over Iran getting one? Really, Iran knows they are toast if they are really a threat.
1
Seriously, it is now "soft antisemitism" to suggest that American representative"s first and foremost priority should be to the American people. I am part jewish myself, my wife is jewish, I am not anti-semitic, but I fully support the idea that my elected representatives first responsibility be to the people who elected them.
I would add, that North Korea was able to develop a nuclear weapon with far far fewer resources available to them than Iran. The overriding consideration when a country decides to develop nuclear weapons is not whether it is possible, any country can do it, it's whether or not they need the weapons to survive. Iran and North Korea saw the US invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and realized that they were extremely vulnerable. What this agreement does for Iran is to reduce the perceived need for a nuclear weapon. If they decide they want a nuclear weapon, they can get one, deal or no deal.
I would add, that North Korea was able to develop a nuclear weapon with far far fewer resources available to them than Iran. The overriding consideration when a country decides to develop nuclear weapons is not whether it is possible, any country can do it, it's whether or not they need the weapons to survive. Iran and North Korea saw the US invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and realized that they were extremely vulnerable. What this agreement does for Iran is to reduce the perceived need for a nuclear weapon. If they decide they want a nuclear weapon, they can get one, deal or no deal.
3
I'm betting you thought the Iraq war was beneficial to our country and if you can call me an anti-semite and a bigot, may I call you uninformed or willfully ignorant?
5
Everything dissolves into to petty political posturing by the Republicans. This deal will be approved one way or another and they know it, hence the hot air. They will do what they can to dupe Americans into thinking that this enormously beneficial diplomatic achievement is bad for them and, of course, they will have no alternative to offer except more posturing and endless war.
9
The great tragedy here is the the incompetent RINO leadership in the House and Senate have apparently thrown away their chance to stop this deal because they probably can't over-ride a veto. The US Constitution clearly says in Article II, section 2 that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."
But Boehner and McConnell are pretending this isn't a treaty, so THEY have to get 2/3rds, NOT Obama.
FYI: Merriam-Webster defines a TREATY as "an official agreement that is made between two or more countries or groups." Are these guys and Obama all too dumb to understand plain English?
But Boehner and McConnell are pretending this isn't a treaty, so THEY have to get 2/3rds, NOT Obama.
FYI: Merriam-Webster defines a TREATY as "an official agreement that is made between two or more countries or groups." Are these guys and Obama all too dumb to understand plain English?
3
Umm, so you're saying since it's an "agreement" it must be a "treaty?"
I rarely defend the GOP leadership but I'm afraid you're mistaken on this one. An agreement and a treaty aren't the same. A treaty is part of the body of federal law. It's akin to a statute - it survives until modified or repealed by Congress. An agreement entered into by a president can be modified or rescinded by the president who entered into it or a successor without Congressional input. Thus, a treaty has the force of law but an agreement does not.
An "agreement" only becomes a "treaty" if it receives the 2/3 vote of the Senate that the Constitution's Treaty Clause requires. The president is entitled to enter into agreements of this sort. The GOP leadership can't do anything about it if the president doesn't submit the agreement for ratification as a treaty.
So, GOP leadership isn't "pretending" the agreement isn't a treaty. The agreement isn't a treaty because it hasn't received been voted as such by the U.S. Senate.
I rarely defend the GOP leadership but I'm afraid you're mistaken on this one. An agreement and a treaty aren't the same. A treaty is part of the body of federal law. It's akin to a statute - it survives until modified or repealed by Congress. An agreement entered into by a president can be modified or rescinded by the president who entered into it or a successor without Congressional input. Thus, a treaty has the force of law but an agreement does not.
An "agreement" only becomes a "treaty" if it receives the 2/3 vote of the Senate that the Constitution's Treaty Clause requires. The president is entitled to enter into agreements of this sort. The GOP leadership can't do anything about it if the president doesn't submit the agreement for ratification as a treaty.
So, GOP leadership isn't "pretending" the agreement isn't a treaty. The agreement isn't a treaty because it hasn't received been voted as such by the U.S. Senate.
If we take the deal and it does not work we, tell Iran to take a hike. IF we take the deal and it does work, everybody is happy. So whats to loose?
This kerfluffle was created by Bibi. He is as crazy as the Donald. Iran is not going to bomb us the first year, But Bibi may bomb Iran. Republicans seen to think there will be a war.....if so, it will be one o their own making.
This kerfluffle was created by Bibi. He is as crazy as the Donald. Iran is not going to bomb us the first year, But Bibi may bomb Iran. Republicans seen to think there will be a war.....if so, it will be one o their own making.
11
Scott Walker has already declared that he is prepared to declare war on Iran, on his Inaugration Day. Imagine that, a Presidential Candidate leaking his Inaugural Address before there has been a primary. He calls that "bold".
1
Was there any doubt that Senator Corker and the Republicans were going spout the party line? That is what got us into Iraq.
11
It always saddens me when politicians are Republican/Democrat before they are American. This appears to be a solid deal and I support it. And that is what I told the Israeli telemarketer when they called my house to get me to talk to my senator. I seriously wonder (with the very faint accent and the lousy connection) if they were literally calling from Israel. The first country in the ME to have the bomb.
16
Obama says Iran won't build the bomb and in the next breath says he will give the Saudi's missile defenses. Anyone see anything funny here?
2
No I don't see anything funny. Anti missil defenses also work against non nuclear payloads. We have launched thousands of cruise and other missiles against targets in the past few years, non were nuclear.
nothing funny, blocking Iran from a nuclear bomb will not prevent Iran from restocking more conventional weapons, the Iran deal only eliminates the biggest treat and that is Iran with a nuclear bomb, so it makes absolute sense for the US, next to the international deal with Iran, additional actions are taken to rule Iran in.
Every one of these "depressed" grand-standing Republicans is pretending that it is America's choice to continue the economic blockade of Iran, until Iran gives in and gives the US what we want ... which if you could ask these Republicans is something on par with unconditional surrender and the agreement to turn into Baptists.
What limits the deal we can get is our "allies" in this matter, including conspicuously India, China and Russia. They want oil (or can reexport it for a profit) and are generally more than happy to thumb their noses at us.
The Republicans have a bizarrely-overblown belief in the international power the US can exert ... and what prices it costs to exert it ... either by embargoes or going to war.
Do the Republicans want to go to war with Iran? We'll find out, but I suspect not. And if they don't, then all they are doing is whining and posturing.
What limits the deal we can get is our "allies" in this matter, including conspicuously India, China and Russia. They want oil (or can reexport it for a profit) and are generally more than happy to thumb their noses at us.
The Republicans have a bizarrely-overblown belief in the international power the US can exert ... and what prices it costs to exert it ... either by embargoes or going to war.
Do the Republicans want to go to war with Iran? We'll find out, but I suspect not. And if they don't, then all they are doing is whining and posturing.
4
This agreement will ideally push Iran's nuclear bomb acquisition by 10 to 15 years at the most and then essentially grants them the right to make such weapons by implication. How old will your children be in 10 years?
Just give up - Iran will have sanctions lifted, they will sell tons of oil and buy tons of weapons from Russia, and then they can attack US interests (as they honestly promise to do), and then we can wring our hands about what we let Obama do ... Iran getting a nuclear weapon is somehow more or less frightening that North Korea (which already has it)?
What Obama administration really should say is the truth: we need a deal for our legacy, and we can play the sanctions for something small now, because the UN will lift them soon anyway.
What Obama administration really should say is the truth: we need a deal for our legacy, and we can play the sanctions for something small now, because the UN will lift them soon anyway.
What are the opponents think will happen if they derail the deal? the EU, Foreign Minister will be flying to Iran July 27, followed by the French Foreign Minister. The Austrian president will make a state visit to Iran in September. International Sanctions will be lifted. and the rest of the World will be doing business with Iran.
Netanyahu and his US supporters wanted to turn Iran into North Korea. It didn't work and now they are trying to turn it into Cuba, with the US being the only country applying sanctions to Iran.(same as the Cuba embargo)
As for AIPAC, they plan to derail the deal just as a show of force. To remind future US Presidents and the world that despite Obama, Israel and its US supporters still control US foreign Policy in the Middle East.
It's sad day when US Lawmakers side with a foreign country Israel( Not signatory of the NPT, possesses Nuclear weapons,) against their twice elected president just so they can get funding for their campaigns.
Netanyahu and his US supporters wanted to turn Iran into North Korea. It didn't work and now they are trying to turn it into Cuba, with the US being the only country applying sanctions to Iran.(same as the Cuba embargo)
As for AIPAC, they plan to derail the deal just as a show of force. To remind future US Presidents and the world that despite Obama, Israel and its US supporters still control US foreign Policy in the Middle East.
It's sad day when US Lawmakers side with a foreign country Israel( Not signatory of the NPT, possesses Nuclear weapons,) against their twice elected president just so they can get funding for their campaigns.
13
Mmmm... less than 100 centrifuges in 2003 when Iran offered a deal to freeze and G. Bush pushed the English to turn it down -- to 18,000 or 19,000 today.
Yep, that embargo did wonders.
It seems the only math people like Corker understand is the greenback count in their pocket.
The GOP simply cannot govern anymore. It's the "D" team on the global stage. And the American taxpayer is left with the dems .. basically the "C" team.
In the global competition for astute political leadership, we are certainly losing.
Yep, that embargo did wonders.
It seems the only math people like Corker understand is the greenback count in their pocket.
The GOP simply cannot govern anymore. It's the "D" team on the global stage. And the American taxpayer is left with the dems .. basically the "C" team.
In the global competition for astute political leadership, we are certainly losing.
7
Is Corker turning into yet another in a long line of GOP snipers, denigrators, and small-minded regionalists? We report, you decide...
8
Not without reason, the Sunni nations, and Israel want the United States to be on call to take military strikes on Iran, or, even, perhaps, to launch a full scale invasion of Iran. The Sunni nations and Israel know that the United States is unlikely to take military action against Iran on the basis of Iran's continued project of power in the region through violence. Thus, the fact that Iran was pursuing a nuclear program gave Sunni nations and Israel hope that a military action against Iran by the United States would occur sometime in the future. The Sunni nations and Israel now have good reason to believe that the likelihood of U.S. military action has been greatly decreased, yet Iran's terrorism and violence in the region probably will continue. I think those set of circumstances are the cause of the frustration of the Sunni nations and Israel. They know that Iran would not launch a nuclear strike. The Iranians know the price to be paid for such a strike would be total destruction of Iran. The Sunni nations and Israel are not worried about a nuclear strike. What frustrates them, with reason, is that they no longer have a grounds for a U.S. sponsored attack that might, in their view, both deter a continued nuclear program, and, more to the point, deter or diminish Iran's project of power through violence in the region. The United States must now work tirelessly to to limit Iranian expansionism in the region and to broker some detente among the powers of that region.
1
Before deal:
- Military threat
- Economic sanctions
- Iran isolated internationally
- Iran weakened internally (As a result of sanctions)
- No guarantee of ever being able to pursue Nukes
After Deal:
- Military threat (same)
- No economic sanctions (bad)
- Iran no longer isolated internationally (bad)
- Iran strengthened internally (bad)
- After 15 years good to go (very bad)
All in exchange for:
-inspections with complex easily manipulated bureaucratic process that also requires reporting suspicious site to Iran and giving them 24 days minimum to clean it . (pathetic)
= Bad deal
- Military threat
- Economic sanctions
- Iran isolated internationally
- Iran weakened internally (As a result of sanctions)
- No guarantee of ever being able to pursue Nukes
After Deal:
- Military threat (same)
- No economic sanctions (bad)
- Iran no longer isolated internationally (bad)
- Iran strengthened internally (bad)
- After 15 years good to go (very bad)
All in exchange for:
-inspections with complex easily manipulated bureaucratic process that also requires reporting suspicious site to Iran and giving them 24 days minimum to clean it . (pathetic)
= Bad deal
1
Once again the Republicans are complaining Obama has not done enough to clean up the mess they created.
Reagan traded guns with Iran. Bush one did nothing, and Republicans had eight years under Bush2 to deal with Iran but what they gave us was a war against the wrong country that cost thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and created ISIS all while Iran was building thousands of new centrifuges.
Reagan traded guns with Iran. Bush one did nothing, and Republicans had eight years under Bush2 to deal with Iran but what they gave us was a war against the wrong country that cost thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and created ISIS all while Iran was building thousands of new centrifuges.
10
The entire world on one side and a single country on the other backed by their congressional water bearers. As they say, "only in America!"!
10
Learn your history!
Look at the Korean nuclear deal..
check out:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-boot-is-iran-more-like-north-...
This, as Iran chants "death to America" Kerry responds with giving them billions of dollars to help fund more terror. 24 days inspection delay times, and really... no inspection of military sites? You can bet each time the international committee wants to do an inspection, they will claim the site identified is Military and off limits! How gullible this leadership is , shame on you.
Look at the Korean nuclear deal..
check out:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-boot-is-iran-more-like-north-...
This, as Iran chants "death to America" Kerry responds with giving them billions of dollars to help fund more terror. 24 days inspection delay times, and really... no inspection of military sites? You can bet each time the international committee wants to do an inspection, they will claim the site identified is Military and off limits! How gullible this leadership is , shame on you.
3
I happened to watch Kerry's press conference live. He was dazed and his words lacked conviction. Clearly, the Iranian President's recent brazen utterances and defiance to U.S. had an impact on his tone and tenor. Democrats know that this is not a good deal and the opportunity of a chance of adding this deal to the 'Legacy Catalog' is now lost. For good or bad, Benjamin Netanyahu's words might come true after all.
2
Kerry has made several appearances to discuss the Iran deal and in every one he has been confident, self-assured and in command of the facts as has the president he serves. The opponents of the Iran nuclear deal, on the other hand, appear increasingly ignorant and/or ideologically blinded.
4
Literally tens of millions of dollars being spent and untold influence is being spent by the Israeli right and its lobbyists to try to kill this deal. That is the story. That needs to be the focus. It's actually an insult to suggest our congress people are voicing sceptisim rather than being enticed or bullied into trying to scuttle this deal.
8
Fleeced and bamboozled are how I would describe the constituents who voted for Corker and Risch.
And let's all admit one thing, we can call Iran every name in the book, but they feel just as justified calling us the same. And I find it hard to argue with them after the multiple messes we've made all around the world.
And let's all admit one thing, we can call Iran every name in the book, but they feel just as justified calling us the same. And I find it hard to argue with them after the multiple messes we've made all around the world.
5
Strangely Kerry was never asked the question whether he believed the deal would work.
1
Republicans are not acting in the public interest. They are straining at gnats to try and create a specious case for defeating these accords. The world is watching this charade as United States legislators work to undermine a solid process of years of work started from Washington.
We see this in the lobbying efforts of AIPAC and Ambassador Dermer who astonishingly asks the Congress to ignore the details of the accord, and simply cast a vote "against Iran." How much farther from sensible debate can one get? And, incidentally, if the American ambassador to Israel tried to lobby the members of the Knesset there would be howls of outrage throughout Israel.
The GOP objections have nothing to do with Iran's nuclear capability or some ephemeral future threat. They have everything to do with a juvenile attempt to deliver a black eye to President Obama and his administration. The insults hurled at Secretary Kerry prove this. The GOP Senators were clearly not interested in actual facts regarding the accords. They were only interested in posturing, grandstanding and making noises to satisfy the blather being bandied about in the conservative public media.
These proceedings are shameful. If the approval of the accords is rejected, we will all suffer severe consequences. The world is ready to accept Iran back into the community of nations, and is satisfied by these accords. The fact that we might reject them for insubstantial reasons makes the world wonder about our sanity.
We see this in the lobbying efforts of AIPAC and Ambassador Dermer who astonishingly asks the Congress to ignore the details of the accord, and simply cast a vote "against Iran." How much farther from sensible debate can one get? And, incidentally, if the American ambassador to Israel tried to lobby the members of the Knesset there would be howls of outrage throughout Israel.
The GOP objections have nothing to do with Iran's nuclear capability or some ephemeral future threat. They have everything to do with a juvenile attempt to deliver a black eye to President Obama and his administration. The insults hurled at Secretary Kerry prove this. The GOP Senators were clearly not interested in actual facts regarding the accords. They were only interested in posturing, grandstanding and making noises to satisfy the blather being bandied about in the conservative public media.
These proceedings are shameful. If the approval of the accords is rejected, we will all suffer severe consequences. The world is ready to accept Iran back into the community of nations, and is satisfied by these accords. The fact that we might reject them for insubstantial reasons makes the world wonder about our sanity.
15
Yes, Senator Corker, there is a "fleecing" going on in that Senate chamber, and the American people can recognize it pretty well after six and a half years of anti-Obama, anti-everything jab jabbering. You have nary a single policy proposal of any significance in any major area.
Now, absent a viable alternative for restricting access to nuclear weapons by Iran, we hear the demagogues' message: talk tough, chest-pound, and threaten.
Unless we are willing to go to war, a ground war with deaths likely to make Iraq look like a springtime waltz, this treaty is our best bet. I'm a vet, and I respect my fellow soldiers, in fact, it's with respect for our lives that I mention the eventuality we could all avoid for the next ten years.
Instead we hear: "Iran? Just talk tough, threaten, and then make war." Libya, Egypt, Yemen? "...talk tough, threaten, and then war....".
The right has no viable alternative for stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They hope we won't notice.
But we do, Senator Corker, we do.
Americans have had enough of blood and treasure wasted in the Middle East and Near East. Sanctions won't work if Republicans scrap the treaty. Why? Because the other five UN security council signatories to the treaty won't agree to continue sanctions after 20 months of negotiating for an agreement, so they'd be ineffective and we'd be on our own.
In the absence of a better idea, Mr. Corker and co., here's a unique one: Let's give peace a chance.
Now, absent a viable alternative for restricting access to nuclear weapons by Iran, we hear the demagogues' message: talk tough, chest-pound, and threaten.
Unless we are willing to go to war, a ground war with deaths likely to make Iraq look like a springtime waltz, this treaty is our best bet. I'm a vet, and I respect my fellow soldiers, in fact, it's with respect for our lives that I mention the eventuality we could all avoid for the next ten years.
Instead we hear: "Iran? Just talk tough, threaten, and then make war." Libya, Egypt, Yemen? "...talk tough, threaten, and then war....".
The right has no viable alternative for stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They hope we won't notice.
But we do, Senator Corker, we do.
Americans have had enough of blood and treasure wasted in the Middle East and Near East. Sanctions won't work if Republicans scrap the treaty. Why? Because the other five UN security council signatories to the treaty won't agree to continue sanctions after 20 months of negotiating for an agreement, so they'd be ineffective and we'd be on our own.
In the absence of a better idea, Mr. Corker and co., here's a unique one: Let's give peace a chance.
13
Peace?! You really believe that Iran is intent on fostering peace in the Middle East? Get your head out of the sand. The opponents of this deal are legitimately entitled to point out that the President made a bad deal and should not be rewarded because of it. This country does not have to go along with a bad deal.
It's a good deal for America and the Western world. Those who don't like the deal because Netanyahu doesn't like the deal are anti-American!
Let's be clear, the ONLY opponents of this deal are: Israel and their poodles in Congress.
Good deal, bad deal, it's a deal! The other members of the UN Security Council also approved the deal. If we back off now, good luck forming a coalition to sanction (or God forbid) invade Iran! And guess what? Sanctions only work when other major countries participate. If we truly do have a year lead time to an Iranian nuclear breakout, then isn't a year long enough to plan an invasion? It was the opinion of Sun Tzu that "the supreme art of war is to subdue an enemy without fighting." Isn't that what this is all about?
9
you asre operating under a misconception. Despite the U.N. actions, if U.S. sanctions stay in place any entity that deals with Iran would be unable to deal with the U.S. Some may choose Iran -- certainly Russia would do so. But do you think everyone will give up the opportunity to deal with us and our economy in order to deal with Iran? I do not. Our country's sanctions by themselves can still have some bite.
WBK, since you are so eager to start a war, maybe you should move to Israel and join the IDF.
@WBK - if sanctions with the whole world now participating have not stopped them from enriching uranium for a bomb, our sanctions alone with "some bite" will do even less. They will race for a bomb and perhaps do even more desperate things since they are not tied into the worldwide system. In this day and age, the danger does not lurk from countries vested in the system, it hides in rogue countries. Bringing Iran (and Cuba) into the fold only reinforces this economic interdependence and dissuades any of the participants from acting wholly irrational. I would like to avoid spilling more American blood in the Middle East, if at all possible.
I suggest this alternative to the accord: send the 1,000 closest blood relatives between the ages of 12 and 92 of each Republican Senator to a special 10-day Marine Corps boot camp starting at 0400 hours next Monday. On Day 11, issue each of these brave and heroic patriots a parachute and a bayonet and drop them into Iran in the dark of night to commandeer all of Iran's nuclear facilities and defeat the Iranian military. Then bring in Paul Bremer to ease Iran into a peaceful plutocracy with aging infrastructure like the U.S.
13
Lets be sensible, all you need is to issue two of them nuclear missile launch keys so that they can completely destroy Iran in 30 minutes.
Don't forget to raise taxes to pay for another misadventure.
This deal does not stop the Iranians from building the nuclear weapon they say they were not building. It does allow the Iranians to build the nuclear weapon they say they were not building in 10 to 15 years. We stop them now from building the nuclear weapon they say they were not building or we stop them in 10 to 15 years from building the nuclear weapon they say they were not building. Either way, we will have to stop the Iranians from building their nuclear weapon.
2
Why doesn't the Times look into the side secret deals that have been reported and either tell us that it is true or false
3
I couldn't agree more. IF there are such side deals, what are they, and why are the US citizens not being informed? If there are no "secret annexes," Kerry and Obama need to go on record and state that fact. The present deal is porous with loopholes for inspection delay and verification. "You can keep your doctor and your health plan" makes me very nervous about this deal, and what are not being told.
What should be of vital interest is that all of those countries in Irans immediate neighborhood were completely left out of the "P5+1" negotiations. So the nations on Iran's doorstep are left to argue and beg or take whatever unilateral action they may choose as they never participated, didnt "buy in" to the deal and will have to suffer the consequences. What sense does this make? Is the P5+1 so arrogant as to believe it and it alone understands the middle east that much better than middle easterners that it couldnt include at least ONE actual Middle Eastern country to sit in??
3
There is no certainty that Iran will not eventually acquire a nuclear bomb. There is no such certainty in these matters. However, under this accord, the U.N. embargo on ballistic missile technology would be lifted eight years from now. A ballistic missile program could give Tehran the capacity to deliver the weapon. Moreover, according to some experts, the 24 day waiting period for inspection of undeclared sites would allow Iran to work on certain components of the bomb. Simply put, Iran will have the capacity to inch towards a deliverable bomb in the coming years. And the end of a decade or so, this will be coupled with the capacity to enrich uranium on an industrial scale.
The Obama administration appears to be taking a risk here. And a risk should not be taken when it concerns the joining of the most powerful weapon in history with the terrorist regime of Tehran.
The Obama administration appears to be taking a risk here. And a risk should not be taken when it concerns the joining of the most powerful weapon in history with the terrorist regime of Tehran.
5
So, a year or two or three goes by - sanctions are lifted - Iran signs big contracts with big oil and other businesses. The country gets an infusion of money and gets integrated into the international financial system.
Then they break the agreement, block inspections, fire up the centrifuges and move to produce an atomic weapon.
Now what? Re- imposing sanctions with big money on the table is highly unlikely. Fight a conventional war with Iran? There will be no political will for another military adventure. What?
And - Iran is twenty minutes from Israel by missile or jet. And - the Israelis have nukes constantly in the air to prevent being caught on the ground.
And - Iran has made repeated statements that its avowed goal is the destruction of Israel and this is the purpose of its atomic program.
I think in such a scenario the days of sanctions will be wistful memories..
Then they break the agreement, block inspections, fire up the centrifuges and move to produce an atomic weapon.
Now what? Re- imposing sanctions with big money on the table is highly unlikely. Fight a conventional war with Iran? There will be no political will for another military adventure. What?
And - Iran is twenty minutes from Israel by missile or jet. And - the Israelis have nukes constantly in the air to prevent being caught on the ground.
And - Iran has made repeated statements that its avowed goal is the destruction of Israel and this is the purpose of its atomic program.
I think in such a scenario the days of sanctions will be wistful memories..
4
" Iran is twenty minutes from Israel by missile or jet. "
Iran is thirty minutes from a US nuclear missile submarine, and it would take only two Trident missiles (7 x 750KT W88 warheads each) to completely destroy Iran.
Iran is thirty minutes from a US nuclear missile submarine, and it would take only two Trident missiles (7 x 750KT W88 warheads each) to completely destroy Iran.
Mr Hope, You are talking yourself into hysteria, along with the other Senatprs described in this article. Their hysteria is purely political. I'm not sure what yours is.
Your statement, 'Iran has made repeated statements that its avowed goal is the destruction of Israel and this is the purpose of its atomic program.'
They have never even admitted they have an atomic weapon program.
Your statement, 'Iran has made repeated statements that its avowed goal is the destruction of Israel and this is the purpose of its atomic program.'
They have never even admitted they have an atomic weapon program.
3
I'm shocked at the opening comment of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair, Bob Corker (R-TN), saying that Secretary of State John Kerry had been "fleeced" by Iran in the recently concluded lengthy negotiations to curtail their nuclear weapons program. Senator Corker is often cited as a moderate voice, but such a judgmental salvo indicates just how immoderate the Republican Party has become. If Secretary Kerry was indeed fleeced, I'd like to know how. And, by implication does that mean all of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council--Britain, China, France, and Russia--along with Germany who also negotiated the deal were equally naive? When someone starts a conversation with an insult, you know they're not serious and have already made up their mind. As Mr. Kerry made clear, rejecting the deal would bring about all of the things the Republicans say they are opposed to. That means Iran will quickly produce nuclear weapons, and the sanctions regime will be abrogated by the other member nations, such as the entire 15 member U.N. Security Council who approved the treaty, thereby unfreezing most of Iran's assets. So, if Republicans prevail in their endless their dangerous and thoughtless anti-Obama, pro-Israel campaign, the U.S. and the entire world will in fact be "fleeced" with a nuclear arms race underway in world's most volatile region that now has active wars raging in three countries.
27
Don't be naive. Do you really think the Russians and Chinese - - and indeed the British, French and Germans -- had the same interest as the United States. From the outset, the Russians and Chinese were intent on finding a way out of the sanctions so that they could resume doing business with Iran. The French made a good pretense of objecting to concessions made by Secretary Kerry, but ultimately our European allies saw the handwriting on the wall. Can't be more stringent than the U.S. And can't leave all the busibess to the Russians and Chinese -- particularly the arms deals. Our President and Secretary of State folded early and often -- instead of treating Iran like the junior partner it was at the table -- suffering under crippling sanctions, we treated them like an equal -- as if they were a super-power.
Our country, our allies around the world -- not just in the Middle East -- and one day even the Russians -- will come to regret this deal as the world's leading sponsor of terrorism (something even the President and Secretary Kerry do not deny) spreads its tentacles through its proxies.
Our country, our allies around the world -- not just in the Middle East -- and one day even the Russians -- will come to regret this deal as the world's leading sponsor of terrorism (something even the President and Secretary Kerry do not deny) spreads its tentacles through its proxies.
"Don't be naive. Do you really think the Russians and Chinese - - and indeed the British, French and Germans -- had the same interest as the United States. "
You are right. We are the only ones who subjugate our interests to a tiny little country's because we have allowed their wealthy supporters to squeeze our politicians.
You are right. We are the only ones who subjugate our interests to a tiny little country's because we have allowed their wealthy supporters to squeeze our politicians.
How is it under the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan that arms deals for hostages with Iran, sealed by weapons shipments from Israel are fine, yet a no nuclear weapons development deal with Iran under President Obama is not? In the former Israel's weapons were restocked by the US and in the latter, Israel is now guaranteed more sweetheart deals on US weapons.
Rhetoric is Netanyahu's only argument. America needs to remember the wisdom of President George Washington who warned us precisely of the type of ally Israel has become: ungrateful, arrogant, and ignorant of American values. Washington stated in his Farewell Address of 1796, "Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other."
Apparently for the one issue, Netanyahu, Obama's warranty of America's military might to preserve Israel are insufficient. The real issue Israel's Likud Party seeks to avoid is their abuse of the Palestinians. America is not Israel's apartheid state satellite, we will not shed one more drop of US blood on the wacky neocon agenda. However, China is Israel's number one weapons customer. Think about that fact.
Rhetoric is Netanyahu's only argument. America needs to remember the wisdom of President George Washington who warned us precisely of the type of ally Israel has become: ungrateful, arrogant, and ignorant of American values. Washington stated in his Farewell Address of 1796, "Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other."
Apparently for the one issue, Netanyahu, Obama's warranty of America's military might to preserve Israel are insufficient. The real issue Israel's Likud Party seeks to avoid is their abuse of the Palestinians. America is not Israel's apartheid state satellite, we will not shed one more drop of US blood on the wacky neocon agenda. However, China is Israel's number one weapons customer. Think about that fact.
9
Some have compared this agreement to "appeasement." I would ask them a couple of questions.
One is, what is your alternative for stopping or slowing Iran's nuclear program? The options are continuing sanctions (in the faint hope that all the other countries involved will go along with them) and using military force (which would not be effective if key installations are placed in populated areas). Neither option seems likely to work, does it? The real problem here is that Iran's ruling elite is pursuing policies that are (from our point of view) disruptive of the region. Building a bomb is only one of those policies. Neither sanctions nor any military action the American people will support is going to get rid of that ruling elite, so what's your solution for doing so?
The second is, what would have happened if the allied powers had attacked Germany during the 30s rather than standing back and allowing Germany to rearm? You seem to assume that the result would have been much better for everyone than what actually happened. How do you know that? How do you know that humiliating Germany once again would not have brought about results even worse than the consequences of the war in Europe? Actually, you don't.
One is, what is your alternative for stopping or slowing Iran's nuclear program? The options are continuing sanctions (in the faint hope that all the other countries involved will go along with them) and using military force (which would not be effective if key installations are placed in populated areas). Neither option seems likely to work, does it? The real problem here is that Iran's ruling elite is pursuing policies that are (from our point of view) disruptive of the region. Building a bomb is only one of those policies. Neither sanctions nor any military action the American people will support is going to get rid of that ruling elite, so what's your solution for doing so?
The second is, what would have happened if the allied powers had attacked Germany during the 30s rather than standing back and allowing Germany to rearm? You seem to assume that the result would have been much better for everyone than what actually happened. How do you know that? How do you know that humiliating Germany once again would not have brought about results even worse than the consequences of the war in Europe? Actually, you don't.
3
What evidence do you have that the sanctions would not hold?
Stopping or slowing Iran's nuclear weapons program could be accomplished tomorrow by the US or Israel. Why is eliminating a mortal threat (that has been clearly voiced by Iran) outside our consideration?
The sanctions have been effective. Really, what are we getting here for taking them apart?
Stopping or slowing Iran's nuclear weapons program could be accomplished tomorrow by the US or Israel. Why is eliminating a mortal threat (that has been clearly voiced by Iran) outside our consideration?
The sanctions have been effective. Really, what are we getting here for taking them apart?
Peace, a nuclear defused Iran and no dead American soldiers or wasted billions in a country much than Iraq. Thats what we get here. What you fail to understand clearly because you've not read the deal and swallowed the opinion of Republicans and pundits that havent read it either and hate it because...Obama, is that with the deal if Iran does violate the agreement, we reimpose sanctions and still have the military option.
Ronin is correct. As Obama has repeatedly said, if we find that Iran is cheating there is nothing to stop us from pursuing whatever military options we have. Is there any reason why that option would not be as effective in six months' time as it would be now?
Ridiculous! Nuclear sanctions, $ 50 billions to not to perform on what credentials? Because you can't win at home you go elsewhere and get support with this deal? Those countries will take responsibility if this deal false apart? Do we get $50 billions back from Iran or they could use it to attack America with their nuclear weapons? Forget about congress, what about people of America who are opposing this deal, be counted as the powerful citizens of this country and honor their doubts ? Don't people of America need answers from the administration if this deal is trustworthy and we are not wasting our time energy and money trying to squeeze oil out of sand!!!!Don't the congress and the administrations have the responsibility to clear every reasonable doubt we people have in dealing with this gambling. Gambling is a gambling they is no definite winning! ISIS is getting bigger and bigger. The power in terms of army. navy and billions of dollars we invested in Afghanistan and Iraq to rebuild proven to be colossal waste of weapons, money and loss of lives. all we get back was ungrateful reactions. Why do we have to say yes to this deal ? How come Congress is threatened if they don't okay this deal United nations would back this deal and stand by Iran? America would stand alone in opposing this deal? Being an great American and in a powerful position to lift this nations to it's greatest, Mr. Kerry threatening like this would raise concerns.
1
The poor record establishing peace and stability by Republicans and Israel over the last 15 - 20 years hardly bolsters confidence in their ability to judge the Iran Deal. It is also worth reading the views of many in the Israeli security establishment regarding the Iran nuclear deal.
What makes any statements from most Republicans questionable is their well-documented bias against Obama which distorts nearly every POV expressed by them about anything the president advocates or negotiates.
What makes any statements from most Republicans questionable is their well-documented bias against Obama which distorts nearly every POV expressed by them about anything the president advocates or negotiates.
8
Really? Do you think that what has happened to Syria, Iraq, and Libya under Obama establishes that he knows how to create peace and stability? You have a great sense of humor!
Given that the GOP has yet to propose a health plan, their Iran plan will be offered years after this treaty has expired anyway.
4
While I generally don't like the Iran plan, I am most concerned about is what did we have to sacrifice at the request of the Europeans. The Europeans were very, very eager to have a deal for trade treasons. No how quickly they rushed to Tehran for trade purposes.
Europe does NOT have the same security needs and demands as the US does. In fact EU negotiators are like having a bunch of Neville Chamberlains in the Room - anxious to come back with "peace in out time". I just don't trust the EU when the security of the US is at stake.
For harmony how many stricter demands did we give up to make the EU happy? That is what worries me. I would have felt more comfortable if we did not have to have the EU as part of the negotiations.
Also I don't trust Obama. I feel he is not as tough a negotiator as past Presidents have been. He is too eager for peace and is too willing to sacrifice a tougher position for a weaker one to get the agreement.
I think his is most obvious in the inspections regime. We should have demanded immediate access to military sites as we did for civilian sites - that is big hole in the security. If Iran violates the agreement, I question how fast the UN will "snap" sanctions back on again - I suspect they won't - that is another hole.
I would rather this had been a treaty than an agreement. Treaties are so much stronger.
Europe does NOT have the same security needs and demands as the US does. In fact EU negotiators are like having a bunch of Neville Chamberlains in the Room - anxious to come back with "peace in out time". I just don't trust the EU when the security of the US is at stake.
For harmony how many stricter demands did we give up to make the EU happy? That is what worries me. I would have felt more comfortable if we did not have to have the EU as part of the negotiations.
Also I don't trust Obama. I feel he is not as tough a negotiator as past Presidents have been. He is too eager for peace and is too willing to sacrifice a tougher position for a weaker one to get the agreement.
I think his is most obvious in the inspections regime. We should have demanded immediate access to military sites as we did for civilian sites - that is big hole in the security. If Iran violates the agreement, I question how fast the UN will "snap" sanctions back on again - I suspect they won't - that is another hole.
I would rather this had been a treaty than an agreement. Treaties are so much stronger.
6
Did you know that in November 10, 2013, France vetoed an interim deal the US were pushing for because, as Fabius then said, "there are some points where we are not in agreement, especially concerning the 20% enriched urianium Iranian stock"?
Let's be clear, the US public is so misinformed and insular (*cough* Iraq 2003 *cough) that the US would be a laughing stock if they were not so prone to bullying their way through.
Let's be clear, the US public is so misinformed and insular (*cough* Iraq 2003 *cough) that the US would be a laughing stock if they were not so prone to bullying their way through.
Why cannot Senators Corker and Risch question the agreement without insulting Secretary of State Kerry, who worked so laboriously and sincerely to find a peaceful resolution? What is their alternative, their better deal? Where do GOP and DEM critics alike find the chutzpah to suggest that a more forceful resolution might be better? When was the last war we did not limp away from sans victory? It was WWII, senators. We cannot bomb our way out of situations. It has not, and will not, work. In any event, it must be the very last resort, because the unintended consequences are always dire.
11
because it's what they do, like the scorpion stinging the crocodile giving him a ride across the river...
Iran is very unlikely to build a bomb under the agreement with the United Nations. In exchange for its sovereignty on the nuclear issue, Iran will be given relatively normal economic relations with the rest of the world.
Normal economic relations is something that the vast majority of nation-states take for granted. The right to trade, use of the international banking system and to build nuclear power plants are normal expected rights of countries around the world. South Korea, for example, is an enthusiastic exporting of nuclear power plants. What the Iranians are being given are access to their own money which the international community has blocked and the ability to proceed with the re-integration of Iran into the world's economic system.
Building a bomb in defiance of the United Nations Security Council, the European Union and the United States would immediately crash Iran's new economic freedoms and open the country to the gravest of military assaults by the United States. We have GPS guided thirty thousand pound massive ordinance weapons to deliver to Iran with our intercontinental stealth bombers. We are capable, through our world dominant air power capabilities of destroying Iran's military-industrial infrastructure in an afternoon with conventional weapon systems. We also have tactical nuclear weapons that could be used. Iran is deterred militarily from pursuing a nuclear weapon and has deep economic incentives for following the agreements to the letter.
Normal economic relations is something that the vast majority of nation-states take for granted. The right to trade, use of the international banking system and to build nuclear power plants are normal expected rights of countries around the world. South Korea, for example, is an enthusiastic exporting of nuclear power plants. What the Iranians are being given are access to their own money which the international community has blocked and the ability to proceed with the re-integration of Iran into the world's economic system.
Building a bomb in defiance of the United Nations Security Council, the European Union and the United States would immediately crash Iran's new economic freedoms and open the country to the gravest of military assaults by the United States. We have GPS guided thirty thousand pound massive ordinance weapons to deliver to Iran with our intercontinental stealth bombers. We are capable, through our world dominant air power capabilities of destroying Iran's military-industrial infrastructure in an afternoon with conventional weapon systems. We also have tactical nuclear weapons that could be used. Iran is deterred militarily from pursuing a nuclear weapon and has deep economic incentives for following the agreements to the letter.
12
This is all a bunch of toothless bluster - the domestic issue of the Iran deal was resolved back in April.
Congress has a vote on whether or not to lift sanctions, and Obama gets to veto if they refuse, so sanctions are getting lifted regardless of whatever juvenile antics are occurring today.
This is perfect, absolutely perfect for the GOP. They are in their perfect place in this situation - acting like histrionic drama queens, running around like they're saying something useful, after all the work is done and the ink is drying. Their true place is on the sidelines and truth be told, they like it there, they're safe to be what they are there.
Congress has a vote on whether or not to lift sanctions, and Obama gets to veto if they refuse, so sanctions are getting lifted regardless of whatever juvenile antics are occurring today.
This is perfect, absolutely perfect for the GOP. They are in their perfect place in this situation - acting like histrionic drama queens, running around like they're saying something useful, after all the work is done and the ink is drying. Their true place is on the sidelines and truth be told, they like it there, they're safe to be what they are there.
22
Anyone expected better of this distracted version of the once-great (not since Lincoln) Republican Party? Corker and the other Republicans' alternative solution is..................?
13
If little man Squeaky Corker was fleeced, it was his own poor negotiating skills as he is the spiteful little worm who negotiated Congress' involvement where it has no business. The GOP can't even pass an appropriations bills without one of their rednecks trying to shove their flag for the Confederation of Losers into every bill. What a bunch of loud squawking small minded AIPAC sycophants the Israelis have created from our corrupt Congress, all in thanks for our unbelievable generosity I suppose. If anything happens to this agreement it will be due to the foreign invasion into our domestic politics, and it will be even uglier for that meddlesome country in the ME that was the main cheerleader for the Iraq debacle, which happened the last time we gave the chicken hawks the wheel. Not happening again chicken hawks, not happening. You worthless belligerent little men should go to war if you want to but no one will be behind you except the Israelis who always sit on their hands when the real fighting starts.
38
With all the wars they have been in, the Israelis hardly sit on their hands.
"Israelis who always sit on their hands when the real fighting starts." Please provide an example. No, make that 2 examples since you said "always".
1
You've got that one right ... In fact, you know what, I'm thinking that if the Republicans don't go along with the President, that if we are given the opportunity we should show how vindictive we can be and cut off aid to Israel. The Israelis can fend for themselves.
1
But what Are the goals of those who object. Would Israel prefer to have Iran continue in atomic construction. Perhaps then they could claim a need to bomb and destroy thus involving the US in doing most of the effort....and both blame and responsibility. Remember, we must protect Israel. That might be a good plan. And our govt's seem to like war...count the number since 1945.
10
A lot of people seem deluded about what further sanctions and antipathy would mean. Russia and China have significant interests in Iran, especially with respect to energy. How do the Republicans intend to deal with Russia and China if we keep leaning on Iran? They can't seriously expect to project military power in that country without a response from those nations.
62
I find it hard to believe that the hard liners in Iran would fail to respond also, the warmongers in our country are in agreement with the hardliners in Iran. They are the opposite of patriots.
Most Capitol Hill lawmakers do not understand or care about the issues you correctly cite. We handsomely pay and otherwise compensate our Senators and Representatives, with the expectation that they will bring a reasonable commitment to think through these issues and do what’s best for the United States. But more often, when I read their simplistic, ignorant, and cliche-ridden responses to complex issues, I wonder why we have so many outright blockheads in our corridors of power. Because so many outright blockheads keep voting for them, I suppose. And woe unto us all.
1
I feel much safer, after hearing his testimony..yea, right. 100 bil heading for terrorist orgs dedicated to killing Americans and Israelis, ICBM embargo lifted by the UN, Russia/China/Iran/Socialist Europe all smiles...sure glad they won't have to worry about crippling sanctions anymore, huh, or being forced to return 4 Americans. Great job, Mr Kerry..not.
3
I suppose that there are legitimate criticisms but they are not making any. "We have been fleeced," is a desparate complaint if it is not butressed by some analysis. Obama has been "bamboozled," is something out of a 19th century stump speech. The only theme I can glean from the GOP criticisms is that deal making is for wimps, Obama is a wimp and, ergo, this is a wimpy deal. It's' playground politics.
13
When it becomes clear that the Iranian's are cheating as much, or more, then Brady and company during deflategate or (pick another cheating incident under Belichick here) what will be uproariously funny is Kerry and or Obama being interviewed and having a completely false sounding "you mean there was gambling going on at Rick's" moment. Yes the world will be less safe, but at least I'll get a chuckle out of watching whatever Sunday morning interview show Kerry or Obama pick to be on.
4
I see it has been lost on these partisan idiots in (mis)leading Congress that by the timetable in this deal, the hardliner Ayatollas and Supreme Leaders that launched the Islamic Revolution will be dead by the time they come out of the other end? Consider the average age of the Iranian people is somwhere in the late 30s or early 40s. Anyone paying close enough attention recognizing the great deal we have here and the attempts by Republicans to kill it one would think they want to create a new generation of Iranians to chant "Death to America" to justify they're continued shoveling of money and weapons to Israel and kissing the ring of their leaders while doing their bidding. There is no logical reason this Congress should kill this deal other than to stick it to Obama and start yet another way someone else's kids will die in.
23
Dear Bob Corker: You have neither a semblance of good manners and respect, nor any interest in the welfare of our citizens, or the nations of the middle east. You should be asking questions, not making statements. Ah believe you have been lobotomized...suh.
17
One doesn't have to like Iran to understand that it is an independent nation and what is being proposed as a proper agreement by the Republicans is a total capitulation by Iran. Last time I checked, total capitulation only happens after a war. Last time we (the US) demanded something similar was to country called Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the rest is history. A lot of this Senators should ask themselves if they (back in 2002-2003) supported the Iraq was and if so did they learn anything?
As a side note - the arguments used by this Senators are the arguments used by the prime minster of Israel. Shouldn't the discussion be about the interests of our country (US) and not Israel?
As a side note - the arguments used by this Senators are the arguments used by the prime minster of Israel. Shouldn't the discussion be about the interests of our country (US) and not Israel?
22
I'm really surprised to see opposition to this deal by Republicans. I mean, they've been so supportive and accommodating of the president for six years now ... why the change of heart?
8
Republicans' problem with this deal has nothing to do with the facts of this deal. It has everything to do with the fact that it's a deal that was negotiated under Obama's administration by a Democrat who had the audacity to run for president - and we now have a bunch - a pile - of Republicans thinking they deserve to be president but can't act presidential. Of course it devolved into personal affronts and name-calling toward a Secretary of State and President. The Republicans' panic and disgust over Donald Trump's mean, unfiltered mouth being used on them is hilarious - how do they think they have been behaving the past six years? You reap what you sow...only this time they're reaping from one of their own.
8
We don't trust Iran? Iran doesn't trust us? Iran a Rogue Regime? Does anyone remember the "Rogue Regime" is the result of U.S. meddling with Iran in 1954? Or that we supported Hussein and poison gas in Iraq's war with Iran. Is it any wonder Iran doesn't trust us and that their regime may be anti-U.S.? The best observation of Repub policy vs Dem is hundred or so centrifuges became thousands under Repub Regime. These are the folks opposing? Who's listening to them? Israel and the campaign contribution gamers. Well, DUH!
9
The role of the Congress in the IRAN deal has appropriately been reduced sufficiently to enable it to be flushed down the toilet, ala Grover Norquist!
3
If I told you that I hate a book before ever reading it, then how credible would my opinion be of that book after reviewing it? Remember 47 Republicans opposed the treaty in a letter to Iran before it was completed. Those 47 don't deserve our respect as to their opinions of the treaty at this juncture.
17
It is interesting to note that neither Congress, the Administration or the state of Israel ever mentions the name of the only country in the Middle East that does possess nuclear weapons although, the rest of the world knows who it is. Has Israel ever signed onto a nuclear non proliferation treaty?
Does anyone really believe that if Iran made a nuclear weapon it would launch it against Israel? I am certain that if they attempted it, they would be annihilated with Israel's nuclear arsenal. The US does not need to send more arms to Israel what it does need to do is sign this treaty and continue working to find peace in the region!
Does anyone really believe that if Iran made a nuclear weapon it would launch it against Israel? I am certain that if they attempted it, they would be annihilated with Israel's nuclear arsenal. The US does not need to send more arms to Israel what it does need to do is sign this treaty and continue working to find peace in the region!
"Far from blocking Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, Mr. Corker noted, the accord would enable Iran to expand its nuclear enrichment capabilities after the first decade."
Mr. Corker should know that Iran has the legal right, under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to enrich uranium, now or any time. That they gave that up for at least 10 years is a good deal.
Mr. Corker should know that Iran has the legal right, under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to enrich uranium, now or any time. That they gave that up for at least 10 years is a good deal.
11
The celebrations in Iran when the nuclear deal was announced were not inspired solely by the removal of economic sanctions. To them, particularly the young, this agreement is also the start of a transformation to less Islamic fundamentalism and more democracy. U.S. should aggressively accelerate this process through immigration reforms pertaining to foreign students. Proposals in Congress focus on allowing them to work in the U.S. after graduation to help make America more competitive. The main issue: concern that expansion of work visas to foreign students would depress wages and limit employment opportunities for Americans. But this perspective is too narrow; it must be expanded to address impacts abroad. With specific regard to the relationships between the U.S. and Iran, these reforms should focus on expanded opportunities for Iranian students to get advanced STEM degrees and then work for three to five years in the U.S. after graduation. When these young people return to live in Iran, they would be agents-of-change to democracy, producing pervasive and enduring benefits.
If President Obama adopts this goal in immigration reforms, Secretary Kerry, in his next opportunity to defend the Iran nuclear deal, might succeed in substantially reducing skepticism in the Senate by pointing out its added advantage: in return for relaxation of economic sanctions, the U.S. would help start democratic reforms in Iran, in addition to curbing “Tehran’s nuclear ambitions”.
If President Obama adopts this goal in immigration reforms, Secretary Kerry, in his next opportunity to defend the Iran nuclear deal, might succeed in substantially reducing skepticism in the Senate by pointing out its added advantage: in return for relaxation of economic sanctions, the U.S. would help start democratic reforms in Iran, in addition to curbing “Tehran’s nuclear ambitions”.
5
All the comments to date here, and most of the political response to this deal, make no sense because virtually no one has read in complete detail what the agreement says. Lets all just take a step back, actually read it completely when it becomes available, and THEN take a position.
What a concept.....
What a concept.....
4
My senior Senator is John "bomb, bomb" Iran! He will be lucky to survive the Republican primary next year in Arizona. We are very tired of his thirst for war. How about giving peace a chance and if the Iranians are caught cheating, then the bombs can start falling on their nuclear facilities!
15
This is the best deal that could be had. The preferred alternative by many of its opponents is an invasion of Iran and a bloody 20 year occupation. It may come to that, but let's at least try diplomacy first.
19
Tied to the apron strings of Netanyahu, who had to lie to his own people to win re-election, a win made possible only by defaming Israel's Arab community at home and our own President in the halls of our very own Congress. A pleasant sight! The GOP majority groveling before the Israeli leader as if we could trust him more than our own President!
So! Today we find what is left of whatever intelligence the GOP had splattered like rotten tomatoes in the face of the nation's serving Secretary of State. A man who negotiated an agreement hand in hand with the most powerful nations on earth to halt nuclear weapons development in Iran!
The GOP is trying mightily to have us all forget their last leaders, Cheney and Bush. Remember? The two who gave us the thrill of Shock and Awe?
The shock? That Iraq NEVER HAD ANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS!
The awe? The sheer grandeur of the lies they told to win authority to send US troops there, and then leaving the cleanup to Obama and another generation of American soldiers!
Now they lay into our President and his Secretary of State and great nations elsewhere for trying to avoid another unnecessary war! Pray tell, do they suggest we cancel the agreement and invade Iran? Such courage! Yes, America, the GOP will stand like those brave police did behind water canons did in Ferguson MO. Onward! they will cry. Defend Democracy!
So! Today we find what is left of whatever intelligence the GOP had splattered like rotten tomatoes in the face of the nation's serving Secretary of State. A man who negotiated an agreement hand in hand with the most powerful nations on earth to halt nuclear weapons development in Iran!
The GOP is trying mightily to have us all forget their last leaders, Cheney and Bush. Remember? The two who gave us the thrill of Shock and Awe?
The shock? That Iraq NEVER HAD ANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS!
The awe? The sheer grandeur of the lies they told to win authority to send US troops there, and then leaving the cleanup to Obama and another generation of American soldiers!
Now they lay into our President and his Secretary of State and great nations elsewhere for trying to avoid another unnecessary war! Pray tell, do they suggest we cancel the agreement and invade Iran? Such courage! Yes, America, the GOP will stand like those brave police did behind water canons did in Ferguson MO. Onward! they will cry. Defend Democracy!
27
This is how Netan-Yahoo, and his fellow Zionists, interferes with US government, by purchasing the services of the Bob Corkers of the world. Maybe they should have chosen someone with more manners and a higher capacity for understanding the written word. Well...check that...I've noticed that all the Republicans are short in those areas.
1
The superficiality of the analysis of this issue with respect to Israel by many commenters is perhaps not surprising given the forum. But certain things should probably be noted:
1. Israel didn't cause the antagonistic relationship between the U.S. and the West, and attempting to contain the nuclear ambitions of Iran isn't primarily an issue of Israeli relations, although we happen to be aligned with Israel. Iran has an aggressively interventionist military and foreign policy coupled with an ideology at odds with the West. See, e.g., Iranian and Hezbollah military and terrorist action in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Kuwait, Argentina, Panama etc. etc.
2. The U.S. interest in nuclear non-proliferation isn't an Israeli issue either, but an issue of U.S. national security. There isn't a double-standard. Iran is more akin to North Korea than any other nation--both are essentially theocracies led by Supreme Leaders that are as ideologically opposed to U.S. values and interests as you will find on the planet. The only difference is there is no military option against North Korea, due in part because of their nuclear weapons.
In my opinion, this deal is probably a good deal at this point given the alternatives, because while it simply kicks the can down the road ten years, a future President will still retain the military option. The risk of course is that the multilateral sanctions regime won't be able to be rebuilt after a decade of Iranian compliance.
1. Israel didn't cause the antagonistic relationship between the U.S. and the West, and attempting to contain the nuclear ambitions of Iran isn't primarily an issue of Israeli relations, although we happen to be aligned with Israel. Iran has an aggressively interventionist military and foreign policy coupled with an ideology at odds with the West. See, e.g., Iranian and Hezbollah military and terrorist action in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Kuwait, Argentina, Panama etc. etc.
2. The U.S. interest in nuclear non-proliferation isn't an Israeli issue either, but an issue of U.S. national security. There isn't a double-standard. Iran is more akin to North Korea than any other nation--both are essentially theocracies led by Supreme Leaders that are as ideologically opposed to U.S. values and interests as you will find on the planet. The only difference is there is no military option against North Korea, due in part because of their nuclear weapons.
In my opinion, this deal is probably a good deal at this point given the alternatives, because while it simply kicks the can down the road ten years, a future President will still retain the military option. The risk of course is that the multilateral sanctions regime won't be able to be rebuilt after a decade of Iranian compliance.
1
I was unaware of the antagonism between the US and the West, unless it might be Europeans complaining that we use too much air conditioning.
1
Two key buzz words used by the administration in touting this accord as a great success for the US - "snapback" sanctions and "verifiability," don't remotely hold up under scrutiny. "Snapback" happens only after a byzantine arbitral process of dispute resolution that could take months or years, and even then only if the arbitration went against the Iranians, and even then only if all members of the Security Council (most of whom have wearied of the embargo against Iran and have serious buyer's remorse) approve reimposing sanctions. That's not Snapback, it's writing a doctoral dissertation at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. Verifiability is even more illusory. Before anything can be inspected, the Iranians are entitled to almost a month's advance notice. Whatever that is supposed to be, it is not verifiability. Instead of trying to sell this lemon off the car lot as a deal that is in mint condition and was only driven to church on Sundays by a little old lady from Dubuque, Kerry and friends could be more persuasive by being honest, admitting it's a flawed deal, and being up front about how if we want a deal it's the best we can do at this time.
4
This is incorrect on both counts. I don't know why people don't read the terms of the agreement before presenting propaganda as facts. First, snapback sanctions take place if Iran is found in violation by the UN security council. If that happens, then the UNSC will vote on the CONTINUATION of sanction reliefs, not on the snapback, meaning a majority vote is required to keep the suspension of sanctions in place, and even then US can veto that vote, effectively ensuring the snapback just by herself. This process is designed to be very quick, like the last security council vote was. Second, your point on verifiability is also wrong. Advance notice is only required for new, suspicious sites, and 24 days (which mostly is used for review by 5+1 and IAEA to decide whether the site should be inspected) is too short to compromise the detectability of radioactive material.
1
...And your counter proposal is?
I too have some concerns on the 24 day period for undisclosed sites, however when it comes to the UN Security Counsel and its role in the "snapback" provisions, I would refer you to paragraph 37 of the deal. The key thing in the structure of the "snapback" arrangment is that the Security Counsel must vote to continue to lift sanctions, not to reimpose them. This preserves the ability of the US (or any of the other permanent members) to veto the continued lifting of the sanctions. Any matter of non-compliance is referred to the UNSC after a process that can last, in total, only up to 35 days without the consensus of all parties involved.
The only question I have for members of Congress is,if you reject this deal and Chins ,Russia and the EU lift sanctions in any case and Iran continues to develop their nuclear capability what will you do.?
Answer this honestly as we the American people need to verify your true intentions.
Answer this honestly as we the American people need to verify your true intentions.
29
President Obama has stated, as recently as 2009, that it is UNACCEPTABLE for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Mr. Kerry's deal ensures they can develop one in as few as 10 years.
So what would you suggest he do? What does unacceptable mean to you? Please answer this honestly as we the American people need to verify YOUR true intentions.
So what would you suggest he do? What does unacceptable mean to you? Please answer this honestly as we the American people need to verify YOUR true intentions.
6
MFW you are confused.
Without the deal, they can develop a bomb tomorrow.
With a deal, that prospect is pushed out by at least a decade.
Without the deal, they can develop a bomb tomorrow.
With a deal, that prospect is pushed out by at least a decade.
1
I see that AIPAC's money is also being spent on social media.
9
According to Secretary Kerrey, “Everything we have prevented would then start taking place.” And everything this Administration has launched has been obstructed by the trusty Grand Old Party. Bob Corker complains about what MIGHT happen after Year Ten (or Fifteen) ignoring what WILL happen in years 1-10 if Congress forces the US to walk away from the Agreement it worked so hard to negotiate.
Patriotic Americans should be outraged by the mindlessly partisan cession of US foreign policy to the foreign Government of Israel by one of our two major national political parties. Scuppering this multi-lateral agreement will leave the USA and Israel with one ally each in the global community: each other. Unless we are wholly satisfied to let this happen, Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer should be expelled immediately from American soil.
Today's GOP-Likud slogan should appropriately be, "All we are saying is give war a chance!"
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Patriotic Americans should be outraged by the mindlessly partisan cession of US foreign policy to the foreign Government of Israel by one of our two major national political parties. Scuppering this multi-lateral agreement will leave the USA and Israel with one ally each in the global community: each other. Unless we are wholly satisfied to let this happen, Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer should be expelled immediately from American soil.
Today's GOP-Likud slogan should appropriately be, "All we are saying is give war a chance!"
www.endthemadnessnow.org
27
After months of negotiations, sometimes on the brink of complete disaster, there is a deal with five other partners preventing or at least delaying Iran getting nuclear warheads. Agreed, it's not perfect. But at least a start without starting a war. Kudos to John Kerry for this diplomatic coup and all the hard work that went into it. Kerry presented it very succinctly to the Congress. If those wise words are not heeded by the partisans, we are headed towards a downward spiral with no one willing to help stopping our free fall. Instead of Iran we will be the pariah getting into another war which the Republicans are itching for. They are critical of this deal because they just want war. That is the ONLY solution for them and no explanation is going to satisfy them. They are belittling a real war-hero and a brilliant diplomat. Unfortunately for all of us, WE Americans will be paying with our lives and wealth. Fortunately, President Obama has the Veto.
15
More often than not, one should feel an obligation to completely trust one's leadership; this is one of those occasions. Especially if the alternative is to sift through the agreement and figure it out. No way. Thank you Secretary Kerry, thank you Mr. President.
11
Republicans don't care what the deal is. If Obama is for it, they are against it.
31
Objections from Israel and their pocket puppets in the republican party, at the core have little to do with the security of Israel. As is the case of most disputes economics are the driver. The Iranian people stripped of their current leadership are highly educated and business savvy. Overtime a free Iran could conceivably become a global business competitor in Israel's backyard. This is simply hedging bets and stacking cards.The red herring is the security ploy. This is the same ploy Israel uses to continually gobble up their neighbors land. Again, the end game is economic dirty pool. Republicans can continue to undermine our President, Bibi can look strong and they all enrich themselves while the world suffers.
19
The GOP voters of South and Midwest will wrap themselves in an American flag and send their kids to die in strange lands and at the same time giving tax cuts to the 1%, voting against healthcare and welfare which they use more than anyone else. Meanwhile they seems to be clueless how strongly Israel lobby controls the polices of USA.
28
The Jews or Israel don't control the policies of the U.S. This deal is the biggest proof of that. Elders of Zion nonsense. I'm a democrat but this deal is not good...
1
How is unfreezing 150B to Iran, which tlets be clear won't use them precisely to build daycare centers and hospitals in Argentina, Europe, Africa and the rest of the world a good deal? How is giving Iran 24 days to paint, scrub and hang beautiful pictures of children and lambs frolicking on a meadow on its alleged nuclear facilities a good deal?
Does anybody think that 15 years is a long time in geopolitical terms? 20 years is nothing even in Tango!
Why was this deal negotiated in stead of imposing tougher sanctions on Iran, when it was clear they were not going to dismantle their arms program is beyond me.
I know why in spite of agreeing to the contrary the US allowed and/or didn't veto the deal in the security council before its discussion in congress. Kerry wanted to present a fait accompli, and threaten that if congress rejects the deal Iran will get the money and develop a nuke now. Now or 15 years from now is really not different,. The money? If the US doesn't lift sanctions, they will not get money from US or anybody that rather do business with the US than Iran. How many countries will pick Iran?
The deal should be brought down because it finances Iran hegemony in the middle east, its armed networks around the world and its long terms nuclear arms program.
Iran will get the bomb, I don't like, but I'm realistic. What I can't believe is that not only we failed at negotiating them out of it, but we also offered to pick up the tab. First nuke is on us, enjoy: )
Does anybody think that 15 years is a long time in geopolitical terms? 20 years is nothing even in Tango!
Why was this deal negotiated in stead of imposing tougher sanctions on Iran, when it was clear they were not going to dismantle their arms program is beyond me.
I know why in spite of agreeing to the contrary the US allowed and/or didn't veto the deal in the security council before its discussion in congress. Kerry wanted to present a fait accompli, and threaten that if congress rejects the deal Iran will get the money and develop a nuke now. Now or 15 years from now is really not different,. The money? If the US doesn't lift sanctions, they will not get money from US or anybody that rather do business with the US than Iran. How many countries will pick Iran?
The deal should be brought down because it finances Iran hegemony in the middle east, its armed networks around the world and its long terms nuclear arms program.
Iran will get the bomb, I don't like, but I'm realistic. What I can't believe is that not only we failed at negotiating them out of it, but we also offered to pick up the tab. First nuke is on us, enjoy: )
5
The 24 days is only for inactive facilities. There is 24/7 access to others.
The sanctions did not work. Our allies recognized this fact. the nuclear weapon development did proceed. This agreement stops the nuclear development for 15 years. Without it, Iran according to Israel, was 2 months away from a nuclear weapon. Iran wanted its money back and its right to a nuclear development. Implementation is required. Verification is required. Snapback and other UN sanctions are still in place. Sunni countries also interfere in countries .SA agitated to overthrow a Shia sect 38 year leader, Saleh, who's religion is the most moderate to Sunni in all of Islam.
The vital interest in the ME for the US Is oil supply and keeping nuclear weapons out. The agreement does that, and in accordance with governments of 2 billion people and our vital allies, is signed. The American people will benefit from lower gas pump prices due to Iranian oil coming on the market.
The vital interest in the ME for the US Is oil supply and keeping nuclear weapons out. The agreement does that, and in accordance with governments of 2 billion people and our vital allies, is signed. The American people will benefit from lower gas pump prices due to Iranian oil coming on the market.
Mr. Corker is worried that "the accord would enable Iran to expand its nuclear capabilities after the first decade." He has apparently failed to notice that without the accord, Iran can expand those capabilities NOW.
25
You'd think his very own words would speak to him. They can't get a bomb for a decade! A decade!
Trash the treaty and they'll have one in a year, two at the outside.
Fortunately, I think the American people can see that trashing this treaty is not in their interests, or their sons' and daughters' interests as it is usually not the politically connected that fight, but the average sorts...meaning: us.
Trash the treaty and they'll have one in a year, two at the outside.
Fortunately, I think the American people can see that trashing this treaty is not in their interests, or their sons' and daughters' interests as it is usually not the politically connected that fight, but the average sorts...meaning: us.
The overthrow of the Senate's Constitutional requirement to approve treaties by 2/3 has created this mess.
The Senate EXERCISES the authority given it by the Constitution. But it does not have the authority to abdicate its role.
The Congress specifically represents more closely the will of the people than the other branches. WE CREATED THE SENATE. They cannot abdicate OUR power to decide on a Treaty.
This entire government seems to think it can redefine OUR vocabulary at whim. "Marriage" has been edited. And now so has "Treaty".
IF THIS IS NOT A TREATY WHAT IS???
The Senate EXERCISES the authority given it by the Constitution. But it does not have the authority to abdicate its role.
The Congress specifically represents more closely the will of the people than the other branches. WE CREATED THE SENATE. They cannot abdicate OUR power to decide on a Treaty.
This entire government seems to think it can redefine OUR vocabulary at whim. "Marriage" has been edited. And now so has "Treaty".
IF THIS IS NOT A TREATY WHAT IS???
1
The Great Big Green Light exists only because Obama and Kerry promised Iran the US would not do anything, and would try to dissuade Israel from doing anything, if Iran builds an atomic bomb.
What kind of negotiators tell their adversary exactly what they will do if the parties cannot reach agreement?
What kind of negotiators tell their adversary exactly what they will do if the parties cannot reach agreement?
4
I may have missed where the United States 'promised' Iran no action. Could you provide a citation, please?
1
Senate republicans are simply outraged - outraged I tell you! - that they are viewed as partisan hacks doing everything in their power to kill the deal. I thought Corker's complaint that Kerry's framing of alternatives was "unfair" to republicans in the senate. I just watched the last two hours of it (prior to breaking just now) and it is nothing more than a glorified pout-fest for republicans.
12
If nothing else, these latest events make clear that the Iraq war was not about oil, or American security, or anything else -- it was about Israel and the Israeli lobby and maintaining Israeli military hegemony in the middle east.
The majority in the media won't discuss it in depth because they are all scared of the inevitable, and spurious, charges of antisemitism that are thrown on any American that dare question the difference between secular American interests and the interests of the theocratic state of Israel.
Nevertheless, the rational choice is simple: No more wars for religion. No more wars for Israel.
The majority in the media won't discuss it in depth because they are all scared of the inevitable, and spurious, charges of antisemitism that are thrown on any American that dare question the difference between secular American interests and the interests of the theocratic state of Israel.
Nevertheless, the rational choice is simple: No more wars for religion. No more wars for Israel.
26
Once again good leadership could be hijacked by backward politicians seeking to undermine Obama rather than stand up for sound policy. It must be the peek of frustration for Kerry to work through detailed negotiations only to come home to a Congress quickly sweeps aside a ground-breaking treaty that would change the climate in the Middle East, and set Iran on a road to functional prosperity with the west.
Believe it or not, I recently saw an actual TV commercial deriding this Iran deal--that's how far the GOP will go to undermine this. An actual commercial on American TV meddling in intricate foreign policy dealings, trying to sway the public. This seems more about primary season, trying to create fear in the electorate, rather than what would be good for the world.
Believe it or not, I recently saw an actual TV commercial deriding this Iran deal--that's how far the GOP will go to undermine this. An actual commercial on American TV meddling in intricate foreign policy dealings, trying to sway the public. This seems more about primary season, trying to create fear in the electorate, rather than what would be good for the world.
24
The TV commercials deriding the Iran deal are paid for by AIPAC, likely with the $3 billion plus we give the little ingrates every year. Yes it is illegal for foreign governments to buy our Congressmen but for some reason, our eternal debtor nation we can't unload is exempt. GOP are basically sock puppets for creepy to the max, Shellie Adelson and his Bibi.
1
Apparently if you were sentient in 1980 you should be outraged. More Cold War score settling by the shiftless boomers.
I support the deal in general, but the 24 day delay prior to inspections is concerning. Have any experts (not pundits) commented on the duration of this delay? I also understand the frustration of signing a treaty that does not deal with hostages currently being held.
3
On what planet can you get rid of the radiation trails of highly enriched uranium much less plutonium in 24 days? You can't Einstein, not even in 24 years, which is why our first nuclear reactor in Washington State is still a major Superfund site too hot to handle yet, just like parts of Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, Three Mile Island and Fukishima. This is why we leave the nuclear physics to the nuclear physicists..
Characterizing the Congress as "skeptical" is grossly misleading and improper. Biased and pre-determined is accurate. The very notion that we could have persuaded our negotiating partners to damage their own economies while we demanded the release of Americans, the permanent recognition of Israel, support for Israeli settlements, and a permanent pledge not to provide weapons to Iranian allies and the endorsement of a GOP candidate for President is as laughable as Donald Trump for President.
25
Assume there is no treaty while the economic sanctions now in place unravel. What will the Republicans, in their infinite negative wisdom, offer then? I think we know the answer.
18
They will off the same thing they have been offering with their "repeal and replace" program for Obamacare .... hot air!
Bob Corker has his own agenda. It does not include allowing anyone other than himself to be in the spotlight. How mean-spirited to claim that Kerry and the other negotiators were "fleeced" and that poor ole Senator Bob
was "fairly depressed" by the results of their efforts over the past 2+ years.
was "fairly depressed" by the results of their efforts over the past 2+ years.
11
I am “fairly depressed” that our Congress is under the thumb of the Israel lobby.
We need to change this corrupt political system.
We need to change this corrupt political system.
52
The first amendment to the US constitution guarantees freedom of speech. Your call to 'change this corrupt political system' sounds very undemocratic to me.
Uh, the US Constitution defines rights for US citizens and specific prohibits foreign governments from buying our Congress.
I will support more aggressive demands on Iran the moment Israel comes clean on their own nuclear arsenal and signs the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation treaty (as Iran already has).
Bibi DEFINES hypocrisy!!
Bibi DEFINES hypocrisy!!
55
Israel's nuclear arsenal needs to be dismantled now as well.
9
Many of the comments below say something along the lines of, Republicans bad, Iran trustworthy. Sounds like something along the lines of what Mohammad Javad Zarif would approve of.
5
There is absolutely nothing in the Agreement that comes close to saying "Iran trustworthy". We have the strongest verification procedures ever agreed to in international agreements; if Iran violates the Agreement we have the right to go right back to where we were prior to the Agreement and the other signatories of the Agreement will back us.
However, if we reject the Agreement we will have absolutely lost the support of Russia and China and they will begin trading with Iran and undoubtedly sell them military weapons. The world is behind this Agreement and if we reject it the world will not be on our side of the table going forward.
No Agreement is perfect, no negotiation gives both parties exactly what they want - if you are married you should well understand this simple concept. But the P5+1 did an exceptional job in getting the most we could get - you don't really think it took 2 years to get here because it is easy.
Ten years out things can change but my bet is that ten years of open trade with the free world and Iran will never want to go back to the conditions they had to endure under the trade restrictions. Hopefully Iran will evolve to a more secular government by then and the Ayatollah will have far less influence . It may not happen that way but we will be in no worse position then than we are now. There are many good things that can come from this Agreement and hopefully an improved relationship with Iran and a huge negative if we reject it - WAR.
However, if we reject the Agreement we will have absolutely lost the support of Russia and China and they will begin trading with Iran and undoubtedly sell them military weapons. The world is behind this Agreement and if we reject it the world will not be on our side of the table going forward.
No Agreement is perfect, no negotiation gives both parties exactly what they want - if you are married you should well understand this simple concept. But the P5+1 did an exceptional job in getting the most we could get - you don't really think it took 2 years to get here because it is easy.
Ten years out things can change but my bet is that ten years of open trade with the free world and Iran will never want to go back to the conditions they had to endure under the trade restrictions. Hopefully Iran will evolve to a more secular government by then and the Ayatollah will have far less influence . It may not happen that way but we will be in no worse position then than we are now. There are many good things that can come from this Agreement and hopefully an improved relationship with Iran and a huge negative if we reject it - WAR.
1
This is the type of deal I expected from Obama and Kerry--- NOBODY should be surprised.
4
And the deal you expected and received was about as good as could be expected.
3
I'm certainly not surprised - it's a great deal.
1
The opposition against this deal by all the politicians that are on the take from Adelson and AIPAC should also not be a surprise!
4
Can someone please explain what the republicans are offering instead? Senator Cotton likes to throw insults around but the guy really has no clue. And after listening to him I don't think the people who elected him do either.
31
Easy: War!
Iran has NEVER HONORED any deal in the past. Why do we think they will honor this one?
11
Got any facts to cite?
3
Neither has Israel regarding their illegal occupation and settlements of Palestinian lands.
1
They honored their deals with Reagan.
4
We need clear minds from both sides of the aisle to carefully review this serious deal. And if there is honest disagreement there should be a requirement that whomever disagrees provides specific alternatives. And the operative word here is honest.
I, for one, remain a skeptic. I believe that still, still, after all this time that whatever comes out of a Republican's mouth regarding anything Obama isn't honest. It's blind bias. It's habitual, automatic, addictive anti anything Obama bias.
In fact, their overall on automatic negative reactions are similar to a two year old who's mastered one word, "No!"
And because deciding on this nuclear deal, which can have long-term positive or negative worldwide consequences, requires wisdom not more obnoxious obstructionism, observing it from the sidelines playing it's dysfunctional ugly self out triggers a few fear for our future primal screams.
I, for one, remain a skeptic. I believe that still, still, after all this time that whatever comes out of a Republican's mouth regarding anything Obama isn't honest. It's blind bias. It's habitual, automatic, addictive anti anything Obama bias.
In fact, their overall on automatic negative reactions are similar to a two year old who's mastered one word, "No!"
And because deciding on this nuclear deal, which can have long-term positive or negative worldwide consequences, requires wisdom not more obnoxious obstructionism, observing it from the sidelines playing it's dysfunctional ugly self out triggers a few fear for our future primal screams.
24
While never worn a uniform, never been to war republicans pimp perpetual war, while taking money from AIPAC, Shelly Adelson et al, the way to end further needless, futile war in the Middle East is simple.
Reinstate the draft AND only draft republicans.
As their 95% success rate at evading the Viet Nam draft shows it would be hard to field a republican basketball team.
It would be impossible to deploy a republican infantry division.
Reinstate the draft AND only draft republicans.
As their 95% success rate at evading the Viet Nam draft shows it would be hard to field a republican basketball team.
It would be impossible to deploy a republican infantry division.
34
It is so tiresome and frankly disgusting to constantly hear and read of Republican "leaders" engaging in knee-jerk thinking and criticizing whenever confronted with important proposals or issues that require serious, measured and objective consideration. The control of the Legislative Branch of our federal government by yahoos like Corker and Risch is perhaps the strongest argument one can make against democracy. For we keep electing people who are too ignorant or willfully blind to see that if we don't do this deal with Iran, the rest of the world will think we are bullies intent on continuing to squeeze the people of a smaller nation with what will likely be unilateral sanctions by then and/or bombing them.
I realize that Republicans don't give a hoot about what other citizens of the world think of them, America or our behavior, and that they relish the go-it-alone mentality of cowboys like George Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of their ilk. But somewhere in the still, deep and uncharted recesses of their minds, surely they must care about what the families of those Americans who will die in another senseless Mideast war, and from the Iranian-backed terrorist attacks that will surely follow, will think and say about them. And most importantly, how they will vote in the event the treaty is not approved and hell breaks loose. As for how history will judge them for such an idiotic non-ratification, I have one word: harshly.
I realize that Republicans don't give a hoot about what other citizens of the world think of them, America or our behavior, and that they relish the go-it-alone mentality of cowboys like George Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of their ilk. But somewhere in the still, deep and uncharted recesses of their minds, surely they must care about what the families of those Americans who will die in another senseless Mideast war, and from the Iranian-backed terrorist attacks that will surely follow, will think and say about them. And most importantly, how they will vote in the event the treaty is not approved and hell breaks loose. As for how history will judge them for such an idiotic non-ratification, I have one word: harshly.
51
The day of reckoning will come for these war criminals, if not at De Hague then somewhere else.
Of course the Republicans can't give peace a chance--too much money to be made by bombing Iran. And we all know what is of the utmost importance to that Party.
The alternative is, as someone in these comments just suggested, just lob a bomb and show them who is boss.
The alternative is, as someone in these comments just suggested, just lob a bomb and show them who is boss.
21
Did I tell you that republicans are simpletons too? Everything is black and white, no gray areas.
Please explain the Democrat senator's opposition to the deal. Are they closet Republicans? According to CNN "There are a group of about 15 Senate Democrats considered in-play to possibly vote against the President on the Iran deal."
The President himself said that there is no reason why the Iranians need an underground bunker in Fordo and that he would insist that it be dismantled as part of any deal, but its still going to be there. Ben Rhodes said we would have "anywhere, anytime" inspections, but the agreement only calls for inspections after the Iranians give us permission. The President said he would cut off all paths to the bomb for the Iranians, but at the end of 10 years, they are allowed by this agreement to build as many as they want.
So what exactly are we getting out of this agreement ?
Two years ago, the President agreed on putting in place sanctions. On what basis does this agreement change that ? I just don't see anything here that is making us better off. Better to keep the existing sanctions in place as is, than give the Iranians $150 billion to cause more mischief (murder ?) around the world.
So what exactly are we getting out of this agreement ?
Two years ago, the President agreed on putting in place sanctions. On what basis does this agreement change that ? I just don't see anything here that is making us better off. Better to keep the existing sanctions in place as is, than give the Iranians $150 billion to cause more mischief (murder ?) around the world.
10
Have you actually read the agreement?
Have you thought about Israel going thru the same inspections of their hundreds of nuclear weapons sites? What right do we have to demand inspections in Iran when we can't ask Iran's neighbor Israel, to undergo the same thing?
What makes you think that the other 6 countries who negotiated with us, including Russia, China, Germany and France would continue with sanctions after they agreed to this deal? What value would the sanctions have if we are the only country employing them?
If Jesus and Trump negotiated a deal with Iran the GOP would still oppose it.
30
What's your cute comment for the Democrat senators who oppose this deal?
6
Trump is a republican and, therefore, doesn't negotiate with adversaries (forget what other past republican POTUSs have done). He just employs the diplomatic version of sitting with your arms crossed and harumphing alot. Plus, Jesus wouldn't choose him as a negotiating partner because he'd know that Trump would try to sabotage any deal at every turn.
They are scared of AIPAC
1
Kerry's tunnelvision over the earth-threatening, dangerous and ludicrous deal he has concocted with his boss is for one reason and one reason only: Kerry wants the Nobel.
Let's get Stockholm to invent a Lifetime Achievement award like Hollywood gives to has-beens, put it around his neck, and let him limp off into posterity.
Let's get Stockholm to invent a Lifetime Achievement award like Hollywood gives to has-beens, put it around his neck, and let him limp off into posterity.
5
The agreements was "concocted" by the U.S. - and six other nations. Why can't you people get that through your thick noggins? Your pouting is as bad as that exhibited by senate republicans today. Get over it.
5
And the award the Republicans are looking for is what? A better contract with Lockheed?
Like it or not, we are in a position with only two likely outcomes: 1) We accept this Agreement, monitor to the best of our ability (and better than any prior agreement with any nation), and if they violate the terms, reinstate the situation we have at present; or 2) Reject the Agreement, Iran resumes their nuclear program, and we have a war on our hands with a country able to do a lot of damage to a lot of countries, including Israel.
If you, or anyone else who thinks this is a poor Agreement, has a better plan, please disclose it. Nobody has yet and I doubt if anyone will. Remember, that plan will have to include Iran, Russia and China. So start scratching your head , come up with your wonderful solution, and tell the world what it is. That is the least the world can expect from you genius's from the Right.
Like it or not, we are in a position with only two likely outcomes: 1) We accept this Agreement, monitor to the best of our ability (and better than any prior agreement with any nation), and if they violate the terms, reinstate the situation we have at present; or 2) Reject the Agreement, Iran resumes their nuclear program, and we have a war on our hands with a country able to do a lot of damage to a lot of countries, including Israel.
If you, or anyone else who thinks this is a poor Agreement, has a better plan, please disclose it. Nobody has yet and I doubt if anyone will. Remember, that plan will have to include Iran, Russia and China. So start scratching your head , come up with your wonderful solution, and tell the world what it is. That is the least the world can expect from you genius's from the Right.
1
The Republicans (and Bibi) remind me of the schoolyard bullies in junior high school. They target the weakest and then poke at them until the future victim does something, anything that the bully can claim is "starting the fight". At which point their rage has its excuse to demolish the poor kid. Nothing they want more than for Iran to inch close enough to nukes to give them the excuse they crave to shock and awe another dark-skinned nation into dust. Please, world: most Americans are not like this (even if we did elect W to a second term)...hard as this is to believe.
55
How about the Saudis? They also the bullies? How about the Gulf states? Also bullies? If so, why are you only singling out the Israelis? A little latent anti-semitism (something ubiquitous in these comments).
7
"anti-semitism"?
Oh please. Enough with the knee jerking.
One can criticize Israel without being "anti-semitic".
Oh please. Enough with the knee jerking.
One can criticize Israel without being "anti-semitic".
1
Wow - your comment is fully ignorant of the facts of the Middle East. Iran is the 'weakest'? What? And Iranians are 'dark skinned'? Maybe compared to an Icelander, but your blind rage at Republicans makes you write stupid comments. And BTW, what about this reported by CNN: There are a group of about 15 Senate Democrats considered in-play to possibly vote against the President on the Iran deal.?????
1
Prior to the negotiations with Iran, all 16 US intelligence agencies were on record to report that Iran did NOT have a nuclear weapons program, and had no discernible intentions to have one in the future. Nevertheless, the Democrats - Obama, Clinton, etc. - kept talking about Iran's "nuclear ambitions," a code word that was read by the media and the pundits as "intentions to have a nuclear weapons program." Having boxed themselves in, the Democrats are now attacked for not eliminating the possibility of ending forever the possibility of an Iranian nuclear threat. It's time for Obama, Kerry, et al. to "come clean" and admit that Iran never had a nuclear weapons program in the first place.
How about some sources for this revealing insight? I thought you Republicans were against drugs - you certainly must be on something rational humans have avoided.
Time and again, President Obama has sold the deal as safe because of inspections anytime, anywhere. He (and his Administration) have said this many times. Here's Energy Secretary Monitz:
Nuclear inspectors will need unfettered access in Iran as part of a deal to lift economic sanctions, U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said a day after an Iranian general said military sites must be off limits.
“We expect to have anywhere, anytime access,” Moniz, a nuclear physicist who negotiated the technical details of a framework nuclear accord, said Monday in a meeting with editors and reporters at Bloomberg’s Washington office.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-20/inspectors-need-fu...
Much more along these lines. So, what happened? This is defining standards down, big time and suddenly the "bight red line" just fades away.
This is by far the worst "deal" America's ever had, in its entire history. It is amazingly naive and craven.
Nuclear inspectors will need unfettered access in Iran as part of a deal to lift economic sanctions, U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said a day after an Iranian general said military sites must be off limits.
“We expect to have anywhere, anytime access,” Moniz, a nuclear physicist who negotiated the technical details of a framework nuclear accord, said Monday in a meeting with editors and reporters at Bloomberg’s Washington office.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-20/inspectors-need-fu...
Much more along these lines. So, what happened? This is defining standards down, big time and suddenly the "bight red line" just fades away.
This is by far the worst "deal" America's ever had, in its entire history. It is amazingly naive and craven.
4
No, your conclusion is amazingly cynical, hyperbolic, and divorced from the real world.
7
Worst deal America has ever had in its entire history? My, my, you must be quite an expert on American history.
No, the worst deal America ever had is the past three Republican Presidents - an actor, a oil man, and a guy who cleaned dugouts. America has done nothing but go downhill since 1981 - ask any middle class family.
Republicans would like nothing better than a full blown war with Iran. Especially since that is what Netanyahu and Israeli hawks seem to want. Bibi said, "This is a bad deal," and Republicans all mouth the same words.
PBO's setting in motion talks with Iran, and Sec Kerry's persistence in the negotiations, have brought the US the possibility of a long lasting peace with Iran.
I predict that, as a result of this accord, Iranians will become close friends with Americans, and that the two nations will bring peace to the troubled Middle East.
PBO's setting in motion talks with Iran, and Sec Kerry's persistence in the negotiations, have brought the US the possibility of a long lasting peace with Iran.
I predict that, as a result of this accord, Iranians will become close friends with Americans, and that the two nations will bring peace to the troubled Middle East.
24
I guess you forget that Israel is the 51st state of US, with a Republican governor, Netanyahu. So what do Republican leaders do? Oppose everything Obama does big or small, point black. So Netanyahu is doing what he is programmed to do; because he know that no one will question his own nuclear weapons and the US will keep on giving him $4B/yr, no matter who is in the white house.
What else is new? Ever since January 2009 when Obama was inaugurated, all the Republicans have been able to do is insult him, everyone in his administration, and every policy initiative he has undertaken.
Talk about craven ... they define the term.
Talk about craven ... they define the term.
49
America plan to bring the whole world under their control. As Afghanistan is good example.
4
You're absolutely right. But only If one completely ignores the fact 9/11/01 was planned in Afghanistan, and that after 9/11 the ruling Taliban refused to extradite any Al Quada, beginning with the mastermind Bin Ladin.
3
Yes, Afghanistan is a real gem, a real strategic feather in the cap. Everyone has always tried to control Afghanistan because of its incredible geopolitical importance and wealth.
The evidence is clear, the US already controls China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Australia, Indonesia, Syria, France, Russia, and many others--we've been waiting to get Iran as the last gem in the American crown.
Ridiculous.
The evidence is clear, the US already controls China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Australia, Indonesia, Syria, France, Russia, and many others--we've been waiting to get Iran as the last gem in the American crown.
Ridiculous.
Akmal, You say America wants to bring Afghanistan under its control??? But not even the Afghanis can control Afghanistan!
The GOP wants a war with Iran.
43
Nahhhhh ... They just want to use Iran to control fear filled voters and gain power. They're too short sighted to see that war will result from their lust for power.
8
Whereas, Iran wants the West to capitulate to their vision of a Caliphate.
3
I'm predicting that if the republic party wins the net presidential election, we will be at war within six months if not with Iran than with another country; pick one. Another trillion dollars give or take; we'll find it somehow.
1
Many Americans are fairly depressed by the Republicans' record on ending wars in the region.
17
"Our choice is between this deal and war."--Senator Robert Corker. Sir, no it is not. You failed to pay attention to Secretary Kerry, who said "we will be isolated," if this deal fails. This is what happens when someone's mind is made up beforehand. The Right's puppets in the Senate (at least 47 and counting) love to jump-start the specter of nuclear war when they don't have anything else but stubborn opposition. The other signatories (Iran excepted) will, in the absence of U. S. approval, move ahead with the agreement. This is not a declaration of war, Senator Corker. The only ones being "bamboozled" are you and your colleagues who fear to offend the prime minister of Israel and their AIPAC liaison in Washington. Whom do you represent?
46
Well, that scenario was set up by this deal Mr. Kerry.
The first problem was to allow Iran to think this was a negotiation among equals. The major powers should have set the terms and conditions for Iran to comply with potential military action if Iran refused to comply or if the become close to having a Bomb.
We stupidly and naively created a situation whereby if we walk away from the deal Iran is justified in pursuing a bomb.
Iran says it's all about civilian nuclear power. If that were true, why did not the major powers offer to supply Iran with commercial grade fuel and reactors whereby Iran would have no part in manufacturing the fuel? That could easily have been negotiated.
Iran, as a terrorist state, should not have been given the dignity as a nation among equals in those talks. A future administration is going to have to clean up this mess.
Mr. Kerry says if not this deal the alternative was war. Well then, this deal is effectively the surrender to avoid war. What a mess.
The first problem was to allow Iran to think this was a negotiation among equals. The major powers should have set the terms and conditions for Iran to comply with potential military action if Iran refused to comply or if the become close to having a Bomb.
We stupidly and naively created a situation whereby if we walk away from the deal Iran is justified in pursuing a bomb.
Iran says it's all about civilian nuclear power. If that were true, why did not the major powers offer to supply Iran with commercial grade fuel and reactors whereby Iran would have no part in manufacturing the fuel? That could easily have been negotiated.
Iran, as a terrorist state, should not have been given the dignity as a nation among equals in those talks. A future administration is going to have to clean up this mess.
Mr. Kerry says if not this deal the alternative was war. Well then, this deal is effectively the surrender to avoid war. What a mess.
2
It always amazes me that someone like you, with no discernible credentials in the subject matter, sit at your keyboard and second-guess the work of cabinet officials with deep, comprehensive expertise and blithely accuse them of naivete and/or incompetence.
What don't you understand about 20 months of intense, multilateral negotiation producing a compromised accord that is beyond your capacity to analyze and critique? This attitude of idiots knowing better than the experts is why we are no longer respected abroad. Feared, yes, but not respected.
What don't you understand about 20 months of intense, multilateral negotiation producing a compromised accord that is beyond your capacity to analyze and critique? This attitude of idiots knowing better than the experts is why we are no longer respected abroad. Feared, yes, but not respected.
Should the US reject the deal and keep the sanctions against Iran in place, the European, Russian and Chinese parties to the negotiations might go through with the deal anyway and lift the sanctions; there are no widespread objections in those countries. Then what do we do? Satisfy the hawks' urge to attack Iran while they are in compliance with a deal endorsed by rest of the international community? Who, besides Israel will join us? Even GWB lined up a coalition of the complicit (Israel was not invited to that party) before his foolhardy invasion of Iraq.
17
Here we come with the same rope-a-dope from AIPAC and the politicians who brought us the wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. It's always more fun to send arms and rake in the contributions from the military industrial complex than it is to reach a diplomatic agreement to preserve peace. But this time, the future of our country depends on Congress. The President is presenting Congress with a solid diplomatic achievement that can reshape the Middle East and our role there. Now Congress has to choose -do we want to continue to squander our treasure in endless war or would we rather rebuild our own country?
By invading Iraq, Pres. Bush ripped up 60 years of post WWII diplomacy. This agreement can be a start to repairing the damage.
By invading Iraq, Pres. Bush ripped up 60 years of post WWII diplomacy. This agreement can be a start to repairing the damage.
78
The New York Times is, not to its credit, lumping all opposition to the bill in with American Jewry and Israel. This is shameful, and reminiscent of too much propaganda of the past. Is it really necessary in every article to mention whether a particular politician opposed to the deal is Jewish? Would one do that if the politician were evangelical Christian or Mormon, to name two groups that might be more pro-Israel than American Jews?
Stick to the issues please. There are enough problems with the pending agreement with Iran to raise the ire even of an atheist whose ancestors hail from Lapland. It's not a Jewish thing, and the NYT shouldn't make it into one.
Stick to the issues please. There are enough problems with the pending agreement with Iran to raise the ire even of an atheist whose ancestors hail from Lapland. It's not a Jewish thing, and the NYT shouldn't make it into one.
14
The Republican Congress happily invited the Israeli Prime Minister into its chamber to berate and insult our President, all in service of his political ambitions. They then took the unprecedented step of advising Iran's leaders that the US would not comply with the agreement that was being negotiated. Only the blind or obfuscating believe that Israel is not at the center of this side show. It is clear that some Republicans are seeking the political support of AIPAC and some American Jews who will support Israel, right or wrong. Israel's creation and self-definition is as a Jewish State. It is fair to consider whether a politician is acting in the best interests of this country or those of a powerful constituency. It most certainly is, in part, a Jewish thing.
9
Israel is not a party to this deal, but they are the main ones opposing it. None of the parties to it (including Russia and the major European powers) agree.
3
It's not that they're jewish. It's that they are puppets controlled by one of the main campaign donors to republicans - AIPAC. And it is relevant since it is they who are telling republicans how to vote on this matter. Ever heard of a guy named Bibi Netanyahu? Look him up, he - as prime minister of Israel and alternate POTUS (in republican eyes) - is one of those saying the sky will fall now that an agreement has been reached. Nothing but total hyperbole. You should feel better knowing that at least now us and the UN will be able to keep an eye on Iran's nuclear program. Your alternative? Reimpose harsher sanctions - and be prevented from being able to verify ANYTHING when it comes to Iran's nuclear program. The choice (at least to me and others who don't feel pressure from Israel) is simple.
1
The deal isn't yet signed and the Iranian PM is already backpedaling. Our government wants this meaningless deal with known haters of the US just to have a deal, even if it means nothing. Iran will continue to pursue it's own interests and if it can get some relief from the sanctions by pretending to go along for a while, it will do so. The old adage - listen to their lips but watch their feet hold true. So far, I've only heard lips without any steps on their part.
1
And your plan is..... ? Exactly. This deal includes verification and quickly snapping back the sanctions if Iran fails to keep its word. Why would you believe that NO plan, NO deal is better than rolling back the amount of fusionable material by 80%? Cutting centrifuges by 80%? Why do you believe that NO inspections are a better solution than inspections ?
6
If you really take the Iranians at their word based on their past behavior, good luck. And once the sanctions have been lifted, what is YOUR plan for the so called snap back?
I would like to believe that the statements made by the Republican opposition is more an expression of their dislike for Pres. Obama and refusal to give him any credit rather than a demonstration of their complete ignorance of the situation and seriousness of getting the deal done. Deep down in their hearts Senators Crocker and Rish must feel that there is really no other choice at the moment and that they must support the President. If we do not accept the deal, then there will be no further deal, and Iran is free to do what it wants. Both Senators are intelligent and have access to information, but most of all, I hope they think of the country and the people they represent, listen to them, the majority of us want Congress to approve the deal and avert Iran from building an atomic bomb.
10
The Republican hatred for the twice-elected President goes far beyond being able to think rationally about Iran or any other issue. Of course, this deal is far superior to having no plan and no deal at all. That doesn't matter in the slightest to people who have opposed everything the President has proposed for the last seven years. I wish there was an explanation for their hatred that didn't include racism, but I'm unable to think of one.
7
In trying to determine whether this deal with Iran was in the best interest of the U.S. I realized a fundamental problem in our government. When the Republican leadership met on the evening of January 20th 2009 and formulated their strategy to deal with the new president which was to simply "oppose everything" President Obama would try to do, they abdicated their responsibilities as a legitimate opposition. How can anyone trust anything a Republican says when their fundamental guiding principle is to promote their own partisan political agenda over the broader national interests.
59
And the Republicans' solution to the Iran nuclear problem is ____________?
New rule: Republicans cannot criticize President Obama's policies and Democratic bills without at the same time offering viable, detailed alternative solutions.
Having raised teenagers, Republicans' level of maturity, approach, and attitude toward responsibility reminds me of this age group--with all the storm, stress, kicking up dust, and drama that goes with it.
New rule: Republicans cannot criticize President Obama's policies and Democratic bills without at the same time offering viable, detailed alternative solutions.
Having raised teenagers, Republicans' level of maturity, approach, and attitude toward responsibility reminds me of this age group--with all the storm, stress, kicking up dust, and drama that goes with it.
53
Gnome foreign policy:
1) Strike down multinational agreement guaranteeing other countries will end their embargoes.
2) ???
3) Iran caves to USA.
1) Strike down multinational agreement guaranteeing other countries will end their embargoes.
2) ???
3) Iran caves to USA.
I just got a phone call from something called Citizens Against a Nuclear Iran. The woman on the phone knew nothing about the 'deal' and had no idea who was financially behind this effort.
18
“If the U.S., after laboriously negotiating this multilateral agreement with five other partners, were to walk away from those partners, we’re on our own” Mr. Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
This is all that needs to be said. The content of the deal literally doesn't matter.
America simply cannot have our representatives sit alongside numerous trusted allies, conduct difficult negotiations against sworn enemies, and strike a deal after a year's work only to have the deal reversed by people who were not there, who have ulterior motives, and who probably haven't even read the thing.
This is about American trust and reputation. It is not about Iran.
This is all that needs to be said. The content of the deal literally doesn't matter.
America simply cannot have our representatives sit alongside numerous trusted allies, conduct difficult negotiations against sworn enemies, and strike a deal after a year's work only to have the deal reversed by people who were not there, who have ulterior motives, and who probably haven't even read the thing.
This is about American trust and reputation. It is not about Iran.
69
See "Treaty of Versailles", "Henry Cabot Lodge" and "The Irreconcilables."
After World War I Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and the Republican party were motivated by a deep hatred of Woodrow Wilson to keep the U.S. out of the League of Nations.
I expect Senator Corker and the Republican party would prefer war with Iran to compromise President Obama.
After World War I Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and the Republican party were motivated by a deep hatred of Woodrow Wilson to keep the U.S. out of the League of Nations.
I expect Senator Corker and the Republican party would prefer war with Iran to compromise President Obama.
If the Republicans torpedo this agreement, can we send the entire GOP Senate and House over to fight the inevitable war in Iran?
Would Senator Bob Corker be "fairly depressed" to risk his own life fighting over there? Would Jim Risch feel "bamboozled" while toting an M4 in 100+ degree day? Or would they suddenly wish they would actually try to come to a diplomatic agreement first?
Just wondering.
Would Senator Bob Corker be "fairly depressed" to risk his own life fighting over there? Would Jim Risch feel "bamboozled" while toting an M4 in 100+ degree day? Or would they suddenly wish they would actually try to come to a diplomatic agreement first?
Just wondering.
97
Even the draft could not get them to serve. Recall Bush hiding in the Nat`l Guard & Cheney getting 5 deferments to avoid Nam.
while not a perfect deal it is far better than nothing
it is very hard to see rejecting it leading to more talks happening too quickly or producing much better
too many have the view that Iran has to give up more...they actually don't even if it is their and our best interest
never let perfection be the enemy of good
wanna go to war or start another unaffordable military conflict I sure don't so take a better step forward not backwards.
Israel having nukes pointed at Iran is a reality we are lucky for this deal.
do you think we would give up our nukes when some neighbor had their's pointed at you
doesn't pass the logic test
congress kills this deal and more costly and pre-emotive warring is in our future
it is very hard to see rejecting it leading to more talks happening too quickly or producing much better
too many have the view that Iran has to give up more...they actually don't even if it is their and our best interest
never let perfection be the enemy of good
wanna go to war or start another unaffordable military conflict I sure don't so take a better step forward not backwards.
Israel having nukes pointed at Iran is a reality we are lucky for this deal.
do you think we would give up our nukes when some neighbor had their's pointed at you
doesn't pass the logic test
congress kills this deal and more costly and pre-emotive warring is in our future
22
Israel's nukes are of zero relevance. If Israel lacked a nuclear force and only now it was found out they were working on one, wouldn't the world throw a fit! But Israel has had one and has never threatened anyone with it. It is clearly a weapon of last recourse to Israel. If Israel threatened to wipe Iran off the map then the analogy might work.
3
Just who was bamboozled? We were joined in these negotiations by England, France, Germany, Russia, China.... Were they all bamboozled? It is worth noting that Russia is currently within Iran's missile range as are parts of Europe. Those countries have a stronger immediate security risk than the U.S. and they support the deal.
155
Iraq 2.0.
Iraq 2.0.
Iraq 2.0.
Iraq 2.0.
Iraq 2.0.
19
Bob Corker just wants to complain. He, like pretty much every other Republican Senator, has no plan for dealing with Iran. They just want war, or the prospect for it, so they can justify the continued surplus of funds they receive from the federal government via military spending. If Bob Corker's home state of Tennessee had to pay their own bills, they would have been bankrupt long ago.
83
The Iran deal in 200 words according to the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-deal...
The Iran deal in 12 words according to Stanton:
The Iran deal empowers the Ayatollah to drop atom bombs on Israel.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-deal...
The Iran deal in 12 words according to Stanton:
The Iran deal empowers the Ayatollah to drop atom bombs on Israel.
6
I find it both sad and disturbing that it has become so difficult to deciefer whether American politicians who are against this deal are only against it because they want the support of the Israeli lobby. Difficult, and also sometimes painfully obvious.
As representatives of The People of the United States these politicians should get both their priorities and their loyalties straight. Rather than doing the bidding of a hawkish and extream foreign leader, our representatives must decide on the Iran Deal based on what is best for this country.
As representatives of The People of the United States these politicians should get both their priorities and their loyalties straight. Rather than doing the bidding of a hawkish and extream foreign leader, our representatives must decide on the Iran Deal based on what is best for this country.
118
The Foreign Relations Committee chairmen Bob Corker said “I believe we have been fleeced."
Yes sir, you are correct. We, the American people, have been fleeced. First by the banks that sold mortgages and then got bailed out on our dime. Second, by your party that led us into a war in Iraq that was prophesied to be paid for from oil revenue. And now by the GOP that wants to lead us into yet another war with Iran.
So, I agree with you. We have been fleeced. It is time to give peace a chance.
Yes sir, you are correct. We, the American people, have been fleeced. First by the banks that sold mortgages and then got bailed out on our dime. Second, by your party that led us into a war in Iraq that was prophesied to be paid for from oil revenue. And now by the GOP that wants to lead us into yet another war with Iran.
So, I agree with you. We have been fleeced. It is time to give peace a chance.
275
"This is a good deal for the United States...The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor... to make sure it keeps its commitments...The agreement does not require that we merely trust...but insures compliance through intensive monitoring."
All buzzwords. All nonsense. All exact quotes from Clinton and co. regarding the North Korea nuclear deal.
I could make a YouTube video (maybe I will) with Obama giving his Iran nuclear deal speech, and Clinton giving his North Korea nuclear deal speeches, and the words would just about be lip-synced. (search NYT archives for quotes)
The North Korea deal ended in inspectors being fooled, kicked out, and North Korea now a nuclear power with it's people locked into one of the darkest regime's in modern history for years to come. Same will happen with Iran.
Inspections mean nothing because they encourage a false sense of security.
The only real prevention of an Iranian bomb is the credible threat of a military raid— the exact same thing that was in place before the deal opened the door for them to billions. Only difference is, after the deal they no longer have sanctions so they can grow stronger internally and fund Hezbollah, Hamas, and Shiite terror brigades in Yemen and Iraq.
We should have maintained sanctions and if necessary bomb one of their facilities to show the military threat is credible.
We gave everything, received a weak illusion of security, and accomplished nothing.
All buzzwords. All nonsense. All exact quotes from Clinton and co. regarding the North Korea nuclear deal.
I could make a YouTube video (maybe I will) with Obama giving his Iran nuclear deal speech, and Clinton giving his North Korea nuclear deal speeches, and the words would just about be lip-synced. (search NYT archives for quotes)
The North Korea deal ended in inspectors being fooled, kicked out, and North Korea now a nuclear power with it's people locked into one of the darkest regime's in modern history for years to come. Same will happen with Iran.
Inspections mean nothing because they encourage a false sense of security.
The only real prevention of an Iranian bomb is the credible threat of a military raid— the exact same thing that was in place before the deal opened the door for them to billions. Only difference is, after the deal they no longer have sanctions so they can grow stronger internally and fund Hezbollah, Hamas, and Shiite terror brigades in Yemen and Iraq.
We should have maintained sanctions and if necessary bomb one of their facilities to show the military threat is credible.
We gave everything, received a weak illusion of security, and accomplished nothing.
12
North Korea first tested a nuclear weapon in 2006. The US-North Korean Agreed Framework was signed in 1994. Its failure began in 2003. You blame Clinton, but George W. Bush was President for 6 years before North Korea first tested a nuclear weapon.
18
"The North Korea deal ended in inspectors being fooled, kicked out, and North Korea now a nuclear power with it's people locked into one of the darkest regime's in modern history for years to come. Same will happen with Iran."
Now hold on there, Skippy. The collapse of the agreement (which started under Reagan in 1985 and was renegotiated under Clinton in 1994)began in January of 2002, when Dubya called NK part of the "Axis of Evil". You follow that with a report in September of 2002 calling for a preemptive strike against countries which are developing nuclear weapons (specifically naming NK) and in October of 2002, when Dubya's administration asserted that Pyongyang had a Uranium enrichment program. All of this led South Korea to divest from their promised aid to NK and discontinue the development of a light water reactor for NK. Thus, NK started full steam ahead to develop a nuclear weapon and verifiably developed one by 2005.
All it took was one clown in political power to screw up an otherwise functioning deal. Seeing the Republicans debate on the Iran nuclear deal, the same might happen here.
Now hold on there, Skippy. The collapse of the agreement (which started under Reagan in 1985 and was renegotiated under Clinton in 1994)began in January of 2002, when Dubya called NK part of the "Axis of Evil". You follow that with a report in September of 2002 calling for a preemptive strike against countries which are developing nuclear weapons (specifically naming NK) and in October of 2002, when Dubya's administration asserted that Pyongyang had a Uranium enrichment program. All of this led South Korea to divest from their promised aid to NK and discontinue the development of a light water reactor for NK. Thus, NK started full steam ahead to develop a nuclear weapon and verifiably developed one by 2005.
All it took was one clown in political power to screw up an otherwise functioning deal. Seeing the Republicans debate on the Iran nuclear deal, the same might happen here.
10
"We gave everything, received a weak illusion of security, and accomplished nothing." Jack M NY
Right, Jack. Just like Iraq!
Right, Jack. Just like Iraq!
4
The Republicans "fleeced" and "bamboozled" us into the Iraq war. I guess they think that was okay.
206
Yes and they got such great dividends from it! It was a political mastermove!
Unless you say that the defense contractors were corrupting the president, it is hard to make the case that they stole something or got something great in return. Now perhaps they were inept, but I don't think they were manipulative, devious or thieving.
As for this, Obama wants international relations to improve so badly he is willing to make giant concessions to a party with little negotiating leverage. He has proven himself to be immeasurably hard headed.
They are simply better at calling our bluff than we are of theirs.
Unless you say that the defense contractors were corrupting the president, it is hard to make the case that they stole something or got something great in return. Now perhaps they were inept, but I don't think they were manipulative, devious or thieving.
As for this, Obama wants international relations to improve so badly he is willing to make giant concessions to a party with little negotiating leverage. He has proven himself to be immeasurably hard headed.
They are simply better at calling our bluff than we are of theirs.
Hillary Clinton went along with it.
Follow the money: find out which senators are getting lots of funding from AIPAC and the Israeli lobby, and you can predict how they stand on the Iran deal.
207
And don't forget how much campaign money (both parties) comes from the military contractor war profiteers, whose earnest recommendations for US foreign policy include all war all the time.
1
To ernieh 1 You probably find it hard to believe, but
some people act on principle.
some people act on principle.
Better yet, have the Congress adopt the example of the Nascar drivers: make them wear the logos of all the people/PACs/ countries they accept money from (you know, their "Sponsors"). Let their transparency let us ALL know who is really sponsoring them and puling their strings.
1
Secretary Kerry has worked thoroughly and tirelessly to get us to this point in the accords. And Mr. Kerry made this a true international coalition, far from being reckless or impetuous on behalf of the United States. As Kerry himself has stated, critics don't have a solid alternative to point to. Just leave Iran as an outlier, rather than try to hold them accountable? Another futile military endeavor in the Middle East? His former colleagues in the Senate should place their credit with him, rather than with the cynicism of Netanyahu.
131
I'm sick of more than half the Senate getting their foreign policy advice from a extreme right wing leader of a foreign country. They hate Obama and love Netanyahu - that says all I need to know about their loyalty to America. If they want a war so bad, they should be sending their own sons and daughters to fight it.
10
Hi Dave,
You are so right about the lopsided Congressional support for Bibi and Likud. Their unconditional support for his militarism and land grabs allow him to act with impunity and show disrespect toward President Obama. His address about Iran was a low point in American politics. Kerry, Obama and team are more than a cut above those looking to torpedo the hard-won accords. Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply. Best regards.
You are so right about the lopsided Congressional support for Bibi and Likud. Their unconditional support for his militarism and land grabs allow him to act with impunity and show disrespect toward President Obama. His address about Iran was a low point in American politics. Kerry, Obama and team are more than a cut above those looking to torpedo the hard-won accords. Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply. Best regards.
1
However much I would like to support President Obama and Secretary Kerry, I can't shake the feeling that this deal just isn't kosher (hello Bibi). Particularly nagging is the 24-day notice required before inspections are allowed. What other reason would the Iranians need for that long a period if not to hide evidence of cheating?
Why do the Iranians themselves say they need 24 days notice? This is not a rhetorical question and perhaps the Republicans could cut the bombastic sarcasm and ask it.
Why do the Iranians themselves say they need 24 days notice? This is not a rhetorical question and perhaps the Republicans could cut the bombastic sarcasm and ask it.
6
The 24-day period is only applicable to suspicious sites, including military sites; Nuclear sites are under 24/7 monitoring. Most of that 24-day window is needed by the 5+1 committee who decides whether the suspicion is warranted or not. Also, the Iranians would presumably need time to cover up their military secrets; why wouldn't they? Finally, 24 days is too short of a time to sanitize a place that has been exposed to radioactive material.
12
I saw an ad against the Iran nuclear deal on CNN a couple days so I can only imagine how AIPAC and their ilk are harassing the Democrat senators which is motivating their public posturing. However, when all is said and done, the agreement will stand and there will be no veto override. There will also another Democrat President will hold to the agreement so it all done and dusted.
86
Voters -- For a better America, vote the straight Democrat ticket in 2016. Middle Americans, name just one Republican member of Senate or House who is looking out for the interests of we the people, not just the 1% or party favorites. (Thought so.)
13
Let us pray you are right.
Sad how a strategy of oppose Obama on everything no matter how beneficial for the country inevitably evolves into irrationality in all aspects of our governance. It has gotten the Republicans Trump on the campaign trail and theatrics in the Senate and House. Secretary Kerry however will in the end win the day and the gratitude of all mindfull Americans.
165
I'm counting on it...for all Americans.
"Sad how a strategy of oppose Obama on everything no matter how beneficial for the country inevitably evolves into irrationality in all aspects of our governance."
Sorry Ernest, I just can't agree with you. These top Republicans were just born stupid.
Sorry Ernest, I just can't agree with you. These top Republicans were just born stupid.
Yet not a single republican could offer an alternative, as Present Obama requested.
201
Peaceful Israel has hundreds nuclear missiles. Over 600 of these are pointed at Western countries, including USA and EU.
Iran has not attacked a single country for 400 years. How many countries has Israel attacked in it 63 years existence. The Iranians say they are developing nuclear energy for peaceful use. They are members of the Nuclear no proliferation pact, Israel is not. So why does the world insist that Iran is the bad guy, not Israel.
Iran has not attacked a single country for 400 years. How many countries has Israel attacked in it 63 years existence. The Iranians say they are developing nuclear energy for peaceful use. They are members of the Nuclear no proliferation pact, Israel is not. So why does the world insist that Iran is the bad guy, not Israel.
108
Hey Tony. What's that you say? "Over 600 of these are pointed at Western countries, including USA and EU. Iran has not attacked a single country for 400 years."
Take two aspirin with a quart of gin and call me in the morning.
Take two aspirin with a quart of gin and call me in the morning.
6
Exactly how do you know that 600 nuclear missiles are pointed at Western countries ? This is just plain nonsense.
"Iran has not attacked a single country for 400 years" - but they have been involved in blowing up community centers, US Marine barracks, airplanes, and assorted terrorism throughout the middle east. The Iranians have been caught cheating on the nuclear non-proliferation pact. Your arguments are simply not based on facts.
"Iran has not attacked a single country for 400 years" - but they have been involved in blowing up community centers, US Marine barracks, airplanes, and assorted terrorism throughout the middle east. The Iranians have been caught cheating on the nuclear non-proliferation pact. Your arguments are simply not based on facts.
2
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Would these senators have preferred to have no agreements or restrictions on Iran instead? Because there was no way the Iranians were going to simply capitulate to American demands unconditionally.
In this case, a deal was better than having nothing at all.
In this case, a deal was better than having nothing at all.
65
Unless they have a clear and actionable alternative, I don't want to hear any back talk from these senators. And no, "bomb 'em" is not an acceptable answer.
182
Allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and infuse their economy with billions of dollars, while teaching "death to America" in our public schools. Additionally, the comments section of the NY Times must be disassembled, because dissent in Iran is not an actionable alternative. There is your actionable option.