He could always take the low road and talk about $5.00-a-gallon gasoline.
1
"I suggest that [Netanyahu] consider the deep incoherence in his views of Iran. On the one hand, its leaders are so fanatically consumed with anti-Israeli hatred that they will countenance the destruction of tens of millions of their own people in a retaliatory nuclear strike from Israel, as long as they have the chance to kill as many Jews as possible. That’s why Iran is an existential threat. On the other, those same leaders are such canny cost-benefit pragmatists that they’ll fold and give up their vain nuclear plans, once they understand how much money the sanctions are costing them.
You can say one thing or the other—that Iran is a jihad state bent on Israel’s destruction (and America’s, as the prime minister points out), or that it will crack as soon as the financial cost goes up. You cannot say both, not with any respect for your audience." - James Fallows, "Why The Iran Deal's Critics Will Probably Lose," The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/more-signs-that...
You can say one thing or the other—that Iran is a jihad state bent on Israel’s destruction (and America’s, as the prime minister points out), or that it will crack as soon as the financial cost goes up. You cannot say both, not with any respect for your audience." - James Fallows, "Why The Iran Deal's Critics Will Probably Lose," The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/more-signs-that...
7
We have an opportunity to bring Iran into our sphere of influence. Let us not squander this opportunity because a war against Iran will be WW3 and the middle east will not be recognizable, not even Israel.
Lets see if the Iranians are serious people...
Lets see if the Iranians are serious people...
9
Lifting the sanctions will strengthen the Iranian middle class which wants very much to engage with the West.
The Iranian middle class is moderate and wants nothing more than a decent life. The middle class could gradually move Iran toward a more democratic government.
The Iranian middle class is moderate and wants nothing more than a decent life. The middle class could gradually move Iran toward a more democratic government.
23
We should invite the Ayatollah to appear before an American television audience to give us an opportunity to ask him directly the questions we have all raised. Israeli Prime Ministers and other heads of state do this all the time. Perhaps this is why we are more inclined to give some consideration their opinions and, from time to time, trust their expertise, and even trust their judgement.
It is unacceptable for President Obama to be acting as the Ayatollah's press secretary and responding to questions on behalf of the Ayatollah that the Ayatollah should be directly responding to in his own voice.
It is unacceptable for President Obama to be acting as the Ayatollah's press secretary and responding to questions on behalf of the Ayatollah that the Ayatollah should be directly responding to in his own voice.
5
War and religion, the republican way
6
How come the NYT doesn't mention some very key Democratic legislators who have announced their opposition to the deal. And why not discuss the ads we are seeing from actors in Hollywood supporting the deal--who paid for those I wonder??
6
No one who opposes the deal with Iran has suggested what a better deal would look like and how it would be obtained? If the Russians and the Chinese end their part in the sanctions why won't Iran move to get nuclear weapons a lot sooner?
5
I will do here what neither President Obama or the NYTimes has done present a few of the major objections to the deal.
1) The deal guarantees that Iran will have not a few weapons but an arsenal of weapons in ten to fifteen years.
2) The deal provides two paths for a nuclear weapon- one is if the Iranians cheat - in which case they will have the option fairly soon, and the other way is if they comply-in which case they are guaranteed to have nuclear weapons in ten to fifteen years.
3) The Iranians will not have nuclear weapons on President Obama's watch but they certainly will on those of one of his successors. Short- time advantage is achieved at the price of long- term prevention.
4) The deal rewards the number one terror state in the world with renewed economic power. No doubt this will be used to repress its people at home and to spread its 'Revolution' abroad.
5) The deal's verification procedures are as many experts have pointed out not really solid ones.
6) The deal ignores Iran's persistent call for destruction of Israel and 'death to the United States'. Is it moral to make such concessions to someone who still claims they aim to kill you?
1) The deal guarantees that Iran will have not a few weapons but an arsenal of weapons in ten to fifteen years.
2) The deal provides two paths for a nuclear weapon- one is if the Iranians cheat - in which case they will have the option fairly soon, and the other way is if they comply-in which case they are guaranteed to have nuclear weapons in ten to fifteen years.
3) The Iranians will not have nuclear weapons on President Obama's watch but they certainly will on those of one of his successors. Short- time advantage is achieved at the price of long- term prevention.
4) The deal rewards the number one terror state in the world with renewed economic power. No doubt this will be used to repress its people at home and to spread its 'Revolution' abroad.
5) The deal's verification procedures are as many experts have pointed out not really solid ones.
6) The deal ignores Iran's persistent call for destruction of Israel and 'death to the United States'. Is it moral to make such concessions to someone who still claims they aim to kill you?
9
"In search of Enemies"....is a classic tale of Netanyahu and the GOP congress. They are both lost without one. Netanyahu is fighting very hard to keep Iran as the "demon" of which it gives his GOP allies a platform to showcase their venom against President Obama.
Both Netanyahu and the GOP deserve each other.
Both Netanyahu and the GOP deserve each other.
12
Yeah, and Obama is still of the mindset that LOST Iraq.
3
The greatest thing Obama did to achieve this agreement is the international coalition he assembled to impose strict sanctions against Iran and bring them to the negoitiation table. That was a big accomplishment whitch nobody talk about and without it there will be no agreement. If we look to the republican field there no one who can achieve creating coalition like this.
9
The most formidable opponents of the Iran deal appear to be the Iranian leaders. It is a sound precept of deal-making that one does not enter into a written agreement with one he would not trust on a handshake. Yet those in control in Iran consistently signal defiance. It is as if Ford entered into a contract with a parts supplier who publicly expressed an intent to ship defective goods. Yet Messrs. Obama and Kerry tell us that America can overcome Iran's bad faith with verification. Bad faith leads to breaches of agreements and disputes. There is no remedy for bad faith except, in this case, abject concession or warfare.
3
Once again we show the World who the USA is. They Envy the things we have and many of our institutions. But the Big!! But!! they detest our arrogence--what they all will say if we don't back our President--There they go again, not paying any attention to the rest of the world. I served our country in over 12 countries, every where i've been its always the same--We have concerns and feelings too!
2
Iran now is not Iraq then, Iran now with their proxy Hezbollah invading targeting and cleansing Sunni Countries through military expansion and aggression. Also Iranians leaders declarations to wipe out Israel is very scary for the people of Israel, Obama statement that Hezbollah will target Tel Aviv with missiles if his way would fail is a cheap shot
Also most Arabic leaders are losing face with America, the Arab leaders are famous to be deceptive, and for fear agreed with Obama, but they are very nervous.
Diplomacy is good to resolve conflict but to cave in to Iran is a week alternative
Also most Arabic leaders are losing face with America, the Arab leaders are famous to be deceptive, and for fear agreed with Obama, but they are very nervous.
Diplomacy is good to resolve conflict but to cave in to Iran is a week alternative
5
Obama has disgraced the office of the US presidency, by his narcissistic, petulant behavior and his out-of-line personal attacks on those who disagree with his Iran deal. His disgraceful personal attack stem from his inability to defend the deal on its merits.
6
I want to believe and trust Obama on this issue. It just seems that the publicized terms and conditions of the agreement do not bare him out. A 24 hours advance notice to be given to Iran's military prior to any inspections? Are kidding me? No mechanism to immediately reinstate sanctions at their current levels if Iran is found to be violating the agreement? Releasing more than $100 billion dollars to an unrepentant sponsor of international terrorism?
Sorry Mr. President, I'm having a tough time with this one.
Sorry Mr. President, I'm having a tough time with this one.
11
I would like to see NYT Editorial page to take a strong position against ANY foreign leader, or lobbies for foreign governments meddling in U.S. Foreign Policy.
Since the deal was announced, there have been several meetings and conference calls with various Jewish leaders, and dozens of similar efforts since Obama took office. This does not happen with representatives of other minority groups and therefore the reasons behind it need to be aired
Since the deal was announced, there have been several meetings and conference calls with various Jewish leaders, and dozens of similar efforts since Obama took office. This does not happen with representatives of other minority groups and therefore the reasons behind it need to be aired
14
Perhaps it is fitting on the anniversary of the first use of an atomic bomb for people to get a grip on the reality of nuclear weapons.
If Iran really wanted to have the bomb it already could; all that is needed to build an A bomb, other than the trigger mechanism, was published before WW II. Both the Third Reich and Imperial Japan had programs to build an A-bomb but we got there first.
The only real problem for Iran is accumulating enough enriched uranium or plutonium to make a device & our own experts tell us that any effort to do so can be detected via an inspection. Hence the present agreement serves U.S. interests in the short term.
Iran most probably does not want an arms race in its own neighborhood because, unlike most of our senators, Iran appears not to relish unpredictable consequences. However, the threat of developing a nuclear weapon gives Iran the leverage it wants for use in international relations. After all, through the use of the threat Iran now has once engaged with the U.S. & will soon be dealing again with Russia & China with the Europeans soon to follow.
If the U.S. chooses not to engage but instead to trumpet American Exceptionalism it will have even less effect than our long running embargo against Cuba. In fact, America will begin its decline from being a first rate power as well as exercising a leadership role in world affairs
If Iran really wanted to have the bomb it already could; all that is needed to build an A bomb, other than the trigger mechanism, was published before WW II. Both the Third Reich and Imperial Japan had programs to build an A-bomb but we got there first.
The only real problem for Iran is accumulating enough enriched uranium or plutonium to make a device & our own experts tell us that any effort to do so can be detected via an inspection. Hence the present agreement serves U.S. interests in the short term.
Iran most probably does not want an arms race in its own neighborhood because, unlike most of our senators, Iran appears not to relish unpredictable consequences. However, the threat of developing a nuclear weapon gives Iran the leverage it wants for use in international relations. After all, through the use of the threat Iran now has once engaged with the U.S. & will soon be dealing again with Russia & China with the Europeans soon to follow.
If the U.S. chooses not to engage but instead to trumpet American Exceptionalism it will have even less effect than our long running embargo against Cuba. In fact, America will begin its decline from being a first rate power as well as exercising a leadership role in world affairs
12
"The only real problem for Iran is accumulating enough enriched uranium or plutonium to make a device & our own experts tell us that any effort to do so can be detected via an inspection. Hence the present agreement serves U.S. interests in the short term."
Perhaps we can get a similar agreement with Israel. I wonder what we can offer Israel in return? Hmmm. Billions in aid and loan guarantees for decades? Probably not good enough.
Perhaps we can get a similar agreement with Israel. I wonder what we can offer Israel in return? Hmmm. Billions in aid and loan guarantees for decades? Probably not good enough.
10
I wonder, if we had a Republican president and the head of government of another country openly lobbied in national TV, halls of congress, and even press community organization composed of decedents from that country to defend his position, how would they react!
Please note that this deal is not perfect (i read the deal itself) - but is is a deal that serves US national Interest and it is neutral on Israel national interest, unless the notion of having a constant enemy to point at is Israel's national interest.
It is said to watch the Republican party align itself against the US national interest over short term political gain and defend a position that if the the roles were reversed they would calling the detractors unpatriotic.
Please note that this deal is not perfect (i read the deal itself) - but is is a deal that serves US national Interest and it is neutral on Israel national interest, unless the notion of having a constant enemy to point at is Israel's national interest.
It is said to watch the Republican party align itself against the US national interest over short term political gain and defend a position that if the the roles were reversed they would calling the detractors unpatriotic.
18
People who want to solve problems with war must not be taken seriously. People who oppose Mr. Obama like to compare him to Chamberlain, Iran is not Germany and Obama is definitely not Chamberlain. Actually the question is if US will become more like the Germans in that era.
10
August 6, 2015
Consider the Congressional opposition to Obama’s speech on the Iran Nuclear and reflect on Ronald Reagan humorous quote.
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
August 11, 1984: Reagan was getting ready for a 9 a.m. live broadcast from his ranch, Rancho del Cielo, near Santa Barbara, Calif. He joked around with the National Public Radio audio engineers during the microphone check before the broadcast, and said, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
Russia was not amused.
http://www.deseretnews.com/top/103/5/We-begin-bombing-in-five-minutes-Ro...
Secondly, America’s diplomacy is as much a game of holding the Executive Diplomatic leadership hostage to public a red herring of distraction towards personal political supreme gamesmanship – all to satisfy: ego’s that lack the art of showcasing the best of the times for major diplomatic craftsmanship – that will ultimately succeed – when the cameras are off and behind the scenes agreement will achieve the deal that is just best for on the world stage – and buying time for sanity and diminishing the demagogues on the planet – especial in the Islamic havoc on the world stage.
JJA Manhattan, N.Y.
Consider the Congressional opposition to Obama’s speech on the Iran Nuclear and reflect on Ronald Reagan humorous quote.
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
August 11, 1984: Reagan was getting ready for a 9 a.m. live broadcast from his ranch, Rancho del Cielo, near Santa Barbara, Calif. He joked around with the National Public Radio audio engineers during the microphone check before the broadcast, and said, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
Russia was not amused.
http://www.deseretnews.com/top/103/5/We-begin-bombing-in-five-minutes-Ro...
Secondly, America’s diplomacy is as much a game of holding the Executive Diplomatic leadership hostage to public a red herring of distraction towards personal political supreme gamesmanship – all to satisfy: ego’s that lack the art of showcasing the best of the times for major diplomatic craftsmanship – that will ultimately succeed – when the cameras are off and behind the scenes agreement will achieve the deal that is just best for on the world stage – and buying time for sanity and diminishing the demagogues on the planet – especial in the Islamic havoc on the world stage.
JJA Manhattan, N.Y.
3
Why is it so easy to consider war as the answer? We can always go to war if the Agreement turns out as the opponents believe. Why not give diplomacy a chance? I worry that as our military with it's weapons and huge budget is the only category where we lead the world, the war hawks turn to it as a strategy instinctively. Why not give peace a chance.
12
Well, given that a lot of the motivation among those in Congress to oppose the deal stems from their loving support by military contractors (Tom Cotton went before them the day after his infamous near treasonous letter to the Ayatollah to reassure them--https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/09/upon-launching-effort-scut... I think we can safely assume what their aims are: to keep the US in a constant state of war-readiness.
11
I certainly hope that the U.S. is in a constant state of war-readiness. Far better than to be in a constant state of un-readiness.
3
It is distressing that there are still people out there that simply are not listening to President Obama and the phalanx of experts who give this deal a thumbs up. I say that they lyrics to that song "Give Peace a Chance" makes the most sense. The other alternatives remain on the table.
12
There are also a phalanx of experts who are giving this deal a thumbs down. Are you even paying attention? Do you support Obama regardless of whether the facts on the ground support his position? There are many reasons to reject that disastrous nuke deal with Iran. And Obama really made matters worse by calling into question the loyalties and the patriotism of those who oppose him and that deal. For POTUS to resort to using such a tactic is reprehensible and intolerable.
8
Obama has shown that he knows not what he's doing in Iraq, Libya, Syria and other Muslim countries. All these countries are worse off now then when Obama took office. He hasn't earned the right to lecture anyone about the Middle East, much less the Saudis and Israelis who vehemently reject his agreement with Iran.
9
While you might not realize it, Saudi Arabia is by far Iran's biggest adversary in the world. Because of a 1500 year old spat over religion.
2
just in case anyone forgot, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Diane Feinstein among many other democrats, voted for the Iraq war resolution so it doesn't make sense to apply blame selectively to Bush, Cheney and of course Netanyahu for being in favor of the Iraq war. And just one other reminder: the democratic candidate that you're probably going to vote for in November also voted yes for the Iraq war resolution. Sorry to rain on your Republican/Netanyahu hatefest but the facts are a lot more complicated than the simplistic cliches we find up here.
7
The bigger question is, why should Iran trust us? Aren't we the ones who overthrew an elected government and installed the Shah of Iran and his secret police? Were not we the ones who gave Iraq the chemical weapons that they used against Iran? And one wonders why they chant "death to America"?
12
No, we are not.
2
Everyone opposed to the deal with Iran should make themselves aware of Washington, DC's newest monument, the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial in Washington, DC. Repeat: Disabled for Life. One image engraved in glass is of a young child -- 7 or 8 -- pushing a man in a wheelchair. It's the perfect illustration of one generation pushing the responsibility for needless wars on to the next generation. I know the image was meant to invoke heroism, but instead it shows how current tragedies live on to become the burdens of our children. This memorial sits a mere 100 yards from the office windows of members of the House of Representatives. They should be ashamed to have such a reminder so close, yet have so little understanding of it.
13
Sadly, to the GOP, war is a business.
They have nothing invested personally with family.
Many of their big donors, not to mention the VPs former employer made a fortune during the Iraq debacle. We wasted trillions there, with a T, guess where it went?
There was no down side for the GOP in the last war. They've turned the blame to Obama for the war with their endless repeated lies, what a surprise, and the war profiteers see a new goal.
Whether America survives or not really isn't that important to them. They'll just retire to protected enclaves which their money can buy.
They have nothing invested personally with family.
Many of their big donors, not to mention the VPs former employer made a fortune during the Iraq debacle. We wasted trillions there, with a T, guess where it went?
There was no down side for the GOP in the last war. They've turned the blame to Obama for the war with their endless repeated lies, what a surprise, and the war profiteers see a new goal.
Whether America survives or not really isn't that important to them. They'll just retire to protected enclaves which their money can buy.
8
"President Obama on Wednesday made a powerful case for the strong and effective nuclear agreement with Iran."
But did he have anything to say about the deal he actually signed up for? Because THIS is neither strong nor effective:
(1) Immediate sanctions relief = $150 billion dollars, with no restrictions on its use. That means tens of billions of dollars funding terrorism and bolstering Iran's military.
(2) Lifting of ICBM embargo - What?!! How did this one get on the table?! We're going to give Iran a free path to the bomb in 15 years, and let them build ICBMs in the interim. I'm so glad that when my youngest daughter is 17, we get to have to worry about Iranian nuclear missiles reaching our city!
(3) Enforcement - What enforcement?
Obama gave Iran EVERYTHING it wanted, and got NOTHING in return. This deal is a complete and total surrender. It's far worse than doing nothing. By doing nothing, at least we would keep money out of the hands of Iranian terrorists.
But did he have anything to say about the deal he actually signed up for? Because THIS is neither strong nor effective:
(1) Immediate sanctions relief = $150 billion dollars, with no restrictions on its use. That means tens of billions of dollars funding terrorism and bolstering Iran's military.
(2) Lifting of ICBM embargo - What?!! How did this one get on the table?! We're going to give Iran a free path to the bomb in 15 years, and let them build ICBMs in the interim. I'm so glad that when my youngest daughter is 17, we get to have to worry about Iranian nuclear missiles reaching our city!
(3) Enforcement - What enforcement?
Obama gave Iran EVERYTHING it wanted, and got NOTHING in return. This deal is a complete and total surrender. It's far worse than doing nothing. By doing nothing, at least we would keep money out of the hands of Iranian terrorists.
7
Iran gets the bomb in secret, because this deal makes that possible, and because Iran has cheated on every previous nuclear agreement.
Hamas quietly drills a tunnel from Gaza to a neighboring Israeli community. Doesn't matter which one. There are moshav and kibbutz near Gaza. Nirim, Nir Oz, Alum, Netiv HaAsara among others. During last summer's incursion into Gaza the Israelis uncovered at least 22 tunnels with at least 66 access points inside Gaza.
In fact, Gaza Palestinians are again firing rockets at Israel.
A small nuclear device is assembled in Iran, and then dismantled, could be one kiloton, could be two. Iran has enough nuclear material to build one completely in secret. Bit by bit, the parts are smuggled into the Gaza Strip. Slowly, carefully, the device is assembled, transported quietly along a new tunnel into Israel, and detonated. Hundreds of Israelis die. A radiation cloud rises.
Israel accuses Iran. Iran claims they have been prevented from developing a bomb by their nuclear agreement. Hamas says they know nothing, it must have been Fatah, or someone else. Everyone claims ignorance of the nuclear terror attack. Some even blame the Israelis trying to provide a rationale for first striking Iran with nuclear weapons. The US is also blamed.
We can see by the vilification of Netanyahu, and the Republicans in Congress who oppose the deal, that the stage is being set for disaster, and confusion in the West.
Some deal.
Hamas quietly drills a tunnel from Gaza to a neighboring Israeli community. Doesn't matter which one. There are moshav and kibbutz near Gaza. Nirim, Nir Oz, Alum, Netiv HaAsara among others. During last summer's incursion into Gaza the Israelis uncovered at least 22 tunnels with at least 66 access points inside Gaza.
In fact, Gaza Palestinians are again firing rockets at Israel.
A small nuclear device is assembled in Iran, and then dismantled, could be one kiloton, could be two. Iran has enough nuclear material to build one completely in secret. Bit by bit, the parts are smuggled into the Gaza Strip. Slowly, carefully, the device is assembled, transported quietly along a new tunnel into Israel, and detonated. Hundreds of Israelis die. A radiation cloud rises.
Israel accuses Iran. Iran claims they have been prevented from developing a bomb by their nuclear agreement. Hamas says they know nothing, it must have been Fatah, or someone else. Everyone claims ignorance of the nuclear terror attack. Some even blame the Israelis trying to provide a rationale for first striking Iran with nuclear weapons. The US is also blamed.
We can see by the vilification of Netanyahu, and the Republicans in Congress who oppose the deal, that the stage is being set for disaster, and confusion in the West.
Some deal.
10
During the President's speech, he referred to the previous experiences in the region as examples of the law of unintended consequences. The consequence of overriding his veto will be that innocent Israelis and Iranians will die.
The arguments about getting a better deal are moot. Like it or not the deal on the table is the only one in play. There is no better way to preclude Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Even if the Agreement contained language about their support of terrorists, little would actually result. Iran would continue to do as they have done since no inspections will be traceable to Iran.
So, why would Israelis die? Simple. The Prime Minister’s argument against the deal, any “deal”, exists only to give Israel cover to do what they perceive as needed, including military attacks. As long as Iran is in “compliance”, Israel loses the world’s support if they attacked.
No agreement eventually means a military escalation. Regardless of the source of the attacks, Israel would be blamed. History tells us a response from Iran and/or their proxies is inevitable causing the loss of innocent lives. Perhaps the military attacks on Iran would achieve a temporary goal, but
the JCPOA accomplishes all of that for perpetuity and without the loss of one precious life. I hope Bibi and the huff and puff Congress eventually understands that.
The arguments about getting a better deal are moot. Like it or not the deal on the table is the only one in play. There is no better way to preclude Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Even if the Agreement contained language about their support of terrorists, little would actually result. Iran would continue to do as they have done since no inspections will be traceable to Iran.
So, why would Israelis die? Simple. The Prime Minister’s argument against the deal, any “deal”, exists only to give Israel cover to do what they perceive as needed, including military attacks. As long as Iran is in “compliance”, Israel loses the world’s support if they attacked.
No agreement eventually means a military escalation. Regardless of the source of the attacks, Israel would be blamed. History tells us a response from Iran and/or their proxies is inevitable causing the loss of innocent lives. Perhaps the military attacks on Iran would achieve a temporary goal, but
the JCPOA accomplishes all of that for perpetuity and without the loss of one precious life. I hope Bibi and the huff and puff Congress eventually understands that.
4
It was a weak speech by a weak leader. At no time did he describe the Iranian regime as a totalitarian, Islamist state, built on hatred and death cultism. I was absolutely correct when I predicted last winter that before this sad saga is over, Obama will be defending the Islamic Republic of Iran from the United States of America. Obama is playing on the fears of Americans that there are only two choices: his (Tehran's) way or total war. Does he think we are idiots?
8
PM Netanyahu wants the treaty to be defeated and have the next president come in and attack Iran for Israel. Why does he have this much sway. He barely has a majority of a crack pot gov't. He's mercurial and he walks away from commitments at the drop of a hat. Yet the congressional Republicans love this man. Even if the treaty is defeated this talk of war being inevitable just shows the lack of imagination on the part of the US leadership. There was little unbiased evidence that Iran was about to make a bomb. There is certainly no evidence that Iran has malevolent intentions towards Israel. The brutal sanctions laid great suffering on a country that had the misfortune to border Iraq. The US could not possibly blunder into a murderous war in Iraq and not have a back up country to vilify.
12
It is not a treaty without the consent of at least 66 U.S. Senators. Without this, it is not law and it is not enforceable.
4
It is not a treaty without the consent of at least 67 U.S. Senators. Without this, it is no more than a "gentlemen's agreement" and there are no gentlemen in this agreement.
3
Most of the real objections that aren't purely political, have to do with the provisions of interval between notice and inspection, and the duration of the agreement. (Except for the Israeli PM, who has existential opposition amounting to a requirement that Iran perform total capitulation of it's national rights and identity to an extent that only a clear war victory could provide). In the face of that level of absurdity, I will go with the technical expertise provided by Dr Moniz and our own scientists and intel experts ( and Israeli intel experts) that no breakout is possible without our knowing. In any event, thank God there is someone in charge who can give the possibility of nuclear peace a chance. The world will know how to respond if Iran cheats.
8
Iran has stated unequivocally that it wants to destroy Israel, it routinely engages in virulent state supported anti-semitism, it exhorts its citizens to chant death to Israel, and provides material support to terror armies that have no interest in negotiation and vow to destroy Israel. The Israelis are not imagining these things; they are real and that is the reason a very high percentage of Israelis, many who don't support Netanyahu, are opposed to the nuclear deal. To discount all of that and blame Netanyahu is beyond simplistic.
3
When the national identity of Iran is the total destruction and annihilation of the nation of Israel, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Israel's leader is more than a little concerned with such a toothless agreement.
3
If opponents and critics in the US do get real, they will soon realise that they are quite alone on this planet in siding with Israel to oppose the nuclear deal with Iran. Even the Sunni Arabs in the Gulf Cooperation Council are willing to give Iran a chance.
It's outrageous of Netanyahu meddling in US politics. He has become a highly familiar figure in US domestic politics. But it's his controversial actions that have reaped a rich harvest of contempt.
It's outrageous of Netanyahu meddling in US politics. He has become a highly familiar figure in US domestic politics. But it's his controversial actions that have reaped a rich harvest of contempt.
33
polls indicate the majority of the people oppose the deal. If Iran gets the deal, Obama has kicked off nuclear proliferation because the Saudis will want the bomb. Obama said the sanction money will probably be used for terrorism. A great deal.
4
Are you an example of most people? Are you aware that the minute the US rejects this treaty, sanctions by everyone except the US will end?
1
The President's logic makes no sense. There is no logic as to how not signing this deal leads to war, even though our President would declare it so. Failure to sign the deal is a continuation of the status quo - embargo with Iran and freezing of assets of Iranian Central Govt and certain key high wealth individuals.
Basically the trade is we end the embargo and release their hard assets, and they pledge to not produce a nuke for 10 years. Meanwhile only the IAEA, with no US participants, are allowed to try and verify the Iranians are not building a nuke. The IAEA will not be allowed to take soil samples. They IAEA must give 28 days notice to inspect a site, and military sites are off limits. Seriously, how does this lead to war?
Basically the trade is we end the embargo and release their hard assets, and they pledge to not produce a nuke for 10 years. Meanwhile only the IAEA, with no US participants, are allowed to try and verify the Iranians are not building a nuke. The IAEA will not be allowed to take soil samples. They IAEA must give 28 days notice to inspect a site, and military sites are off limits. Seriously, how does this lead to war?
7
To keep the facts correct, let's be clear. Military sites can be inspected. The Iran hard right is upset by this.
1
The "status quo" is already gone. The financial and trade embargo requires the rest of the world to go along with it. And they will not - to our extreme disadvantage.
Our only options are either this deal, or let Iran do whatever it wants - and that will lead to certain war.
Our only options are either this deal, or let Iran do whatever it wants - and that will lead to certain war.
1
The logic holds good. The status quo is - to all appearances - that Iran is making steady progress towards having nukes. The other part of the status quo is that President Obama, and at least one preceding president, and all current major presidential candidates, have committed themselves to preventing Iran getting nukes. If the diplomatic course is abandoned, the only other course is military. And anyone who thinks 'surgical' air strikes against Iran can accomplish that without setting off a major military conflict is kidding themselves.
3
Mr. Netanyahu and APAC are not just tampering with American foreign policy-making, they are conducting an all-out lobbying full-court press funded by tens of millions of dollars. That should be considered a threat to American political independence. Completely inappropriate for APAC to be buying TV ads and lobbying senators at this level.
32
AIPAC (not APAC) is funded by American Citizens. Other than Jews who support Israel's right to exist as a democratic state, are there any other American Citizens that should not be permitted first amendment rights to petition their government?
10
Yeah - any American citizen who is willing to put the existence of another state before their own country.
In that case, they should be afforded no rights since they're allegiance is for another national entity and not in the interest of defending the Constitution of the United States of America.
In that case, they should be afforded no rights since they're allegiance is for another national entity and not in the interest of defending the Constitution of the United States of America.
5
AIPAC is and should be designated as a financial and political arm of a foreign government (Israel) that has vested interests and foreign policy goals that are completely averse to that of US foreign and domestic policy goals. AIPAC is an agent provocateur that has essentially bought US political hacks such as Graham, Huckabee, McConnell, Schumer, and every other Republican and Democrat when it comes to positions that are exclusively in Israel's interests. Contrary to its assertions that it does not "by" the political votes cast by US politicos, try looking at their respective voting records and their positions taken on all matters concerning Israel-Graham's record speaks volumes-and the fact that Netanyahu receives more standing ovations than Janet Jackson's baring her breasts at a Superbowl ("Wardrobe Malfunction") is saying something more than what Jon Stewart ever could even allude to !!! AIPAC is going to once again lead the next administration to a war on Israel's behalf-just as it did once before with W's cabal of criminals. Once again, there will be that a Republican at the helm, when S blood and treasure will be spilled to protect Israel with its 250+ nukes and its "Settler" terrorists in their Italian villas!!
7
The President channeled JFK's speech at American U 52 years ago in serving up the update to "Communism is really not good but all Soviet people are not all bad "with his "death to America" extremists don't represent all or not nearly all of the ordinary Iranian people.
We have lost the high ground of not being the people who unilaterally start wars but we can reclaim some of that dirt by reasserting ourselves as the very best diplomats on the face of the earth.
We have lost the high ground of not being the people who unilaterally start wars but we can reclaim some of that dirt by reasserting ourselves as the very best diplomats on the face of the earth.
15
we are lousy diplomats, the agreement is a farce.
While the extremists do not represent the Iranian people, the extremists have ALL the power and control in Iran. We have not negotiated with the people of Iran, if they had their way the mullahs would be gone. We negotiated with the murderous oppressive mullahs and are helping them tighten their grip
While the extremists do not represent the Iranian people, the extremists have ALL the power and control in Iran. We have not negotiated with the people of Iran, if they had their way the mullahs would be gone. We negotiated with the murderous oppressive mullahs and are helping them tighten their grip
3
I'd like to know how much of an existential crisis this really is, since Netanyahu and AIPAC seem able to always produce a new one. Suppose Obama bowed to Netanyahu's insistence on new negotiations and Kerry got the Iranians to agree to instantaneous inspections on demand if in return the Likud government met the Iranian demand for an end to the settlements. I'd say "great". What would the Likud say?
17
I deem Pres. Obama's speech, especially the part where he aligns the Republicans with the radical Iranian leaders, as "Trumpism".
Lest some of you may forget, "Trumpism" is a term coined by former Texas governor and current presidential candidate Rick Perry. He described "Trumpism" this way:
"a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness and nonsense"
Mr. Perry also said of Donald Trump (i.e. of "Trumpism") that he "offers a barking carnival act".
Now I must say that I would not describe Pres. Obama as a "barking carnival act". Pres. Obama is more like a "pompous intellectual" type of act. Though each kind of act grating in its own horrible and terrible way.
Nonetheless Pres. Obama exemplified "Trumpism", in all its grand and cringe inducing folly yesterday in what was a very weak speech defending his Iran/nuclear deal.
And thank you, Rick Perry.
Lest some of you may forget, "Trumpism" is a term coined by former Texas governor and current presidential candidate Rick Perry. He described "Trumpism" this way:
"a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness and nonsense"
Mr. Perry also said of Donald Trump (i.e. of "Trumpism") that he "offers a barking carnival act".
Now I must say that I would not describe Pres. Obama as a "barking carnival act". Pres. Obama is more like a "pompous intellectual" type of act. Though each kind of act grating in its own horrible and terrible way.
Nonetheless Pres. Obama exemplified "Trumpism", in all its grand and cringe inducing folly yesterday in what was a very weak speech defending his Iran/nuclear deal.
And thank you, Rick Perry.
8
I find it interesting how some of us want to accuse Obama of Trumpism, which is certainly a very bad thing. No one wants to be accused of Trumpism. But then on the other hand, we absolutely love Trump himself, a man who can not possible do any wrong, a man who always has the correct answer to everything. All glory to The Donald but at the same time, nothing but scorn for any future American leaders who might sound like Trumpists.
2
Well done, John Dooley.
Gee, I'd like to hear Rick's full take on this, but unfortunately he didn't make the cut for the Fox News debate circus. Just too liberal for the new millennium GOP, I suppose.
It is lamentable that negotiations towards peace are harder to sell in the US (thanks Israel for being some ally, and the war industry, co-owners of Congress) than it is to rouse the masses to war - as in Iraq, Vietnam, .... all under false pretenses. Why would any sane person think that America stands for peace?
35
Why most of the American Jewish people have more alligience, more loyalty and more love for Israel than their motherland USA? Our Republican congress members are behaving like slaves of Netanyahu. These spineless members love to have AIPAC money, jewish votes and will do anything (good or bad for the country) to be reelected. ALL TALK DO NOTHING Republican leaders are disliked by their party members and the proof is Trump phenomena. The Republican led Congress will oppose anything and everything Obama proposes. The war monger politicians, newsmen, columnists, pundits, talk show hosts, arms business lobbyists are on high energy turbo mode to oppose the Iran deal like pre-Iraq war time. We should not be surprised.
35
Are those who say that this deal with Iran is a bad one willing to send their sons and daughters into battle when the time for war comes around? This saber rattling is being spewed by those whose children have plumb jobs at Wall Streets and who care less, if the burden of war shifts onto the shoulders of poor children from poor black neighborhoods. I'm amazed that a country that is just coming out of the ashes of two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where thousands of American lives were lost, has not learned a single lesson out of that horrible experience.
37
our choices are not this lousy deal or war. This deal makes certain that Iran becomes a nuclear power and that its power is unfettered. What is wrong with continuing the status quo, continuing the existing sanctions? The sanctions are working, the mullahs are out of money.
It is obvious that GOP opposition to this historic deal is the same old nonsense. Oppose anything Obama does no matter what the cost to our country and collect donations/bribes from the Israeli Lobby and other right wing extremists. Putting party interests ahead of what is best for our country should cost the party at the polls. Some might liken it to treason.
Democratic opposition comes from those members of congress who are owned by Israeli lobbyists. How disgraceful.
Shame on both. A vote against this agreement is a vote for war. Many Americans will be against sacrificing our brave soldiers to protect a country that doesn't seem to care about our interests. Netanyahu abuses our relationship with Israel and has gone out of his way to join forces with the republican party and disrespect our president. It will be interesting to see which members of congress are more concerned with the interests of Israel than the country they have taken an oath to serve. Then we can see how much each vote cost when we study their campaign donation/bribe reports.
Democratic opposition comes from those members of congress who are owned by Israeli lobbyists. How disgraceful.
Shame on both. A vote against this agreement is a vote for war. Many Americans will be against sacrificing our brave soldiers to protect a country that doesn't seem to care about our interests. Netanyahu abuses our relationship with Israel and has gone out of his way to join forces with the republican party and disrespect our president. It will be interesting to see which members of congress are more concerned with the interests of Israel than the country they have taken an oath to serve. Then we can see how much each vote cost when we study their campaign donation/bribe reports.
37
@john: if you read carefully what we promised Iran and what Iran promised us, then this agreement is really a sellout to our enemy. Obama can't defend it on its merits, so he attacks Republicans. Now, isn't his speech the "same old nonsense"??
4
And the other members of the P5+1 are selling out also? Lets hear some specific changes to the agreement, and also a consensus from the other countries involved. Diplomacy means compromise with both friends and enemies; not a Republican strong point. If Conservatives regain the Presidency, more military action is a certainty. This is America's choice.
5
this type of front and center advocating was needed starting in early 2005. nice to see it now but we'd be on a different path already if he had started then.
4
The opponents of the nuclear agreement with Iran, and we likely will hear ten of them at the Republican debate in Cleveland this evening, remain adamant in not being willing to offer any other realistic approach to dealing with a nuclear Iran. They are now reduced to whining about the language which President Obama used to describe the one-dimensional, inflexible obstinacy of the Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Whether or not President Obama could have used softer words to portray how dangerous the Republican stance is for the future of America and Israel is irrelevant. The Republicans, as they have demonstrated on less critical issues, consistently shy away from logic in favor of believing their own campaign rhetoric.
Whether or not President Obama could have used softer words to portray how dangerous the Republican stance is for the future of America and Israel is irrelevant. The Republicans, as they have demonstrated on less critical issues, consistently shy away from logic in favor of believing their own campaign rhetoric.
18
Why are we not talking about George H. Bush's idea of nuclear free Middle East anymore? Answer this and you will understand who is really dominating in Middle East. Conditio sine qua non for existance of militaristic Israel is existance of outside threat, it used to be Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and now it is Iran. The tab for Israel's defence is paid by American taxpayers, without this Israel's economy would colapse.
15
"This is an irrational posture, since, as Mr. Obama pointed out, he and future American presidents would be able to use force if Iran tried to build a bomb in coming years." This says it all. The five plus one group of nations would be much closer to being on our side than not. Accepting the deal does not preclude force; rejecting it, makes us go-it-alone again.
Why should we do that?
Why should we do that?
16
The *words* of the deal do not preclude force. Actions are a different matter: since President Obama danced around & then backtracked on his "red line" about use of chemical weapons in Syria, and since he took forceful actions off the table during negotiations over the JCPOA, adversaries and allies don't seriously regard words from him about use of force.
I seriously cannot believe Americans are still stuck in this imperialistic mindset we entrenched in our heads decades ago - not to mention the superiority complex that as the most powerful country in the world, we get exactly what we ask for and nothing less. Oh, Iran won't dismantle 100% of its nuclear arsenal, just 97%, and we're suddenly opposing this deal? It's give and take - don't expect us to get everything we want because we're America. The broader point is that AMERICA made a diplomatic, peaceful deal with IRAN, a country in the MIDDLE EAST - a region we JUST invaded. Yet we (Republicans) want war, power, control - over a country that has presented minimal threat to us directly, but not necessarily to our allies. Choose peace or choose war - let me know how the latter goes.
21
Iran is dismantling NOThing. there is no give and take. We only give and get nothing in return. Again our choices are not between invasion and this lousy agreement. Under the terms of this agreement, we give them the money, and they keep doing whatever they want.
We hear all the worst case scenarios, what about the best case scenarios? Iran keeps its end of the deal, it uses the money that will be released for the good of its people. The old guard goes the way of all flesh. Young people who were born after the revolution assumes more political power. They have a better view of the United States and wants Iran to take its place as a force for good in the region. Ordinary people in Iran and Israel who have made friends on Facebook build political relationships of trust and work together to stop terror attacks against Israel as Israel works toward a just peace with the Palestonians. A paradigm shift from militarism to just peace paves the way to sustenance and joy for all the people's in the region because money that goes to weapons now go to education, health, clean water and providing jobs. Give peace a chance.
22
If the best-case scenarios were viable, wouldn't Iran have adopted them unilaterally and voluntarily?
3
The specific provisions of this agreement were not negotiated by Obama, but by the best and most experienced negotiators that the P5 +1 can find. (I know that this is hard to believe, but other nations have very capable representatives also) Yet Conservatives claim that they "can do better," but without any specific recommendations, and certainly without discussing any changes with the P5+1 negotiators or the Iranian representatives. Diplomacy is easy when there is no one across the table, so compromise and finding common ground is never required. As with most Republican positions, if Obama is supporting it, "we can do better." You had your chance with Bush, and see where that led the country.
24
Within 50 years it is entirely possible that Israel will become a rump security state, overcome by its own cascading failures, by its insistence on being a ruthless colonial power, by the departure for better places and lives of its secular, educated and economically contributing population -- leaving behind the non-contributing ultra orthodox whose population producing six and eight children per couple will overtake the secular, and leaving behind the rabid nationalist settlers to fight an endless, pointless war from crusader-like fortresses.
But that failed state, if it happens, is one with nuclear weapons, Israel's Never Again weapons, which go uninspected in this world, even unacknowledged as Israel's prime minister howls at the American president who rearmed him after Gaz; nuclear weapons that in fact exist and are a perilous arsenal in the most perilous part of the world.
This is Netanyahu's Israel and vision for Israel. It needs no external enemies to destroy it. It will destroy itself.
But that failed state, if it happens, is one with nuclear weapons, Israel's Never Again weapons, which go uninspected in this world, even unacknowledged as Israel's prime minister howls at the American president who rearmed him after Gaz; nuclear weapons that in fact exist and are a perilous arsenal in the most perilous part of the world.
This is Netanyahu's Israel and vision for Israel. It needs no external enemies to destroy it. It will destroy itself.
24
It is simply disgraceful that one small country, Israel, and its hawkish and brazenly misguided leader has so much influence over American policy. And it is disgusting that a group like AIPAC can fund a campaign to undermine diplomatic efforts of our President. Every opponent to this deal was wrong on Iraq. What credibility do they have and where's the accountability? The sanctions are simply not sustainable because other powers in the world are working to break them down. What are the mechanisms to insist that Russia and China and the rest of the world collaborate with us to keep up the sanctions? There aren't any.
31
Obama will be out soon. Israel will still be there. Non-haters will still be here rallying against YOU!
3
The P5+1 nations Germany, France, Britain, USA, Russia and China have approved these negotiations. The EU and the IAEA have approved these negotiations. The UN Security Council has unanimously approved these negotiations. The Arab Gulf Cooperation Council has approved these negotiations. Because the best deal possible is far better than a new war.
Israel and Zionist posters disagree.
Israel and Zionist posters disagree.
29
Will your list of alleged Iran deal supporters reject a better deal?
I personally resent President Obama's attempts to link skepticism over his pact with Iran to neocons who beat drums for invading Iraq. I opposed the invasion, and the incompetent (pre-surge) conduct of the ensuing war. So if I have the temerity to question the conduct and outcome of the negotiations with Iran, that makes me an acolyte of G. W. Bush?
Mr. President, defend the deal on what merits it has. Stop the mudslinging.
Mr. President, defend the deal on what merits it has. Stop the mudslinging.
7
It is not about mudslinging, but rather the inability of those who disagree with the negotiated agreement to provide any viable alternative other than military conflict. I think it is fair to assume that those who are so passionately opposed to the international diplomatic approach are therefore strongly in favor of a military solution.
13
But your views do not reflect the sentiment and intelligence of the Republicans in congress. If you resent the accusation that the Republicans want war, what is the option that they suggest other than going to war?
You also overlook the fact that the Republicans have demonstrated, time and again, that they will oppose Obama even if they agree with the initiative in question. They don't care, they'd rather see him fail and the country suffer than to allow him any type of victory. Wake up.
You also overlook the fact that the Republicans have demonstrated, time and again, that they will oppose Obama even if they agree with the initiative in question. They don't care, they'd rather see him fail and the country suffer than to allow him any type of victory. Wake up.
Michael the President did and has defended the deal on the merits. Republicans; however, were delivering Ad hominem attacks on the President before they read a single word in the agreement.
They want us to believe that they could get Iran to give on every point, and we give on nothing. It's hubris and Imperial disdain for Iran and our allies . It's that attitude that we can do whatever we want in the world and no one including Iran dare oppose the U.S.
When are we going to get out of this chest thumping, we need no authority to do what we want attitude?
They are doing the same fear mongering, along with the fantasy "Better Deal" that they always do. Michael can you list the primary components of the "Better Deal" and how you get to it?
Republicans have been mudslinging since before the President took his oath of office. And now that he pushes back against an unprecedented multi-million dollar campaign funded by person or persons unknown to sink the deal and you have a problem? Why? What part of his speech was mudslinging?
They want us to believe that they could get Iran to give on every point, and we give on nothing. It's hubris and Imperial disdain for Iran and our allies . It's that attitude that we can do whatever we want in the world and no one including Iran dare oppose the U.S.
When are we going to get out of this chest thumping, we need no authority to do what we want attitude?
They are doing the same fear mongering, along with the fantasy "Better Deal" that they always do. Michael can you list the primary components of the "Better Deal" and how you get to it?
Republicans have been mudslinging since before the President took his oath of office. And now that he pushes back against an unprecedented multi-million dollar campaign funded by person or persons unknown to sink the deal and you have a problem? Why? What part of his speech was mudslinging?
1
OK, I'm for all out war as long as the first boots on the ground consist of the Congress of the United States, their families and those who support war as a 1st option. After that group is depleted I want the US to use it's most lethal weapons so the war is not prolonged and the rest of the world can cease to exist. Those are my only conditions for war. Enjoy!
9
It's the Iranian leadership that continues to shout death to America, death to Israel . In yesterday's speech Obama compared the mullahs in Iran who shout death to America with Republicans who are opposed to a very weak agreement. What an outrageous comment . All this from the same person who in 2007 promised to unite us. This President has weakened us internationally , made nuclear war in the Middle East more probable and has left us more racially divided than we have been since the 1960's. Plenty of change, without the hope. I am no longer surprised by what he says or does, just utterly disappointed that I gave him my vote 7 years ago.
10
"the Iranian leadership that continues to shout death to America, death to Israel"....This is a juvenile school yard argument that deserves a sticks and stones response. A military solution is a little more serious as it involves a lot of dead people. The childish words the mullahs prattle for internal consumption is hardly the kind of information a country should use in in making foreign policy decisions.
13
Actually the prez is finally dishing out what the other side has been slinging at him for his entire time in office. I would've liked him to do that a lot sooner.
14
If you create a nuclear arsenal and never use it, all you have left is an extremely expensive toxic waste disposal problem.
2
As I watch the winds of bluster proceed through the airwaves- I cry for a nation whose once great republican party is fully willing to use this critical agreement as another opportunity to vilify our president. This man, scorned and covered with scars has raised us up from a faux "mission accomplished" to the real solution of diplomacy. Unfortunately every news outlet repeats the lies perpetrated by a very well funded faction and parroted by the 17 angry men who would be king of all Kochville. To educate a gullible public of the genius of Mr. Obama may take generations, but I appreciate the NYT's effort in explaining the complexity of this deal. Hopefully there is an enlightened 1/3 of our congress that studies the history and avoids the histrionics of the next few weeks.
21
Diplomacy always has inherent risks - any negotiated agreement is bound to contain language that may or may not be realized.
The alternative, however, appears to be considerably worse.
It is in the best interest of America and the rest of the civilized world to engage Iran and create a path for inclusion into the greater international community. The text of this agreement provides that path.
Fear cannot be a successful tactic in deciding the fate of any negotiated agreement, lest we relegate diplomacy to the "recycling bin" of history.
The alternative, however, appears to be considerably worse.
It is in the best interest of America and the rest of the civilized world to engage Iran and create a path for inclusion into the greater international community. The text of this agreement provides that path.
Fear cannot be a successful tactic in deciding the fate of any negotiated agreement, lest we relegate diplomacy to the "recycling bin" of history.
10
The one thing that the discussion of the Iran deal has made crystal clear is that Netanyahu is against peace in the Middle East.
Same can be said for anyone who supports his position.
I wonder how many Americans will ever "get" that point?
Same can be said for anyone who supports his position.
I wonder how many Americans will ever "get" that point?
17
True. If but only if one ignores every other country in the Middle East; including Iran, which is sponsoring combatants in four nations.
2
We might say that Iran is sponsoring combatants in ONLY 4 countries, as opposed to the US which directly participates in open warfare in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan and sells weapons and provides military aid and assistance to almost all of the rest of the countries in the Middle East.
So, based on the facts, the question is: who is the bigger aggressor in the Middle East -- Iran or the US?
So, based on the facts, the question is: who is the bigger aggressor in the Middle East -- Iran or the US?
Obama's speech was meant primarily for domestic consumption. His review of Iranian history going back to the Shah elided, as is wont in speeches of this type, the American roles in the overthrow of Mossadegh, and in the defining event for the current Iranian leadership, the Iran-Iraq war. So much for revisionist history. As for a "mind-set" of militarism versus diplomacy, this president has unilaterally injected American forces to "protect" its proxies in Syria. So much American for being the "anchor of the international system."
Furthermore, the mad scramble by European capitals to re-engage business links surely does not spell "snapback." Finally, how does one "redouble" what is already total support for Israel's security? This deal is a prelude to a new policy of "reclaiming" Iran into the American fold.
Furthermore, the mad scramble by European capitals to re-engage business links surely does not spell "snapback." Finally, how does one "redouble" what is already total support for Israel's security? This deal is a prelude to a new policy of "reclaiming" Iran into the American fold.
4
The Republican caucus will of course reject this deal; they are no different than the corrupt governments of lesser countries through the ages. They only care about attaining, preserving and increasing their own power; at the expense of everyone and anything. They will say anything to make that happen. They foment confusion and misinformation. They nonchalantly dismiss domestic terror and violence; their words of grief are belied by their glib faces; the false displays of horror are immediately followed by a disproprtionate amount of time spent reiterating their party line. They will send others' children off to fight wars, for contrived reasons. They will subtly encourage racism. They will laugh and slap each others' backs behind closed doors.
16
Quote the oh so trenchant analysis of the New York Times:
"The truth is, if Congress rejects the deal when it votes in September, the robust web of multinational sanctions the administration persuaded other countries to impose on Iran will crumble and the only way to keep Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon will be war, he said."
This is saying that Kerry and Obama, having pushed Humpty Dumpty off the wall in the face of serious opposition from France and the UK, should now have a clear path to congressional approval because no one can put Humpty Dumpty together again. That is quite a trenchant analytical point being put forward by the Times.
The once important, respectable and yes, trenchant Editorial Board of the New York Times has been reduced to a peanut gallery cheering section for all things Obama. The Times, instead of putting forward a very complete, incisive analysis of the good and the bad in this highly risky deal, and admitting that the bad could easily, in the end, well outweigh the good, has been irresponsible to its readership. It would have been a good thing for this important journal to have seriously examined what could , in the end be an existentially disastrous transaction.
The congress should reject this deal to the point of avoiding the possibility of a veto. Then the negotiators can return to the bargaining table to produce a better one. We got nothing in this negotiation.
"The truth is, if Congress rejects the deal when it votes in September, the robust web of multinational sanctions the administration persuaded other countries to impose on Iran will crumble and the only way to keep Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon will be war, he said."
This is saying that Kerry and Obama, having pushed Humpty Dumpty off the wall in the face of serious opposition from France and the UK, should now have a clear path to congressional approval because no one can put Humpty Dumpty together again. That is quite a trenchant analytical point being put forward by the Times.
The once important, respectable and yes, trenchant Editorial Board of the New York Times has been reduced to a peanut gallery cheering section for all things Obama. The Times, instead of putting forward a very complete, incisive analysis of the good and the bad in this highly risky deal, and admitting that the bad could easily, in the end, well outweigh the good, has been irresponsible to its readership. It would have been a good thing for this important journal to have seriously examined what could , in the end be an existentially disastrous transaction.
The congress should reject this deal to the point of avoiding the possibility of a veto. Then the negotiators can return to the bargaining table to produce a better one. We got nothing in this negotiation.
5
sad. what don't you get? We don't control "the negotiators".
Rebuffing the deal made by the major powers casts us adrift from the world. Are you and your family going to shoulder arms to deal with your would=be veto?
Read the other comments- and get a grip on yourself.
Rebuffing the deal made by the major powers casts us adrift from the world. Are you and your family going to shoulder arms to deal with your would=be veto?
Read the other comments- and get a grip on yourself.
A simple way to test the GOP resolve to kill this agreement would be to reinstitute the draft with no exemptions.
6
What is Netanyahu's objection to this deal? Certainly not that Iran might get a bomb in 10 or 15 years. Iran can build a bomb. Many countries could if they wanted to; the method is not secret. What is difficult is the technology of accumulating sufficient enriched fuel to do it. This agreement makes that process much more difficult and probably delays a nuclear-armed Iran for at least 10 yrs, possibly more. A lot can happen in 10 years. His objection must be focused on more immediate consequences. For example, Iran will have more money to spend on increased terrorism and support of the Palestinian cause and the destruction of Israel. Iran can replace Saudi Arabia as the dominant force in the Mideast. It seems to me that Israel and Saudi Arabia have reached an unspoken "détante" that would be upset if Iran takes charge. Are those the real reasons? Who knows? What is the motivation of the Republican party? Well, it's Obama's initiative, and therefore worthy of disdain, not to mention electoral politics.
Next to global warming, the greatest threat to the human race is nuclear proliferation. Iran is just the tip of the iceberg of nuclear proliferation. The future of the human race is at stake here, and this deal might just be a beginning of a rational attempt to come to grips with that problem.
Next to global warming, the greatest threat to the human race is nuclear proliferation. Iran is just the tip of the iceberg of nuclear proliferation. The future of the human race is at stake here, and this deal might just be a beginning of a rational attempt to come to grips with that problem.
6
I would think that supposedly educated people living in a nuclear threat zone, with 36 years of experience in reporting on the activities of the crazed leadership of Iran would understand this "agreement" is valueless. Iran wants a bomb, it will get the bomb. And if they get the bomb before obama leaves office, they will use the bomb because they know there will be no consequences for their actions.
3
Yes. I too support President Obama and the Iran deal. Enough of war, enough or mayhem. Peace really is the answer.
6
SoS Kerry made a bad deal. He walked into the auto dealership and caved after the sales rep returned from the 'consult' with the dealership's sales manager. The bad news is that SoS Kerry did not walk out of the dealership. Instead, Kerry signed the deal and he has agreed to dealer financing on top of that.
Sigh. It does not matter. It is done. The Republicans in the Senate and House will not approve the deal. The President will veto and the veto will be withheld. Let's move on.
Footnote - Place a marker down. What is the over/under for the first use of nuclear device by Iran (or their proxies)? 10 years? 15 years? At that point, it will not matter as either Israel or the U.S. will turn Iran to glass.
Sigh. It does not matter. It is done. The Republicans in the Senate and House will not approve the deal. The President will veto and the veto will be withheld. Let's move on.
Footnote - Place a marker down. What is the over/under for the first use of nuclear device by Iran (or their proxies)? 10 years? 15 years? At that point, it will not matter as either Israel or the U.S. will turn Iran to glass.
3
Every day, relentlessly, Iran continues it's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Every day, Iran shamelessly proclaims it's intent to destroy the nation of Israel and wipe it from the face of the Earth. Every day Iran continues to let it's centrifuges spin and every day Iran continues to add more and centrifuges.
Iran has never disavowed it's intention to obtain nuclear weapons. It has avowed it's intent to annihilate the Jewish people. Every day Iran continues to expand it's military and political influence throughout the Mid East. Every day, Iran makes it clear that it's nuclear sites will not be accessible to inspectors.
In spite of all this, Mr. Obama ruthlessly attacks any opponents of this agreement.
Mr. Obama totally disregards the safety of Israel. He disregards the safety of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He pooh poohs the suggestion that he could possibly be wrong and he vehemently attacks and castigates opponents casting them as illogical or jeopardizing American credibility.
The alternative to this agreement is not war. Mr. Obama is a fear monger who doubts the ability of America to maintain sanctions against a rogue nation. For more than 70 years we opposed the Soviets until they collapsed. Iran is not the Soviet Union. We have the power and credibility to keep sanctions in place until Iran relents. Mr. Obama has surrendered. Mr. Obama is another Neville Chamberlain. "Nuclear Agreement in Our Time!". No, I don't think so.
Iran has never disavowed it's intention to obtain nuclear weapons. It has avowed it's intent to annihilate the Jewish people. Every day Iran continues to expand it's military and political influence throughout the Mid East. Every day, Iran makes it clear that it's nuclear sites will not be accessible to inspectors.
In spite of all this, Mr. Obama ruthlessly attacks any opponents of this agreement.
Mr. Obama totally disregards the safety of Israel. He disregards the safety of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He pooh poohs the suggestion that he could possibly be wrong and he vehemently attacks and castigates opponents casting them as illogical or jeopardizing American credibility.
The alternative to this agreement is not war. Mr. Obama is a fear monger who doubts the ability of America to maintain sanctions against a rogue nation. For more than 70 years we opposed the Soviets until they collapsed. Iran is not the Soviet Union. We have the power and credibility to keep sanctions in place until Iran relents. Mr. Obama has surrendered. Mr. Obama is another Neville Chamberlain. "Nuclear Agreement in Our Time!". No, I don't think so.
3
Finally, America actually has a president who acts in the American interest, despite endless abuse hurled at him by those who don't.
This agreement is strongly in America's interest. It serves to end America's, indeed any outsider's, pointless, no-win role acting as 24/7 regional gendarme stamping out the firefight of the day among the endlessly quarreling neighbors. Instead, and without forgoing any military option if Iran reneges and tries to build atomic weapons, this agreement actually enhances America's much more vital, long term strategic interest to form and keep a regional balance of power in cooperation with Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, AND Iran; first to crush Daesh, next to end the Syrian and Yemeni civil wars and reconstruct stable, non-sectarian civilian governments in their stead; and finally, to conclude formation of a stable Palestinian state that has secure borders with Israel.
What is actually not in America's national interest is Mr. Netanyahu's endless expansion of Israeli settlements further into the West Bank and consequent provocation and perpetuation of conflict throughout the Mideast. Funny how that real and enduring threat to America's national interest is completely forgotten every time the Republicans start pounding on their war drum.
This agreement is strongly in America's interest. It serves to end America's, indeed any outsider's, pointless, no-win role acting as 24/7 regional gendarme stamping out the firefight of the day among the endlessly quarreling neighbors. Instead, and without forgoing any military option if Iran reneges and tries to build atomic weapons, this agreement actually enhances America's much more vital, long term strategic interest to form and keep a regional balance of power in cooperation with Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, AND Iran; first to crush Daesh, next to end the Syrian and Yemeni civil wars and reconstruct stable, non-sectarian civilian governments in their stead; and finally, to conclude formation of a stable Palestinian state that has secure borders with Israel.
What is actually not in America's national interest is Mr. Netanyahu's endless expansion of Israeli settlements further into the West Bank and consequent provocation and perpetuation of conflict throughout the Mideast. Funny how that real and enduring threat to America's national interest is completely forgotten every time the Republicans start pounding on their war drum.
5
The 'Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015' passed in April makes all of this moot. Republicans can posture for their base and re-election and as a block say no once again and face nothing but pats on the back. Thanks to the Review Act, they hold their vote Obama vetoes and the Agreement goes into effect. Who seriously thinks the republicans in the Senate can get the votes required to override Obama's veto?
This whole thing was settled last April before anyone even knew the final terms when the republican Congress passed the above act. They knew in 2010 and every vote, actions since that they can never get enough votes in the Senate to override a veto. Result they have in fact already approved. This show is just posturing for a base that does not understand the legislative process.
This whole thing was settled last April before anyone even knew the final terms when the republican Congress passed the above act. They knew in 2010 and every vote, actions since that they can never get enough votes in the Senate to override a veto. Result they have in fact already approved. This show is just posturing for a base that does not understand the legislative process.
1
The deal is one-sided, but not as its opponents think. As a former consultant to DOE, DOD, and ACDA on most of the matters covered by this deal, my first reaction was "Wow! Iran got nothing"--a bit of an over-reaction.
But not much of one. Iran gets to keep--if "keep" is the right word--the nuclear infrastructure to which it is entitled as a signatory of the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But what Iran gets to keep is greatly reduced in capabilities (a fraction of its centrifuges) and supplies (a fraction of its uranium stockpiles). Iran also gets the gradual lifting of sanctions as it demonstrates compliance with the deal--the entire point of imposing them in the first place being to prompt negotiations and a deal.
Because facilities for civilian purposes can be used for military purposes, the NPT provides for international inspections of all signatories except those who had acquired nuclear-weapons before the treaty. Iran gets the most intrusive and long-lasting (i.e., permanent) inspection regime ever imposed on an NPT signatory: all phases of the fuel cycle, from mining to waste disposal, and all sites known or suspected. Iran gets one minor limitation, a 24-day delay in inspecting suspected sites--a matter, not of concealment, but of national pride.
The negotiating partners, six of the world's major powers, got virtually everything. By negotiating this deal with them, Iran risks offending them and endangering itself if it betrays it.
But not much of one. Iran gets to keep--if "keep" is the right word--the nuclear infrastructure to which it is entitled as a signatory of the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But what Iran gets to keep is greatly reduced in capabilities (a fraction of its centrifuges) and supplies (a fraction of its uranium stockpiles). Iran also gets the gradual lifting of sanctions as it demonstrates compliance with the deal--the entire point of imposing them in the first place being to prompt negotiations and a deal.
Because facilities for civilian purposes can be used for military purposes, the NPT provides for international inspections of all signatories except those who had acquired nuclear-weapons before the treaty. Iran gets the most intrusive and long-lasting (i.e., permanent) inspection regime ever imposed on an NPT signatory: all phases of the fuel cycle, from mining to waste disposal, and all sites known or suspected. Iran gets one minor limitation, a 24-day delay in inspecting suspected sites--a matter, not of concealment, but of national pride.
The negotiating partners, six of the world's major powers, got virtually everything. By negotiating this deal with them, Iran risks offending them and endangering itself if it betrays it.
66
Thank you, sir, for your common sense.
1
Just what is the "loyal opposition"'s alternative plan? I have heard nothing other than war.
9
Then you haven't been paying attention at all.
Here's a taste: http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/24/5-alternatives-to-the-iran-deal/
It helps to open your eyes and ears.
Here's a taste: http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/24/5-alternatives-to-the-iran-deal/
It helps to open your eyes and ears.
You're not listening. Continue the sanctions is the plan.
This has been Obama's mantra all along. "The only alternative is war."
Problem is, by his own logic he would be justified in giving away EVERYTHING because, after all, "the only alternative is war". And he did give everything away.
A weak defense by a weak president who negotiated a woefully weak deal.
Problem is, by his own logic he would be justified in giving away EVERYTHING because, after all, "the only alternative is war". And he did give everything away.
A weak defense by a weak president who negotiated a woefully weak deal.
6
The argument that diplomacy is better than war assumes that diplomacy prevents war. Yes, the Munich agreement of 1938 prevented war - for about one year.
Diplomacy requires trust. John Kerry says the Iranians don't trust the US government. I wonder how many Americans trust the Iranian government. The inspections regime outlined in the agreement isn't comprehensive enough to prevent cheating. I don't see how this deal is better than no deal at all.
Diplomacy requires trust. John Kerry says the Iranians don't trust the US government. I wonder how many Americans trust the Iranian government. The inspections regime outlined in the agreement isn't comprehensive enough to prevent cheating. I don't see how this deal is better than no deal at all.
4
"I don't see how this deal is better than no deal at all".....Without an agreement Iran is 6 months away from a bomb. With the agreement Iran is 10 years away from a bomb. I don't see how any rational person can believe that no agreement is a better option. Of course if someone just generally hates Obama and is opposed to everything he does.....but that is also not rational.
It's unbelievable what the president has had to endure during his presidency. It's also unbelievable all that he has accomplished in spite of this opposition. I think he will be considered to be one of our very best presidents and history will prove beyond a doubt just how true this is. President Obama is correct about this agreement with Iran and he has also managed to get this country back on its feet again. If the GOP blocks this agreement, we will not only face war with Iran, we will have taken a giant step backward with disastrous repercussions. Our current war has cost us thousands of American lives and billions of dollars. We have stirred up a hornet’s nest in the Middle East which created more enemies and danger than we have ever had to face and our security has never been more at risk. With an intelligent solution at our disposal, does another war seem like a logical step to any sane citizen of the United States?
10
It is time for us in the Jewish community to reconsider our long support of the Democratic party. While this party has represented the so dear to us principle of Tikkun Olam, it's President is now engaged in the most cynical campaign to accuse Israel as a war mongering state. This President who has joined the Europeans in what Churchill would have certainly called the shame; this President who openly supports the Palestinians in a legal process in which 11 families, whose loved ones were murdered by Palestinian terrorists, were awarded millions of dollars compensation; this President who invited Muslim Brotherhood leaders to the White House and supported Mursi; this President who is hiding from Congress and the American people essential parts of the capitulation to Iran document has already caused serious damage to the party, as the number of Republican governors and majorities in both houses show. But he does not have enough. He has a more ambitious goal - to destroy the Middle East, and he has been successful so far, judging from Syria, ISIS, and Iraq. This president is more concerned with building a few apartments in Jerusalem while calling the murder of Jews in Paris random. The Democrats in Congress, and first and foremost Senator Schumer, have one opportunity to do the right thing - kill this deal. When in few years Iran l will test a nuclear device, Obama will no longer be in office, but his naive and irresponsible policies will become obvious.
7
Senator Schumer will fall in line with the president, putting the pressure on Jewish voters to remove him from office in the next election cycle. For someone who touts his name to mean "protector of Israel", he will disappoint.
It is actually time for the Jewish community to reconsider its support for the Israeli apartheid state, and show their support for their home country, the US. You know, the country where they live, and pay taxes, the country which they helped build, the country which gave them refuge after the worst crime in mankind's history. The United States.
Obama is mistakenly believes Iran has a rational strategy, but ignores its irrational ideology which makes it even more dangerous and difficult to understand. It is very baffling how he and Kerry ignore Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's strategy to eliminate Israel in a 416 pg new book called "Palestine" published last week in Tehran. Obama is irrational.
4
Please explain why stronger sanctions would not have resulted in a better deal. Simply because the Russians or Chinese weren't interested, or because the Iranian negotiators smelled a 50 lb. weakling sitting in the State dept. and oval office. The off hand remarks that military intervention is still possible is a joke, and Israel knows that. Our country, never mind the Europeans, will look the other way to avoid seeing transgressions in the deal. A deal "too big" to fail? Sound familiar?
3
"Please explain why stronger sanctions would not have resulted in a better deal".......Stronger sanctions or even continuing the present sanctions require a commitment from the international community, including the positive participation of Russia and China. Since the international community (including Russia and China) think the present agreement is a good one, the sanctions route is no longer an alternative.
I keep getting an impression that most Americans have no clue about the reality of Iran. They seem to liken it to some desert land filled with tents and camels. Would most folks believe that before the 1979 revolution Cadillacs, Buicks and Chevys were built in Iranian auto assembly plants? That Teheran was arguably considered the Paris of the mid-east? Iranians (more properly Persians) are far more sophisticated, educated and resourceful than the average American gives them credit. That they have the government they do is not one entirely of choice. There is no denying that their governing religious body can be a bunch of hard liners. But that is the government. Would America be accurately judged as a nation based on Ted Cruze, Lindsay Graham or Tom Cotton? Our current government would appear to be an Evangelical driven one - basing laws on Biblical interpretation. The scariest thing is that this insane march towards war with Iran is so horribly short-sighted. I fear the results of any campaign against Iran would be counter attacks on the mainland US in some of the larger cities. To assume Iran would just an attack lying down only shows the idiocy. If a bunch of Arabs armed only with box cutters can take down the World Trade Center, imagine for a minute the hell that could be unleashed by Iran
6
Harry Truman became vice-president, then president, largely because of his commission to bring war profiteers to account.
Now war profiteers seem to control at least half of congress and most of Israel.
To heed those voices calling for unilateral action against Iran would be the epitome of careless stupidity. They have been wrong about everything the last 45 years, they are wrong about this.
The only words I want to hear from Cheney, Rumsfeld, etal are: "I am sorry your honor. I throw myself on the mercy of the court."
Now war profiteers seem to control at least half of congress and most of Israel.
To heed those voices calling for unilateral action against Iran would be the epitome of careless stupidity. They have been wrong about everything the last 45 years, they are wrong about this.
The only words I want to hear from Cheney, Rumsfeld, etal are: "I am sorry your honor. I throw myself on the mercy of the court."
7
I support Peace and Diplomacy and I support the deal. It's the best we can get.
It's not this deal or peace it's this deal because the US is substantially weaker because of Republican policy. 14 years of war since 9/11. Spending on hyper security instead of infrastructure and research. An economic meltdown of epic proportions. A military that survives on the indentured servitude of a handful of volunteers backed up by a paid for with debt mercenary army.
The President is only as strong as the country. The US is not the country it was prior to 9/11. We have had devastatingly bad policy and we can no longer negotiate from the kind of strength that the Republican Hawks pretend we still have.
It's not this deal or peace it's this deal because the US is substantially weaker because of Republican policy. 14 years of war since 9/11. Spending on hyper security instead of infrastructure and research. An economic meltdown of epic proportions. A military that survives on the indentured servitude of a handful of volunteers backed up by a paid for with debt mercenary army.
The President is only as strong as the country. The US is not the country it was prior to 9/11. We have had devastatingly bad policy and we can no longer negotiate from the kind of strength that the Republican Hawks pretend we still have.
3
Two things matter: (i) is the President correct that the agreement closes-off all routes to a nuclear bomb - say for at least the next decade, and (ii) will the alternative of "no agreement" produce less bomb and more security in the Middle East and the World? If the answers are "yes" and "no" respectively, both your Houses should support this agreement.
3
Here is my question to the President about the deal. The U.S. froze Iranian Assets as a result of the 1979 Hostage Crisis. Not as a result of the illegal nuclear program. If we were not linking Iran's terrorism to the deal, then why are they getting their 100-150B? Shouldn't that money have been linked to specific peaceful targets throughout the world?
The problem with the deal is not the nuclear, it is the non-nuclear power it now gives Iran throughout the region and the world.
The problem with the deal is not the nuclear, it is the non-nuclear power it now gives Iran throughout the region and the world.
The editorial place Prime Minister Netanyahu on the same level as American hard line neocons. It makes no reference, again, to the fact that Iraq did launch missiles at Israel and sponsored suicide terrorists. Iran is directly responsible for acts of terrorism against Israel. I support the deal, but failure to include these facts proves once more that this editorial board is as much anti-Netanyahu as it is pro-Obama.
1
The argument I hear most for the Agreement is if you do not like the agreement can you come up with something better. The argument of the opponents to the agreement is that this is another Munich.
The Agreement is really an admission that we are defeated. That the time has come to admit we lost. Much like the settlement in January 1973 that ended the Vietnam war by our tacit admission of defeat. We are now admitting that we are unable to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
This is in no way a victory for the US or Obama as the administration would have us believe but rather the acknowledgement that we have failed.
The Agreement is really an admission that we are defeated. That the time has come to admit we lost. Much like the settlement in January 1973 that ended the Vietnam war by our tacit admission of defeat. We are now admitting that we are unable to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
This is in no way a victory for the US or Obama as the administration would have us believe but rather the acknowledgement that we have failed.
3
Let me begin by stating I have been a Democrat for all of my 82 Years & will remain one until I Die.I find the Republican stance on Social issue repugnant & reactionary.I also realize that Republicans are beholding to the religious right, as
Netanyahu is to his, Many Republicans who seek higher office such as the Presidency, must have the religious right's support, and again we find the religious rights support in Israel, essential for Netanyahu staying in power.
Secular people like myself, are pushed to the left as we have no other choice.
The only thing open for us is The New York Times to express our views regarding our Party.
I believe the Obama Administration has been wrong in every decision he and his advisers have made in Foreign Policy,, & I am afraid he has made
a disastrous decision in signing this deal with Iran.
Netanyahu is to his, Many Republicans who seek higher office such as the Presidency, must have the religious right's support, and again we find the religious rights support in Israel, essential for Netanyahu staying in power.
Secular people like myself, are pushed to the left as we have no other choice.
The only thing open for us is The New York Times to express our views regarding our Party.
I believe the Obama Administration has been wrong in every decision he and his advisers have made in Foreign Policy,, & I am afraid he has made
a disastrous decision in signing this deal with Iran.
4
Obama's false argument of a deal or war is laughable. The "Deal" isn't a deal it's a giveaway. We received nothing but threats and empty promises. Iran received sanctions relief which it will use to terrorize its enemies, the USA and Israel and any Sunni muslims that get in it's way. Instead of bringing some stability to the region Obama has succeeded in stacking the deck against stability.Obama wants out of the Middle East and blames the Iraq war for all the problems but that is another false argument. Yes it was a mistake to go to war with Iraq. But the problems in the Middle East go far beyond Iraq. Syria, Libya Yemen, Afghanistan are all in chaos and Iran's fingerprints can be found in many of those conflicts. Let's not kid ourselves we didn't need to make any DEAL, it solves nothing. It is a false argument and does nothing to stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. We will never have inspectors any near the sensitive sites. Obama doesn't have a clue when it comes to foreign policy. He has allowed the world to edge ever closer to conflict by his agenda of appeasement.
5
AIPAC and Bibi won't rest until the US Air Force starts bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. The media is slyly sabotaging Hillary's run for President. By November 2016 she will be either replaced by Sanders or weakened so badly that the GOP will win. If America could elect Boy George, they can easily elect Trump. At least he isn't Caligula...as far as I know!
1
This editorial displays a surprising naivety that certain members of Congress have failed to learn that diplomacy trumps military action even after 14 years of war, thousands of American and Iraqi lives lost, many thousands more people wounded, and billions of tax dollars squandered. How is it you anticipate a different reaction, when these are the same Legislators who have rejected meaningful gun control measures despite the slaughter of twenty plus children at Sandy Hook, and the numerous mass killings before and after; the same folks who reject and continue to oppose access to affordable health care to millions in need; and the same crowd which refuses to acknowledge overwhelming scientific evidence that carbon emissions are causing irreparable damage to our environment. Their’s is not substantive opposition to the Iran proposal based upon thoughtful deliberation and reason, its about denying President Obama a meaningful addition to his legacy. Sadly, this approach has become modern political science 101.
3
If Benjamin Netanyahu believes that he can get a "better deal" than the P5 +1 has negotiated with Iran, then he is free to do so with Israel's foreign blood and treasure on the front lines of diplomacy and war. And all of those Americans who pledge allegiance and fealty to the tiny foreign country Israel ahead of or on par on with or secondary to America are free to join him with their blood and treasure.
America has already tried 60+ years of unprovoked unwarranted covert and overt regime change war against Iran that has put the Iranian people under a military dictator Shah of our choosing and religious autocrats responding to relentless American hostility. Iran, unlike the imperial colonial apartheid rogue Israel, is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nuclear weapons.
Time to engage Iran beginning with this deal followed by a restoration of diplomatic relations. Followed by focusing on the Sunni Muslim Arab dictators and autocrats whose denial of the divine natural equal certain unalienable rights of their people leads to ISIS and al Qaeda. Then on to the Israeli occupation, blockade/siege, exile and 2nd class citizenship that does the same thing to Christian Muslim Arab Palestinian Israelis.
America has already tried 60+ years of unprovoked unwarranted covert and overt regime change war against Iran that has put the Iranian people under a military dictator Shah of our choosing and religious autocrats responding to relentless American hostility. Iran, unlike the imperial colonial apartheid rogue Israel, is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nuclear weapons.
Time to engage Iran beginning with this deal followed by a restoration of diplomatic relations. Followed by focusing on the Sunni Muslim Arab dictators and autocrats whose denial of the divine natural equal certain unalienable rights of their people leads to ISIS and al Qaeda. Then on to the Israeli occupation, blockade/siege, exile and 2nd class citizenship that does the same thing to Christian Muslim Arab Palestinian Israelis.
6
It is becoming more and more clear that the real issue here is Israel. We are digging ourselves deeper into that vast hole. Do we control our own destiny or do they? Americans need to decide.
6
The President may say he finds Netanyahu's concerns to be sincere but I believe Mr. Obama knows better and is only being diplomatic. At least the President called out the war hawks, which is exactly what the folks opposed to this deal are. The President is also correct in saying that the alternative is war. Not just because it would be the only option left if the deal were rejected by congress, but also, it was and is the goal of conservatives. We all remember the inexcusable letter written and signed by a handful of conservative congressmen to the Iranian government in a blatant attempt to sabotage these diplomatic talks. They have wanted war all along. They want the Iran deal to fail just as they wanted Iraq to not meet the requirements imposed on it in 2003 in the lead up to that war.
5
Mr. President,
I voted for you twice. On the subject of Iran, I am regretting that choice. Those in charge in Iran, and likely to be for a long time, are in no way equal to those authoritarians in Moscow or Beijing.
The authoritarians in Moscow or Beijing were ideological authoritarians. The Iranian authoritarians are religious zealots. The fact is their religious zealotry includes the concept that to die via a suicidal act fighting a perceived enemy is a great thing and is rewarded in the afterlife; is a dangerous difference from any comparison with Moscow or Beijing.
This is your fundamental flaw in your analysis.
You keep stating that the agreement you put on the table is the only alternative short of war. I agree. The difference is I seem to understand that the choice is war now when we have an overwhelming advantage or war later when we may not and we could loose an entire American city as a result.
You may buy peace in our time, but at the cost of a much uglier war for Americans maybe not tomorrow, maybe not a couple of years from now, but within a generation.
I voted for you twice. On the subject of Iran, I am regretting that choice. Those in charge in Iran, and likely to be for a long time, are in no way equal to those authoritarians in Moscow or Beijing.
The authoritarians in Moscow or Beijing were ideological authoritarians. The Iranian authoritarians are religious zealots. The fact is their religious zealotry includes the concept that to die via a suicidal act fighting a perceived enemy is a great thing and is rewarded in the afterlife; is a dangerous difference from any comparison with Moscow or Beijing.
This is your fundamental flaw in your analysis.
You keep stating that the agreement you put on the table is the only alternative short of war. I agree. The difference is I seem to understand that the choice is war now when we have an overwhelming advantage or war later when we may not and we could loose an entire American city as a result.
You may buy peace in our time, but at the cost of a much uglier war for Americans maybe not tomorrow, maybe not a couple of years from now, but within a generation.
3
The NY Times Editorial Board seems to endorse the President's argument that the opponents of the Iran deal also were proponents of the Iraq war, and since they were wrong on Iraq they are also wrong on Iran.
Well, leaving aside whether in fact this is a true statement (that the opponents of the Iran deal also all supported the Iraq war), let's examine this argument.
President Obama was wrong on Iraq (in hindsite, he should have pushed much harder to negotiate a continuing American troop presence post 2011); was wrong in ISIS (he dismissed them as "the JV team"); wrong on Syria (did nothing to support the Syrian opposition in its early days, then made empty blustering threats on "red lines" if Assad used chemical weapons -which he did); and was wrong on Libya ("leading from behind", supporting the overthrow of a dictator with absolutely no plans for what happens next).
So NY Times, given that President Obama and his team have been wrong on all these major Middle East issues, its pretty obvious that they must also be wrong in Iran, right?
Well, leaving aside whether in fact this is a true statement (that the opponents of the Iran deal also all supported the Iraq war), let's examine this argument.
President Obama was wrong on Iraq (in hindsite, he should have pushed much harder to negotiate a continuing American troop presence post 2011); was wrong in ISIS (he dismissed them as "the JV team"); wrong on Syria (did nothing to support the Syrian opposition in its early days, then made empty blustering threats on "red lines" if Assad used chemical weapons -which he did); and was wrong on Libya ("leading from behind", supporting the overthrow of a dictator with absolutely no plans for what happens next).
So NY Times, given that President Obama and his team have been wrong on all these major Middle East issues, its pretty obvious that they must also be wrong in Iran, right?
4
Nathanyhu's agenda is mostly striking fear and hatred towards any, Israelis foes. This resonate well with a larger segment of Israeli population who are subjected to his warnings, this is also how he was re-elected.. The American Jews have unconditional loyalty for Israel which is inspiring however they do not question the merit of such decision. " If I am Jewish I must support Israel 's since it faces danger. That is very nobel and uplifting however the danger from the Iran agreement isn't a cause for alarm since Israel is strong enough to protect itself. I support Mr. Obama for his right decision attempting to forge peace with old enemies. One achieves more with honey than with a sting.
3
To be utterly candid, the genesis of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East began with Israel developing and stockpiling these weapons years ago; this without an iota of interference from the U.S. or the International community.
North Korea is currently building nuks with impunity and getting close to putting them on top of medium and then long range missiles. Yet not a word is heard from America after its failed efforts to avert this amazingly threatening outcome.
The Iran deal at the very least affords the possibility of avoiding a repeat failure.
North Korea is currently building nuks with impunity and getting close to putting them on top of medium and then long range missiles. Yet not a word is heard from America after its failed efforts to avert this amazingly threatening outcome.
The Iran deal at the very least affords the possibility of avoiding a repeat failure.
3
Bibi's opposition is the only endorsement of the deal that I needed.
4
Yes, the deal isn't perfect. Yes, the Iranians still have nuclear capability. Yes, there is an inherent risk they will use the money to fund ideologies the west views as terrorist. Yes, yes, yes.
But yes, it will also keep the door open to further negotiations. Yes, it will prevent the hawks of Congress from authorizing yet another attempt at regime change ....and we know how good we are at that. And perhaps most importantly, yes, it will allow Iran's moderates to take another step forward without the catastrophic events of war.
Few people seem to remember that Iran does have a moderate movement, one that wants to see them re-emerge into the modern world as a proactive player. Once leading the way in modernization, the ayatollahs have quashed much of that progress. But it's there. under the surface, and struggling to emerge. The deal opens that door a crack wider and this is a good thing.
Let's try looking at the gestalt instead of one tiny sliver. We would do better with that tactic than the ones we've used in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, it will save lives: American, Israeli, and lots of Iranian.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
But yes, it will also keep the door open to further negotiations. Yes, it will prevent the hawks of Congress from authorizing yet another attempt at regime change ....and we know how good we are at that. And perhaps most importantly, yes, it will allow Iran's moderates to take another step forward without the catastrophic events of war.
Few people seem to remember that Iran does have a moderate movement, one that wants to see them re-emerge into the modern world as a proactive player. Once leading the way in modernization, the ayatollahs have quashed much of that progress. But it's there. under the surface, and struggling to emerge. The deal opens that door a crack wider and this is a good thing.
Let's try looking at the gestalt instead of one tiny sliver. We would do better with that tactic than the ones we've used in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, it will save lives: American, Israeli, and lots of Iranian.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
3
A long time ago, someone far more talented at diplomacy than I taught me that you catch a lot more flies with sugar than you do with salt. Clearly, President Obama, the professor with all of the answers and a smart-aleck delivery, wasn't in the same classroom that day. That teacher also instructed us to be skeptical of anyone who speaks in absolutes...only, never, always. Now on the cusp of 71, I have found these tenants to hold true the majority of of the time. And, I've heard enough from this president to know that his way of being hasn't changed things.
1
It wasn't only warmongers likes Mr. Netanyahu and the Bush Administration who pushed for war with Iraq in 2002. So did the New York Times by supporting it.
I am still baffled, even today, by that decision of the Times, knowing the circumstantial evidence that existed at the time that Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear program.
In the end the Times had to apologize to its readers.
How much better, it would have been, if it had fought not to go to war in the first place.
I am still baffled, even today, by that decision of the Times, knowing the circumstantial evidence that existed at the time that Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear program.
In the end the Times had to apologize to its readers.
How much better, it would have been, if it had fought not to go to war in the first place.
1
It's unbelievable what the president has had to endure during his presidency. It's also unbelievable all that he has accomplished in spite of all the opposition he had to face. I think President Obama will be considered to be one of our very best presidents and history will prove beyond a doubt just how true this is. The president is correct about this agreement with Iran and he has also managed to get this country back on its feet again. If the GOP blocks this agreement, we will not only face war with Iran, we will have taken a giant step backward with disastrous repercussions. Our current war has cost us thousands of American lives and billions of dollars. We have stirred up a hornet’s nest in the Middle East which created more enemies and danger than we have ever had to face, and our security has never been more at risk. With an intelligent solution at our disposal, does another war seem like a logical step to any sane citizen of the United States?
Members of Congress who votes against the Iran Deal are essentially putting Israel's interest over America's interest. The day America goes to war again in the ME will be day these people go down in history as traitors of the nation. Wake up, America.
3
It's amazing how many international security, foreign affairs and negotiating experts we have who submit anti-Obama comments. If we just sent them to Iran surely they would cower in fear and give us everything that we want.
The Editors make an important point: Netanyahu and AIPAC were dead wrong about invading Iraq. Iran---Israel's mortal enemy in the region---emerged as the real winner from that war.
Both entities should be expected to acknowledge these realities before they're allowed to issue any further advice to the chicken hawks who populate the US congress.
Both entities should be expected to acknowledge these realities before they're allowed to issue any further advice to the chicken hawks who populate the US congress.
1
One the ads is from American Security Initiative and guess who owns the Board of Directors. All has been:
SEN. NORM COLEMAN (R-MN)
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CT)
SEN. EVAN BAYH (D-IN)
SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA)
None of them has credibility and all were chicken hawks.
SEN. NORM COLEMAN (R-MN)
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CT)
SEN. EVAN BAYH (D-IN)
SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA)
None of them has credibility and all were chicken hawks.
1
How could anyone dismiss as empty the decades of threats and hatred which Iran has so clearly spewed? How could anyone dismiss the actions of this terrorist country? The thousands of American soldiers who were killed or maimed by Iranian actions surely cannot dismiss those actions. The rockets that fly into Israel remind Israelies of the meaning of Iran. Thinking that a "deal," negotiated by people who lie as often as the sun rises, somehow mitigates reality is dangerous.
1
We might or might not doubt Prime Minister Netanyahu's "sincerity" in opposing the P5+1 Agreement with Iran, but nobody should doubt the illegitimacy of his Government's partisan interference in American domestic affairs.
Examining the GOP's dutiful obeisance to Likud's bidding, one finds nary an articulated alternative to this draft Agreement. On the issue at stake, the GOP is better aligned with Iran's Revolutionary Guard then with reality. This is par for the right-wing course that has already beaten its grim, well-tested path through Iraq.
What we have here is a classic clash of world views; one fearful and pessimistic, the other hopeful and optimistic. Peace was never built on fearful pessimism. If we could, we might ask such world-famous peaceniks as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan about this.
As voters, we are now responsible for resisting a GOP-neocon White House recapture in 2017, which would surely manufacture "intelligence" to "prove" Iranian non-compliance with the pact, just as the G.W. Bush Administration did with Iraq's fantasy WMDs in 2003. That drum-beating ended well, did it not?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Examining the GOP's dutiful obeisance to Likud's bidding, one finds nary an articulated alternative to this draft Agreement. On the issue at stake, the GOP is better aligned with Iran's Revolutionary Guard then with reality. This is par for the right-wing course that has already beaten its grim, well-tested path through Iraq.
What we have here is a classic clash of world views; one fearful and pessimistic, the other hopeful and optimistic. Peace was never built on fearful pessimism. If we could, we might ask such world-famous peaceniks as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan about this.
As voters, we are now responsible for resisting a GOP-neocon White House recapture in 2017, which would surely manufacture "intelligence" to "prove" Iranian non-compliance with the pact, just as the G.W. Bush Administration did with Iraq's fantasy WMDs in 2003. That drum-beating ended well, did it not?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
3
Nothing has been accomplished in favor of the USA by the president's Iran deal. This is a give back or perhaps a "holding out of the olive branch" by none other than "you guessed it" Mr. I apologize for America. This has been a significant win however for Iran. The other thing that can truly be said is we can hear a very loud whine coming from Obma. Would you like some Lighvan cheese to go with that Whine Mr. President?
3
Perhaps you should outline your solution to the problem then.
I am all for a deal but regrettably we had inept negotiators on our team against hardliners. The President, Sec. Kerry, Wendy Sherman and our Energy Sec. all come from academic and government backgrounds. They have no real world hands on deal making experience. They come from the world of civil service and ivory towers and were no match for the Mullahs in the Persian bazaar. Iran said jump and we responded how high. They offered to sell us their carpet for $100.00 and our response was would you take $99.00. That's how our amateur negotiators with their naïve negotiating skills came to making this very bad deal and our children will pay the price.
2
And the endorsements by the diplomatic corps of past administrations is an indication of inept negotiations and naivety? What exactly are the conditions that you would feel fair for a negotiation or are American dictates the way of the world?
First we should have tied in giving them billions with the stopping of their terror activities. Even if they get caught cheating they get to keep their billions so we have built up their terror machine, infrastructure and economy and got nothing in return. Iran is laughing all the way to the bank.
Secondly we agreed to inspections and sanctions snap back that don't have teeth. What insanity.
In signing this deal we are digging our own grave and have everything to lose while they win on all points. Iran can wait us out 10 years having 150 billion to spend on terror. In the interim Europeans, China and Russia invest in the Iran economy while they wait to get their bomb. Whose side is our President and his negotiators working for? Are we so stupid to buy into believing that this is a good deal or the best deal we could have gotten. There is something rotten in the White House that is throwing America under the bus.
Secondly we agreed to inspections and sanctions snap back that don't have teeth. What insanity.
In signing this deal we are digging our own grave and have everything to lose while they win on all points. Iran can wait us out 10 years having 150 billion to spend on terror. In the interim Europeans, China and Russia invest in the Iran economy while they wait to get their bomb. Whose side is our President and his negotiators working for? Are we so stupid to buy into believing that this is a good deal or the best deal we could have gotten. There is something rotten in the White House that is throwing America under the bus.
President Obama is, as they say, "on the right side of history," as most peace-makers usually are. The solipsistic narrative being spun, perhaps inadvertently by Mr. Obama as well, is that this is solely an American deal. As you point out, and President Obama needs to emphasize, this was really the new 21st century diplomacy negotiated by the international community consisting of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany, the P5+1, and since approved by the entire 15 members of that body. This was no solo, Neville Chamberlain, moment as many opponents are spinning. That is why with a Congressional rejection of this "deal," and there will be no other, "We will," as Mr. Obama said, "have lost something more precious — America’s credibility as a leader of diplomacy." Most importantly to me, however, as an American of Jewish background from a Holocaust family, Congress will have unleashed a nuclear arms race in the world's most volatile region as Iran completes its nuclear weapons by Chanukah with the Saudis racing to catch up, has sanctions lifted by most countries, and we are left isolated with Israel now truly nearer the "oven door" and an Armageddon of unimaginable proportions confronting us. This is the ultimate insanity of a Congressional "No" vote on the Iran deal.
4
Stand by the president, our major allies, and the numerous Israeli military leaders who support this negotiation.
6
Some really great points on both sides from reading the comments. Saying we have only 2 options is too simplistic. Doing a bad deal though is not really in our best interest. No deal sometimes is better than a bad deal. This does not mean we have to go to war, but we need to prepare ourselves for a nuclear Iran. If you look at the ruling Sunni class in many of Iran's neighbors what do they think? Should every country in the Middle East be allowed to have a nuclear weapon? What happens if every country in the Middle East gets a nuclear weapon? Where do we draw the line on which country deserves one? Not an easy thing to think about. Also, at a minimum why can't we get our hostages released? That seems like a no-brainer. I think Obama wanted something much better but you can't give away the house to settle a neighbor dispute.
1
Thanks for your service and taking an interest in this problem involving the whole world. I am qualified in submarines and come from a time of stand-off policies and actions against the USSR, a former nuclear threat but now a partner in the securing and testing of our nuclear stockpiles (although there is some chest beating going on now). Negotiations was the answer. There was an article in the Times a day or two ago regarding the buy-in by the Arab states in the Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, for the President's agreement. Oman was instrumental in the backchannels with Iran. Also Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
I have a steely but comfortable hope for my grandkids. Give Iran a chance to join the world community and have as screwed-up of a symbiotic economy tied to the rest of the world as we do.
I have a steely but comfortable hope for my grandkids. Give Iran a chance to join the world community and have as screwed-up of a symbiotic economy tied to the rest of the world as we do.
This accord gives Iran hundreds of millions of dollars. This accord allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons which can be delivered to U.S. soil. This accord allows Iran to buy weapons of war. This accord creates a boom for the military industrial complex. Perhaps supporters of this deal should brush up on critical thinking and step away from their irrational phobia of persons who might not agree with them. The stench of hatred is overwhelming.
2
I'm sick and tired of the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle. Politicians are full time campaigners these days. They care more about their party getting elected or re-elected than they do about what we really want and need. This President has time and time again acted like the majority of the population agree with him when they clearly don't or they wouldn't have elected his opposition in droves to serve us in Congress. He was elected by the people and for the people. Our Congress represents us. We elected them to represent us. Does that mean nothing anymore? And I'm not just singling him out. This Congress does absolutely nothing to see him half way. Between Obama likening Republicans to the Ayatollah and Huckabee likening Obama to Hilter, I have no faith in our leadership anymore. I'm beginning to understand why so many people like Donald Trump now.
A BAD deal is a BAD deal and no words can fix it.
5
Republicans have refused to negotiate with Obama or any Democrat for many years now.
They can't even negotiate amongst themselves to get bills through a Republican controlled Senate and House!
And we are supposed to believe that some how they can negotiate with Iran?
===
as for Netanyahu:
he told us in 1992 that Iran was 3-5 years away from getting a bomb.
he said the same in 1995 in his book "Fighting Terrorism"
in 2002 he testified to our Congress that Iran had centrifuges the size of washing machines
in 2009 he told American politicians that Iran had the capability to make one bomb
Let's not forget the cartoonish drawing of an Iranian nuclear bomb he presented to the UN in 2012, when he told us they were less than a year away from the bomb.
They can't even negotiate amongst themselves to get bills through a Republican controlled Senate and House!
And we are supposed to believe that some how they can negotiate with Iran?
===
as for Netanyahu:
he told us in 1992 that Iran was 3-5 years away from getting a bomb.
he said the same in 1995 in his book "Fighting Terrorism"
in 2002 he testified to our Congress that Iran had centrifuges the size of washing machines
in 2009 he told American politicians that Iran had the capability to make one bomb
Let's not forget the cartoonish drawing of an Iranian nuclear bomb he presented to the UN in 2012, when he told us they were less than a year away from the bomb.
11
President Obama's opposition is not Netanyahu, nor is it the Republican caucus; it is public apathy and a press that continues to present either as worthy of serious consideration despite the Iraq war fiasco.
4
Obama is right--diplomacy over war. The present destabilization of the Middle East would pale should the US foolishly attack the peoples of Iran
7
The reason why the Iraq war has turned out to be a catastrophic mistake is because our president withdrew all of our troops. Say what you will about whether or not it was a good idea to go in, but you can't change the fact that things were goin quite well before our president recklessly pulled out leaving a vacuum that ISIS and Iran have now filled.
President Obama's statesmanship and a nuclear settlement with Iran offer hope for the future of mankind. Let's not be afraid to turn the page from "world's only superpower" to a world of effective international diplomacy.
7
What are the options? Let's take a look:
1. Without the deal, Iran returns to their currently paused program and will have nuclear capabilities in a matter of months.
2. If we maintain or increase sanctions, we will go it alone. Our partners (in the deal) have already sent representatives to to re-start trading with Iran. Unilateral sanctions on our part will merely shift trade from U. S. corporations to our "allies".
3. A military attack on Iran's nuclear sites merely pushed it back: two-to-three years if by Israel, and four-to-five years by the U.S. This deal puts it back ten-to-fifteen years. Israel already has--but doesn't admit--much more nuclear firepower than Iran anyway.
It's not a perfect deal; but, it is the best of several bad options and, perhaps doing nothing would be the worst of the worst. Two former Israeli Intelligence chiefs have said that Netanyahu is wrong, and that a U. S. departure from it would leave Israel as the loser.
Politically, Netanyahu is merely fanning the flames of the War-Hawks in the Likud Party. And, the GOP is kissing-up to Israel to gain political ground and continue to obstruct Obama.
So what do they care if they are allowing Politics to trump (no pun intended) National Security, huh!
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
1. Without the deal, Iran returns to their currently paused program and will have nuclear capabilities in a matter of months.
2. If we maintain or increase sanctions, we will go it alone. Our partners (in the deal) have already sent representatives to to re-start trading with Iran. Unilateral sanctions on our part will merely shift trade from U. S. corporations to our "allies".
3. A military attack on Iran's nuclear sites merely pushed it back: two-to-three years if by Israel, and four-to-five years by the U.S. This deal puts it back ten-to-fifteen years. Israel already has--but doesn't admit--much more nuclear firepower than Iran anyway.
It's not a perfect deal; but, it is the best of several bad options and, perhaps doing nothing would be the worst of the worst. Two former Israeli Intelligence chiefs have said that Netanyahu is wrong, and that a U. S. departure from it would leave Israel as the loser.
Politically, Netanyahu is merely fanning the flames of the War-Hawks in the Likud Party. And, the GOP is kissing-up to Israel to gain political ground and continue to obstruct Obama.
So what do they care if they are allowing Politics to trump (no pun intended) National Security, huh!
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
10
The western powers including China have some gall to demand Iran never get nukes while we sit on thousands. Those who marched our nation into Iraq, one of the worst military blunders in American history, should be the first to sign up their sons and daughters for the war they desire. We survived "mutually assured destruction" with Russia and will do the same in the Middle East. The deal starts us on a path toward peace that has alluded the Middle East since Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld "civilized" the locals.
6
Some of those who believe the US can easily defeat Iran with "surgical strikes" also believed that we could win the Vietnam War if we only we were willing to more vigorously bomb the country -- as we demonstrated our ability to do in Germany and Japan in World War II. The fact is that our nuclear arsenal is more than adequate to eliminate not only Iran, but an entire continent. Is that where Congressional Republicans want to take our national security?
13
To save the planet, they will nuke it.
In one way, Obama's Iran policy is similar to Bush's Iraq policy. Both had great fear of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Bush made a huge mistake in deciding to go to war over non-existent WMD. Obama is far overrating the peril represented by an Iranian nuclear bomb -- which appears not to be near completion, is primitive compared to the weapons that everyone knows Israel possesses, and has no specific use except against Israel, which would be suicidal. Of course, there is always the unknown and there is little to be lost in signing a treaty. So it's hard to argue with Obama's actions even though motivated by similar beliefs held by the Bush administration.
6
Nuking Jerusalem would constitute obliterating the third holiest place on the planet to Muslims.
A mind-set that unnecessarily cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives. Let's not let history repeat itself on this one.
6
How arrogant. This president is the prince of the self-serving false dichotomy.
Either this deal -- this exact deal, with all the flaws in its provisions and in the process that forced it across the finish line -- or war. No other option. No middle ground.
Such as, for example, a better deal?
That would suggest this president were fallible and subject to the judgment of others, which is of course not canon.
Please see below for accusations that my disagreement with the president makes me a racist.
Either this deal -- this exact deal, with all the flaws in its provisions and in the process that forced it across the finish line -- or war. No other option. No middle ground.
Such as, for example, a better deal?
That would suggest this president were fallible and subject to the judgment of others, which is of course not canon.
Please see below for accusations that my disagreement with the president makes me a racist.
4
Aha - so if only you had personally been at the negotiations you could have exacted just ONE more concession, that magical unicorn of a "better deal" and clearly you (or your imaginary AIPAC allies) would have been better at negotiating than what the combined professional negotiators of France, UK, China, US and Russia achieved during 2 years of negotiations. The "better deal" meme is just a weak excuse for the "we want war now to fill our coffers" faction and "to make Bibi happy, who wants the US TO FIGHT ALL his wars."
Today is the date that Truman dropped an atomic bomb on Japan. In these intervening years since then the world's leaders have escalated to Mutual Assured Destruction and back to (a now reasonable?) 16000 or so nuclear weapons. To the point of holding the Iranians responsible for holding back on developing a nuclear bomb I say let's have the agreement. I have not seen anyone mention the elephant in the room nor heard an argument toward ridding the world of nuclear weapons altogether, unfortunately. The elephant is China, Russia, England, France, and the US holding on to the distorted notion that these governments are going to keep order. Where is the intelligence for this? A child might lead us better, but, at least we are still talking about curbing one more country's appetite for war.
70 years ago our childish leader decided it was OK to unleash nuclear war. Had Truman listened to better intelligence he might have stayed his hand; instead, he smilingly believed that his new weapons would end war. How long before our knowledge and culture leads us away from such folly?
70 years ago our childish leader decided it was OK to unleash nuclear war. Had Truman listened to better intelligence he might have stayed his hand; instead, he smilingly believed that his new weapons would end war. How long before our knowledge and culture leads us away from such folly?
2
I don't disagree, but another view is that nuclear weapons are the most successful tools of peace in history. There has not been a global war since 1945, despite the 20th century being the stage for massive destabilizing transformations and ideological conflicts. Without the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, Soviet -US-Sino relations would likely have been a bloody rampage. As weird and perverse as it sounds, hydrogen bombs may be history's greatest peacemakers.
Trenchant? That is precisely what it should be. President Obama owes the Republican and American Jewish opposition nothing given the tactics they have employed to kill the Agreement with Iran to halt their nuclear ambitions. In what other sovereign nation would its leaders invited a foreign government to their country to mount an offensive against their president or prime minister? Has England, France, China, Russia? In bringing Benjamin Netanyahu to the podium of our congressional stage to rant as he did against the negotiations that were underway, and before any Agreement was reached was heresy. That a majority, if not all, of our congressional leaders are indebted to the money dropped in their coffers to buy their alliance is sickening, but true. President Obama made his case clearly and impressively in his speech at American University. He echoed President Kennedy's call to pursue peace and not war.
26
"President Obama owes the Republican and American Jewish opposition nothing given the tactics they have employed to kill the Agreement with Iran to halt their nuclear ambitions"
Perhaps its precisely their tactics we should have pursued, since Obama utterly failed in halting Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Like many commenters here, JAS is focused on his/her personal hatred for Netanyahu and other critics of the deal, rather than the strengths/weaknesses of the deal and an honest open debate. Like Obama and the NYT Ed Board, this and many other deal supporters' "tactic" is to personally attack and attempt to silence the critics rather than engage in debate. To wit - I've noticed that the NYT moderator has not printed any of my comments that offer an opposing viewpoint, and probably won't print this one.
Perhaps its precisely their tactics we should have pursued, since Obama utterly failed in halting Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Like many commenters here, JAS is focused on his/her personal hatred for Netanyahu and other critics of the deal, rather than the strengths/weaknesses of the deal and an honest open debate. Like Obama and the NYT Ed Board, this and many other deal supporters' "tactic" is to personally attack and attempt to silence the critics rather than engage in debate. To wit - I've noticed that the NYT moderator has not printed any of my comments that offer an opposing viewpoint, and probably won't print this one.
President Obama is right to defend this landmark deal. It serves the cause of nuclear nonproliferation, in that it shows that countries that are thinking of developing nuclear weapons will face stiff opposition, but that the conflict can be resolved through diplomacy and negotiations, short of devastating wars.
The deal has strengthened the moderates in Iran and has weakened the hardliners. The hardliners that backed the nuclear program regardless of the cost to the country have lost ground and the moderates who decided to reach a negotiated settlement have won. This victory will have serious repercussions in future Iranian politics and will put an end to the dominance of the hardliners.
The deal has weakened the warmongers in America who for the past few decades had opted for force ahead of diplomacy. Their legacy has produced the rise of the terrorists and a number of failed states. President Obama’s triumph may persuade more people to turn to diplomacy in resolving the Middle East’s complex problems rather than shoot from the hip.
Another important gain is that if Congress approves the bill it will show who rules America. AIPAC and hardline neocons had persuaded themselves and many others that they had the final say on US foreign policy. They have thrown everything against the deal, but the success of the deal will show that although the Israeli lobby is very powerful, still the Americans are the boss in their country. It will enhance US position in the Middle East.
The deal has strengthened the moderates in Iran and has weakened the hardliners. The hardliners that backed the nuclear program regardless of the cost to the country have lost ground and the moderates who decided to reach a negotiated settlement have won. This victory will have serious repercussions in future Iranian politics and will put an end to the dominance of the hardliners.
The deal has weakened the warmongers in America who for the past few decades had opted for force ahead of diplomacy. Their legacy has produced the rise of the terrorists and a number of failed states. President Obama’s triumph may persuade more people to turn to diplomacy in resolving the Middle East’s complex problems rather than shoot from the hip.
Another important gain is that if Congress approves the bill it will show who rules America. AIPAC and hardline neocons had persuaded themselves and many others that they had the final say on US foreign policy. They have thrown everything against the deal, but the success of the deal will show that although the Israeli lobby is very powerful, still the Americans are the boss in their country. It will enhance US position in the Middle East.
14
This is the worst treaty ever negotiated in the history of mankind. How can anyone trust Iran based upon its prior actions. Chucky Schumer and many others will lose their bid for reelection due to this treaty. Most of the Jewish voters will vote straight Republican because of this poorly negotiated treaty. Obama still thinks himself as some kind of leader. Some leader.
1
Actually most American Jews want congress to pass the treaty.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/IranSurvey
http://www.jewishjournal.com/IranSurvey
1
Here is one Jewish voter who supports the treaty.
I think Congress should give this deal a chance. However, I also agree with Richard Haass, that we ought to test Iran very early regarding inspections of suspected sites.
1
Should one understand that Mr. Obama miraculously got this deal on the last minute before Iran decided to "threaten American troops in Iraq with Shiite militias, threaten Israel with rocket attacks by Hezbollah"? I believe this has been happening for years. And the whole rhetoric about this deal being the only option to war is just that: a well crafted rhetoric. I'm not in favor of war, but I'm certainly in favor of secure diplomatic deals, which may not be the case, since even officials in charge seem to ignore many details of the document that remains secret for the most part. The real case is Mr. Obama's need to make his "Nobel Peace" come true, justifying this and other "profecies."
2
You speak of the Iraq War as if it were over. It rages on worse now than ever and it is all a US choice. What? Only six American flags behind the president. Why so few?
3
The prior administration took the others home.
1
Let's make this clear. Every republican who cries for war muse send his/her children to war with Iran in combat role. No more paper pushing jobs in fortefied green zones. Let's see how many show the guts if they can be on receiving end!
10
The concerted attack by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israeli sympathizers in the United States against an American President and his foreign policy is unprecedented. It is similar in some respects to the policy of the German government and its sympathizers against President Franklin Roosevelt and his foreign policy in the run-up to World War II.
16
For the past 40 or so years I worked on various Middle East issues, mostly in the Persian Gulf region, and mostly involving US national security interests. I learned a very long time ago not to put much stock in the fulminations of Middle Eastern political leaders, as these typically were intended for the ears of their citizenry. What was said in private bilateral and multilateral discussions were what really mattered.
What I find most problematic with the hyperbolic comments by PM Netanyahu concerning the Iranian leaders and its population, such as their being messianic and suicidal, is that he repeats these same inanities to other foreign leaders and audiences. I don't for a minute think he actually believes these accusations, but it appears he may be doing so in order to one day be able to use them to justify some radical action against Iran, such as unilateral military strikes. War with Iran wouldn't stay in Iran, but would quickly escalate to heretofore unseen violence throughout the region.
For example, the President was correct to observe that Israel would find itself the target of hundreds, if not thousands, of Hezbollah rockets capable of reaching every part of Israel. This very real scenario would make Netanyahu appear as the one who is suicidal. How would Israel respond to such as existential threat? Israeli nuclear weapons directed at Iran, Lebanon, and any other perceived threat?
What I find most problematic with the hyperbolic comments by PM Netanyahu concerning the Iranian leaders and its population, such as their being messianic and suicidal, is that he repeats these same inanities to other foreign leaders and audiences. I don't for a minute think he actually believes these accusations, but it appears he may be doing so in order to one day be able to use them to justify some radical action against Iran, such as unilateral military strikes. War with Iran wouldn't stay in Iran, but would quickly escalate to heretofore unseen violence throughout the region.
For example, the President was correct to observe that Israel would find itself the target of hundreds, if not thousands, of Hezbollah rockets capable of reaching every part of Israel. This very real scenario would make Netanyahu appear as the one who is suicidal. How would Israel respond to such as existential threat? Israeli nuclear weapons directed at Iran, Lebanon, and any other perceived threat?
12
"Mr. Netanyahu and other opponents have mounted a multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign,"
How may of those $millions are available to campaign against American initiatives because, thanks to the American taxpayers' enforced annual gift to Israel of over $3 billions, they didn't have to be spent elsewhere?
How may of those $millions are available to campaign against American initiatives because, thanks to the American taxpayers' enforced annual gift to Israel of over $3 billions, they didn't have to be spent elsewhere?
11
China doesn't care if Iran has nuclear weapons any more than they care that North Korea has them. Israel is jut another middle eastern Nation, except without the energy resources they covet and therefore useless to them.
How long can we expect this ascending global power to follow our lead or even consider our opinion when we behave this way? The answer is not very long. To them, the era of American primacy is over.
Congress will accelerate this perception by rejecting this deal and illustrating that America, represented by it's President and Chief Executive, has "no face" when it comes to the world stage.
Do the Republicans realize the damage being done to our credibility? This is not something you regain easily if ever.
How long can we expect this ascending global power to follow our lead or even consider our opinion when we behave this way? The answer is not very long. To them, the era of American primacy is over.
Congress will accelerate this perception by rejecting this deal and illustrating that America, represented by it's President and Chief Executive, has "no face" when it comes to the world stage.
Do the Republicans realize the damage being done to our credibility? This is not something you regain easily if ever.
11
It appears that neither republicans, nor Mr Netanyahu, nor their followers realize that if this agreement is rejected Iran will consider it time for full steam ahead, the hardliners in Iran will win. Furthermore, China and Russia will move in on all western interests in the area, not just those of the US, but those of the major European countries also.
This deal is important and should pass. It will show that there is a way without warfare. We must take that chance. All the major European countries are waiting at the border to trade with Iran. If this deal does not go through, they may will decide to ignore the US sanctions. That will create even a worse split in world powers.
Finally, this deal must go through to demonstrate to Mr Netanyahu that Israel does not rule the US, we, the people of the US do.
This deal is important and should pass. It will show that there is a way without warfare. We must take that chance. All the major European countries are waiting at the border to trade with Iran. If this deal does not go through, they may will decide to ignore the US sanctions. That will create even a worse split in world powers.
Finally, this deal must go through to demonstrate to Mr Netanyahu that Israel does not rule the US, we, the people of the US do.
R padilla. The 'no face' is already there as a result of Libya, Syria, the red line, etc. The current administration has shown we do not back up HIS own words. He is the joke.
1. It will be difficult, if not impossible to resume sanctions if Iran cheats, we will never wrangle the votes necessary again.
2. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to make sure they don't cheat, we must give them notice ahead of time to check a military facility, for instance.
3. Putting off for a certain amount of time their ability to get the bomb is simply going to make a mess out of the world 15-20 years from now, which will...
mean that a military option will likely happen then, all for the sake of Obama's legacy and appeasing the "military Industrial complex" haters today...
2. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to make sure they don't cheat, we must give them notice ahead of time to check a military facility, for instance.
3. Putting off for a certain amount of time their ability to get the bomb is simply going to make a mess out of the world 15-20 years from now, which will...
mean that a military option will likely happen then, all for the sake of Obama's legacy and appeasing the "military Industrial complex" haters today...
3
As a Vietnam combat veteran, I am one of those anti MIC haters - Thank you.
Translation: War now, war always, war forever.
Sorry, but that goes against what the average American stands for.
Sorry, but that goes against what the average American stands for.
Disastrously,President Obama has squandered his own credibility with his overuse of misleading if not dishonest statements on numerous issues.
Now, on this critical issue. why should anyone believe him?
Now, on this critical issue. why should anyone believe him?
5
How come the president's critics like jck never provide examples?
It's time the left realizes this President is an egomaniac. The alternative is not war. That ship sailed in Obama's first term while he sat idly by and did nothing. If you listened to what the great divider said 12 months ago, that guy would never have agreed to this deal. Saving face, and throwing the enemies under the bus on your way out the door. Only in this case, it's not clear who your enemies are.
3
Since only .75% of Americans have volunteered to put on an American military uniform since 9/11/01 and been ground to emotional mental physical dust by multiple deployments in service to a forever war misguided strategy, war is certainly not an alternative.
America's enemies are Sunni Muslim Arab nation state dictators and autocrats and a Zionist Jewish ethnic sectarian supremacist nation state of Israel and it's leader. They are the sources of the unrest that created Al Qaeda and ISIS.
America's enemies are Sunni Muslim Arab nation state dictators and autocrats and a Zionist Jewish ethnic sectarian supremacist nation state of Israel and it's leader. They are the sources of the unrest that created Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Gee, how did I know that the NYT would love this speech even before I read the article? This is the same NYT which barely noted the rally of 12,000 protesters attended by world recognized figures in Times square in the middle of rush hour - not newsworthy enough for them. So Obama accuses the republican opposition to this capitulation as being in line with those screaming "death to America" in Iran. Wow.... how appalling!!!! The reason this capitulation to Iran is so bad is because it basically takes any serious enforcement off the table. Iran knows... as do all of us that military action will NEVER be taken by the US. I am not a war monger who thinks war will solve anything, but certainly reassuring your enemies that they have nothing to fear is not the way to influence them. Obama shows his hand to easily...and it is a hand full of Jokers. Discussions about the Iraq war are irrelevant. I know Bush was a boob... I thought so then and I thought so now. Possibly he was even a war criminal. Netanyahu may have supported the war idea at the time as well. But is that relevant to the status of a different enemy, with different stated aims, and actual evidence of their desire to harm us and our allies (yes friends, Israel is still an ally)? So if Obama wants to reassure us about the quality of this arrangement, he best do it by reviewing the merits of the agreement and not by simply spouting his fear of military engagement and insulting those with rational doubts.
7
Obama's speech was condescending but more importantly his premise which is basically "prevent Iran from getting the bomb at any cost" deliberately misstates the basis of the counterargument which is basically "prevent Iran from getting the resources needed to support enemies of the US altogether". The bomb is a defensive weapon - "don't try to wipe us out or we'll use the bomb" - it can't be used as an offensive weapon because the isotope fingerprint of the device would point to the offender no matter who was responsible for detonating it. On the other hand, money can be used for an almost unlimited amount of conventional weapons and unconventional tactics. No thank you Mr. President.
4
Obama came across as quite articulate with valid points in favor of he deal, the most compelling being an alternative. Policies of non negotiation and intractability serve only to insure nothing will happen. It seems most rogue nations survive sanctions. Let's go for this and simply assess its success in a few months.
5
“You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.” Churchill, spoken in reference to arch-appeaser Neville Chamberlain.
5
Iran is not and never will be Nazi Germany nor the Soviet Union nor Imperial Japan. Churchill was a white supremacist imperial colonial bigot who played a key role in creating the current boiling ethnic sectarian cauldron in the Middle East.
America has been at covert and overt regime change war with Iran for 60+ years.
America has been at covert and overt regime change war with Iran for 60+ years.
I read every word of President Obama's speech and it reminds me of past diplomatic negotiations and agreements of the most serious issues. My conservative friends beat me to it by sending conservative news articles saying that Mr. Obama said Iranians are "kidding" about their "death to America, death to the great Satan" rhetoric. A google search took me through more than twenty articles, blog posts, and rehashes conflating Charles Krauthammer's and a Foc newspersons statements. There was nothing about the speech or about the proposed agreement between the world and Iran. Mr. Obama handled the Israel objection about as well as possible when you have a partner as intransigent as Israel seems to be with their non-negotiation stance. I am sixty five and Israel shows no signs of risking a true set of negotiations with others in the region. With our support it is not worth any more of my time thinking about a settlement of issues between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestine is a lost cause as is Syria. President Obama is right to compare Republican opponents of the deal with hardliners on the other side. The right has a clear preference for military action. Shock and awe I suppose. Imagine Iran after that and trying to deal with them regardless of what sanctions the rest of the world won't consider again. Fifty years of my consideration and the situation is worse than ever. Bigger military budgets and more of a readiness to use force. The beat goes on.
6
I am glad we are debating a nuclear deal on the anniversary of Hiroshima Bombing. Regardless who the enemy is and was, no matter what the circumstances were and are, that single day of death and destruction from a nuclear bomb should remind all of mankind what we want to walk away from - both Iranians and Israelis, no one needs nuclear weapons. A nuclear free world, although a dream now, should remain the goal for all American Presidents till eternity. For, it is only an American President who ever used it!
3
Suppose Bush and Cheney were right, and there actually were Iraqi WMDs whose imminent use by Saddam would create untold planet-wide havoc? Not only they, but Netanyahu who had also advocated the use of force, would be proclaiming themselves as saviors of humanity and mocking the opponents of military action as strategic idiots who'd best leave national security in the capable hands of rightwing Republicans. Since WMD-wise it turned out precisely the opposite of what these three advocates for war claimed, shouldn't the strategic idiot label be kept but be applied to the ones who so richly merit it?
6
President Obama's speech on the Iraq nuclear agreement will go down in history as his most important. It sets the stage for the U.S. to turn away from the overextension and costly military escapades that brought down the great Roman Empire.
His discussion of "weak" and "strong" reminded me of how the Iroqouis Nation kept the peace for over five hundred years by setting up a war council exclusively made up of women. Making peace has become increasingly more difficult, especially now that none of the relatives of congressional members will be fighting. It has also become too tempting for a sitting President, urged on by the Military Industrial Complex, to go to war in order to ensure reelection.
Now it is high time to go after the other factor that brought down the Roman Empire, the growing inequality and stratification of our society. Our middle class and our economic stability has been placed under increasing pressure for four decades. What is needed is not more tax and redistribute, but a restoration of non-managerial wages to 50% of GDP.
His discussion of "weak" and "strong" reminded me of how the Iroqouis Nation kept the peace for over five hundred years by setting up a war council exclusively made up of women. Making peace has become increasingly more difficult, especially now that none of the relatives of congressional members will be fighting. It has also become too tempting for a sitting President, urged on by the Military Industrial Complex, to go to war in order to ensure reelection.
Now it is high time to go after the other factor that brought down the Roman Empire, the growing inequality and stratification of our society. Our middle class and our economic stability has been placed under increasing pressure for four decades. What is needed is not more tax and redistribute, but a restoration of non-managerial wages to 50% of GDP.
3
I am disappointed that my friends on the left do not think discussion is in order on a deal involving Iran and nuclear power.
Would discussion be in order if a right wing President was proposing the same?
I would hope so. If we are happy that the Obama administration is in discussion with Iran then we should be happy to see the Obama administration in open discussion with the Democrats and Republicans.
Just seem fair somehow.
Would discussion be in order if a right wing President was proposing the same?
I would hope so. If we are happy that the Obama administration is in discussion with Iran then we should be happy to see the Obama administration in open discussion with the Democrats and Republicans.
Just seem fair somehow.
4
The American people support this deal with Iran and reject war. Israel has chosen an arrogant leader and has chosen the Republican party. With this choice, Israel will be blamed for any war with Iran. The American people watched Netanyahu try to insult our President in the Congress of the United States. The American people know that Republicans want war and that Netanyahu wants war and that Israel wants war. The Republicans will hide behind Israel if war breaks out. Republicans will not hesitate to blame Israel and AIPAC for war, because it will not be a "successful" war and will damage the world and the people of the middle east in particular.
The President's speech was an excellent description of what peaceful negotiations give the world and what rejection and war will mean. It is important for Americans to support our efforts and reject the Republican goal of opposing "all things Obama". Americans must rally support for peace and clearly identify those who want war. Those who do not want to be blamed for war had better support peace. "Never again" has many meanings. This time it means peaceful resolution of differences.
The President's speech was an excellent description of what peaceful negotiations give the world and what rejection and war will mean. It is important for Americans to support our efforts and reject the Republican goal of opposing "all things Obama". Americans must rally support for peace and clearly identify those who want war. Those who do not want to be blamed for war had better support peace. "Never again" has many meanings. This time it means peaceful resolution of differences.
6
The proposed deal is similar to the deal with Syria whereby the chemical weapons were removed from the country so that whoever gained control of the Syrian government would not have the chemical stockpiles. Removing Iran's stock pile of enriched uranium, without which they cannot build a bomb, is a good thing.
3
I watched Chris Matthews last night who compared the President's speech to that of Kennedy in June of 1963 in which he argued to give peace a chance through diplomacy. Just the previous fall, there has been the famous showdown in the Cuban missile crisis, and here, just months later, Kennedy argued in favor of an arms treaty.
I listened to the President's speech and thought it was good. I'm also aware that the right, not even reading the terms of the treaty, dismissed it out of hand. Another clip from last night's show played one of the Republican candidates (and you know, there are so many I can't recall who--either Perry or Graham) whose foreign policy thinking boiled down to this: "The US must be the world's policeman."
I almost fell off my chair. It's that concept--enshrined by the idiotic preemptive strike on Iraq, the brain child of a lying Cheney and Bolton who should be tried for war crimes--that has created the mess in the Middle East for decades. "World's policeman", indeed.
Frankly, I don't think the US has much time to correct its image as an arrogant, meddling war monger, using our military might to bend nations to our will. It's imperialism at its worst, and the fact that the NYT gives Bolton so much editorial space, is central to the problems we continue to have over there.
There is so much riding on this treaty, inside Iran and out, that it takes one's breath away. This is not the world of 1938 or 2002 and for that, I support this deal.
I listened to the President's speech and thought it was good. I'm also aware that the right, not even reading the terms of the treaty, dismissed it out of hand. Another clip from last night's show played one of the Republican candidates (and you know, there are so many I can't recall who--either Perry or Graham) whose foreign policy thinking boiled down to this: "The US must be the world's policeman."
I almost fell off my chair. It's that concept--enshrined by the idiotic preemptive strike on Iraq, the brain child of a lying Cheney and Bolton who should be tried for war crimes--that has created the mess in the Middle East for decades. "World's policeman", indeed.
Frankly, I don't think the US has much time to correct its image as an arrogant, meddling war monger, using our military might to bend nations to our will. It's imperialism at its worst, and the fact that the NYT gives Bolton so much editorial space, is central to the problems we continue to have over there.
There is so much riding on this treaty, inside Iran and out, that it takes one's breath away. This is not the world of 1938 or 2002 and for that, I support this deal.
23
JFK said give peace a chance while he was escalating the war in Viet Nam that took 60,000 American lives.
President Obama and Secretary Kerry are much better, truer friends of both the United States and Israel than Netanyahu, Likud, AIPAC, Adelson, the current GOP, ever have been or will be.
Nothing shows that better than the P5+1/Iran nuclear agreement, who fought to create it, who fights for it, and who fights against it.
Refresh your memories of who lines up on either side, and their track records:
"The Real Test of the Iran Deal," James Fallows, The Atlantic, 28 July, 2015
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate...
Not one opponent of the Iran deal has a credible record for being right about anything substantive in foreign policy.
Nothing shows that better than the P5+1/Iran nuclear agreement, who fought to create it, who fights for it, and who fights against it.
Refresh your memories of who lines up on either side, and their track records:
"The Real Test of the Iran Deal," James Fallows, The Atlantic, 28 July, 2015
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate...
Not one opponent of the Iran deal has a credible record for being right about anything substantive in foreign policy.
15
What a great idea! Give a terrorist country 150 Billon dollars, let them keep hostages and give them a months notice before we are allowed to verify their end of the deal. And for this we get the 'Hope' that they will not build a bomb - but for only ten years. The other countries - our friends in the region - tough luck. Anyone think this leads to more terrorist activity and an arms race? Nah... he's Obama! He won the Nobel prize for peace!
1
President Obama supports diplomacy over war? You wouldn't know it by looking at his record: thousands of innocent citizens killed in non-Congressionally authorized bombing raids on Iraq and Syria alone since he fired up the war again, and excluding the multitude of other nations he drone bombs on a regular basis, year after year. An illegal war on Libya that has unleashed violence on a scale of Bush's catastrophe in Iraq and has destabilized the entire African continent and caused mass immigration to Europe. While he stated with ease that he was the anti-war candidate in 2008, his record has shown that he is anything but. That "D" after Obama's name doesn't stand for Diplomacy.
5
Please remember, the Iran deal is to keep Iran from making a nuclear weapon; the deal does not address making the world safe for Israel or making it safe from Shia terrorism. (As far as I know, the US has been hit mainly by Sunni terrorism).
The sanctions against Iran required considerable effort on the part of US diplomacy. E.g., India cut oil imports from Iran and has held up $6 billion in payments for past imports; it placed on hold the Chabahar port project (developing a port and railway lines in Iran for India to be able to access Central Asia). There is no way India will participate in the sanctions again if the US Congress rejects the Iran deal on frivolous, fear-mongering grounds. I'm sure it is even more so with China and Russia.
The sanctions against Iran required considerable effort on the part of US diplomacy. E.g., India cut oil imports from Iran and has held up $6 billion in payments for past imports; it placed on hold the Chabahar port project (developing a port and railway lines in Iran for India to be able to access Central Asia). There is no way India will participate in the sanctions again if the US Congress rejects the Iran deal on frivolous, fear-mongering grounds. I'm sure it is even more so with China and Russia.
41
Why is India .which has nuclear weapons and unlike Iran is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty free to do things in it's nuclear programs that is Iran is doing without being the target of the P5 + 1?
Same question for Israel and Pakistan?
Why are nations which are parties to the NPT-like Japan, Germany, Brazil- free to do things under their nuclear programs that are Iran forbidden to Iran?
Same question for Israel and Pakistan?
Why are nations which are parties to the NPT-like Japan, Germany, Brazil- free to do things under their nuclear programs that are Iran forbidden to Iran?
Nonsense. Whatever diplomatic credibility may be lost has already been so by the President's weakness and indecisiveness. And, as usual, the strawman argument that the only possibilities is the sunlit uplands of perpetual peace guaranteed by the "strong and effective nuclear agreement" (which is anything but) or the dogs of war.
Fact is, Iran will build a bomb when it wishes unless it is stopped by overwhelming military action. It could build one now. It could cheat on the deal and build one at any time over the next decade. Or, it could wait for those ten years, after which its breakout time will be so close as to make no difference.
We don't wish to attack them. Fair enough. We don't have to. But why, if Iran was going to be a nuclear power anyway, was it incumbent upon us to bless its being so, and to further reward it by removing sanctions and providing it access to $100 billion in frozen assets with which to make more trouble?
In actuality, Mr Obama's actions have made Congress' actions irrelevent as sanctions are gone no matter what. But his irresponsible and irresolute actions have made the world a far more dangerous place. And if I were in Congress, despite knowing that, by the President's design, my vote would be meaningless, no way would I wish my fingerprints on a "deal" that will ultimately be seen as our generation's Munich.
Fact is, Iran will build a bomb when it wishes unless it is stopped by overwhelming military action. It could build one now. It could cheat on the deal and build one at any time over the next decade. Or, it could wait for those ten years, after which its breakout time will be so close as to make no difference.
We don't wish to attack them. Fair enough. We don't have to. But why, if Iran was going to be a nuclear power anyway, was it incumbent upon us to bless its being so, and to further reward it by removing sanctions and providing it access to $100 billion in frozen assets with which to make more trouble?
In actuality, Mr Obama's actions have made Congress' actions irrelevent as sanctions are gone no matter what. But his irresponsible and irresolute actions have made the world a far more dangerous place. And if I were in Congress, despite knowing that, by the President's design, my vote would be meaningless, no way would I wish my fingerprints on a "deal" that will ultimately be seen as our generation's Munich.
20
Excellent. Well said and spot on.
You were wrong about Iraq, you were wrong about tax cuts creating jobs.
Kurt makes a cogent summary of all the Rebpulican war monger propaganda points. I guess he liked the bravado of George Bush (and blatant lies that got us into Iraq) much better that the nuanced diplomacy of Barack Obama. Will the neo conservatives never acknowledge that for the one trillion dollars they spent and hundreds of thousands of lives lost all we have to show for it is the strengthening of Iran, ISIL and millions of war refugees? So we now have the same choice - the "strength and decisiveness" of fools or the "weakness" of diplomacy and wisdom. If we have learned anything, we will say - "been there, done that" to the first and try a path to the future that is based on peace and communication. Of course that was never a strong point for the neo conservatives.
4
How many people truly believe Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon?
Is there anyone at all?
Anyone?
Is there anyone at all?
Anyone?
38
After the US "rewarded" Pakistan by doing nothing when it proliferated; when Pakistan's Taliban proxies can shoot at American soldiers and yet America keeps giving it billions of dollars in aid -- all because Pakistan has nuclear weapons and America is blackmailed that in case there instability in Pakistan nukes might fall in the hands of jihadis -- after that, it is highly irrational for any country not to want the bomb.
13
Jimmy: what millions of Americans believe is that with the agreement Iran probably won't, and without it they certainly will. A war will only delay their intentions and deepen their resolve.
Give peace a chance, Jimmy!
Give peace a chance, Jimmy!
2
Jimmy,
A lot more than those who believe that Israel will not develop a nuclear weapon.
A lot more than those who believe that Israel will not develop a nuclear weapon.
The subtext to the President's speech is that without the deal, indeed, without the protracted negotiations and the interim agreement produced prior to the finale, the Israelis would have likely attacked Iran's nuclear program the way they had previously attacked Syria's, and Iraq's nuclear programs.
Because the fact remains, despite the President's lopsided rhetoric, that the US alternative to the current agreement was more sanctions, not war.
In any case, and for all practical purposes, Iran has been at war with the West since they took the US Embassy hostage after their theocratic revolution in 1979. And Iran is currently supporting terrorism. As a consequence of which the US State Department lists Iran as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. The Iran nuclear agreement does nothing to address that fact of life. And that is the genuine elephant in the room. Pun intended.
So one major flaw in the deal is that if Iran presses attacks on Israel through proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, particularly after Iran gets some sanctions relief, the Israelis may counterattack as they have in the past.
However, it seems likely the Obama Administration expects the nuclear deal will temper the Israelis to lay back if Netanyahu anticipates that the US will withhold support in order to risk shredding the deal. So no war. Because of the deal.
Except, and until Iran makes it unavoidable as a consequence of their avowed theocratic agenda.
By which time the Obama Administration may be history.
Because the fact remains, despite the President's lopsided rhetoric, that the US alternative to the current agreement was more sanctions, not war.
In any case, and for all practical purposes, Iran has been at war with the West since they took the US Embassy hostage after their theocratic revolution in 1979. And Iran is currently supporting terrorism. As a consequence of which the US State Department lists Iran as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. The Iran nuclear agreement does nothing to address that fact of life. And that is the genuine elephant in the room. Pun intended.
So one major flaw in the deal is that if Iran presses attacks on Israel through proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, particularly after Iran gets some sanctions relief, the Israelis may counterattack as they have in the past.
However, it seems likely the Obama Administration expects the nuclear deal will temper the Israelis to lay back if Netanyahu anticipates that the US will withhold support in order to risk shredding the deal. So no war. Because of the deal.
Except, and until Iran makes it unavoidable as a consequence of their avowed theocratic agenda.
By which time the Obama Administration may be history.
6
More sanctions? You do realize that the rest of the world would need to agree right. These sanctions are not just from the U.S. You are just another person who speaks with certainty but no information.
1
Actually, Obama addressed all your concerns in his speech. You should watch or read it.
It is the system we got.
Even the right wing Presidents have to deal with Congress.
Even the right wing Presidents have to deal with Congress.
5
The GOP wants war with Iran, sooner or later they have it.
If nothing else they are patient.
2
You are correct. However none of them or their families will volunteer to serve/
Finally! Our President said it! The Prime Minister of Israel is WRONG! But, why did it take so long? And, why should it be such a big deal? And, why should the U.S. now have to take steps to assuage Israel by freeing spies and sending Israel more billions in weapons of mass distruction? Israel is still too influential in American politics and foreign policy. The U.S. must begin to distance itself from this rogue apartheid nation.
56
Sounds more like anti-semitism
Being you spew your disdain for Israel openly may I suggest you are using a computer PC or Apple you might want to stop using it since most likely the chip and or technology came from Israel. I also see you have a 45 by your name thinking you might be up in years remember not to take any generic medications since most are made by an Israeli company.You also might want to talk to the Marines, since they are using a new laser systems. The new systems will assist Marines in concealed positions with imaging, range-finding, and and navigation through combat areas. This will allow the soldiers to acquire and dispatch targets from their concealed positions, significantly lessening the potential impact of a mistake and keeping the soldiers safe. All designed and made in Israel. Did you know that there are some 400 Million ethnic Arabs in the world today, 1.5 Million in Israel but the only stem cell registry in the world is in Israel.
1
Obama's way or war? Every speech defined by false choices. And now a policy defined by a false choice. Demagoguery at its finest.
9
What are you suggesting then? Reject this deal and then try to negotiate another one? This was extremely difficult and time consuming to negotiate, and we had the solid backing and participation of England, France, China, Russia and Germany. The next time we negotiate we'll have much softer support, and the sanctions that pushed Iran to compromise will be weakening.
Or are you suggesting that we withdrawal from negotiations and threaten military force? In which case Obama is exactly right. The alternative to this deal is war.
Or are you suggesting that we withdrawal from negotiations and threaten military force? In which case Obama is exactly right. The alternative to this deal is war.
Looking at all the available info and opinions, I honestly don't know if the Iran deal is good or bad. But I do know that the derisive rhetoric used to promote it by President Obama -and this editorial page - is not helpful.
Just the facts, please.
Just the facts, please.
11
What was not factual in this article?
Is the comparison to Iraq not apt?
Why is hubris and bluster viewed as strength when it comes from a Republican candidate, but derided as arrogance when the president shows even a hint of backbone?
Is the comparison to Iraq not apt?
Why is hubris and bluster viewed as strength when it comes from a Republican candidate, but derided as arrogance when the president shows even a hint of backbone?
The president should and did answer the derisive rhetoric used against him and against the possibility of using diplomacy instead of bombs.
@ All Opponrents:
HIROSHIMA ATOMIC BOMB SURVIVORS PASS THEIR STORIES TO A NEW GENERATION
By Jonathan Soble
THE NEW YORK TIMES: Aug. 6, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/world/asia/witnesses-to-hiroshima-atom...
Do consider that today is the 70th anniversary of the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the day Humanity ended – again on the 9th, Nagasaki. There are still survivours and survivours of the survivours still under the effect of that needless atrocity – fortunately the only time this monstrous instrument has been put to use. By whom?
"The 150,000 killed almost instantly at Hiroshima are, to this day, the most people killed in the shortest time by human action in history."
~ MATTHEW WHITE
Author of
The Great Big Book of Horrible Things:
The Definitive Chronicle of History's 100 Worst Atrocities
(W. W. Norton, 2011)
Politics and excuses and all attempts at justification aside, let's remember and consider the alternative.
“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except our thinking. Thus, we are drifting toward catastrophe beyond conception. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.”
~ ALBERT EINSTEIN
HIROSHIMA ATOMIC BOMB SURVIVORS PASS THEIR STORIES TO A NEW GENERATION
By Jonathan Soble
THE NEW YORK TIMES: Aug. 6, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/world/asia/witnesses-to-hiroshima-atom...
Do consider that today is the 70th anniversary of the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the day Humanity ended – again on the 9th, Nagasaki. There are still survivours and survivours of the survivours still under the effect of that needless atrocity – fortunately the only time this monstrous instrument has been put to use. By whom?
"The 150,000 killed almost instantly at Hiroshima are, to this day, the most people killed in the shortest time by human action in history."
~ MATTHEW WHITE
Author of
The Great Big Book of Horrible Things:
The Definitive Chronicle of History's 100 Worst Atrocities
(W. W. Norton, 2011)
Politics and excuses and all attempts at justification aside, let's remember and consider the alternative.
“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except our thinking. Thus, we are drifting toward catastrophe beyond conception. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.”
~ ALBERT EINSTEIN
10
If we're going to have another war we need to institute a draft.
30
Then you will see all of the liberals scurry for Canada and burn bras and draft cards.
Republicans opposing this agreement are delusional. They repeat a naive claim that we could/should have negotiated a better deal. Yes, as the rest of the international pressure would fall away, America would impose tighter sanctions and we, the "exceptional nation", would single handed bring Iran to its knees. What universe do Republicans live in?
57
JABarry - "What universe do Republicans live in?"
Might be that same universe where "some" on these pages blamed the entire meltdown of Cuba's economy on the US embargo. I guess if the US embargo of Cuba made such a drastic change by itself, since every other county in the world traded with Cuba, than a US embargo of IRAN would have the same result. In that universe.
You can't switch back and forth between universes and retain credibility!
Might be that same universe where "some" on these pages blamed the entire meltdown of Cuba's economy on the US embargo. I guess if the US embargo of Cuba made such a drastic change by itself, since every other county in the world traded with Cuba, than a US embargo of IRAN would have the same result. In that universe.
You can't switch back and forth between universes and retain credibility!
The same one that thinks we will build a wall at the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it.
The mere acceptance of reason and logic prevent this imperfect deal's opponents from seeing the many benefits of negotiation and diplomacy. From Republican rancor and fear to Mr. Netanyahu's unconscionable interference in a process he has shunned from the first, this updated nuclear non-proliferation treaty (in its barest essence, that it what it is, as five other countries have signed on to it) guarantees nothing but that good will, all around, will put off the day when the silos open to disgorge their nuclear terror. President Obama is more than correct when he warns that there is not another door to be opened if ignorance and recalcitrant posturing win the day. Has not the criminal invasion of Iraq taught us nothing?
42
"W.", ex-President Bush 43 now has the greatest opportunity to redeem his legacy by stepping up and publicly, vocally endorsing the Iran deal. This is exactly when previous Presidents might still serve the better interest of our Nation. Technically, if he sits mute on the sideline it means to me that he is eternally connected to the irrational Hawks and the Military Industral Complex, selfishly. What's up President Bush (43)?, speak speak!
33
This, of course, assumes Mr. Bush is taken seriously by anyone, which he is not.
Obama is the one helping the military industry. Now that Iran will be free to spend more on terror proxies and building a bomb, we are going to sell lots more military planes and equipment. We've already started to do that, because that is the way Obama planned it. That's leading from behind.
Maybe 43, like so many others, doubts the wisdom of this deal. Maybe he doesn't want to play into Obama's strong quest for a legacy even if the legacy could mean nuclear turmoil. Maybe he realizes that his mistakes in Iran have destabilized the region even further and that those mistakes are HIS legacy. Maybe he has a more complete perspective on how a "legacy" can turn against a presidency.
Just Sayin'
Just Sayin'
Minimally, if the United States becomes involved in a conflict with Iran, excuse me, a more OPEN conflict with Iran, it will, most likely, not happen under Mr. Obama's 'watch'. This whole thing is sounding like a television game show, "Deal or No Deal", with the next season in the 'can' waiting for the next president.
Will it be a helmet wearing hawk or a slightly armored dove? Spin the wheel and let's see what comes up!
I suggest that all of the "hawks" be prepared to "lead from the front" if it be war as it's far to easy to squander the lives of others. If Mr. Netanyahu is so concerned, he's got an army, air force, etc. and being the leader of a "grown up" country, he could start his own little war. I'm sure our arms manufacturers would be quite happy supplying him with more weapons and ammo.
As for the current agreement, it does tend to stink but it beats "boots on the ground" getting blown to pieces over "cooked up" intelligence. And, I assume, Iran will develop if not a nuclear weapon, at least a "dirty" conventional bomb (radioactive material contained in a regular old "dumb bomb" no "smart bomb" needed). Where they use it and whom they choose to use it to be disclosed at a later date.
The Mid East is a mess, a mess that would be best to walk away from. Until the countries in the area start behaving like real countries, not religious fueled fanatical brigands, it would be best to leave the butchering to themselves.
Will it be a helmet wearing hawk or a slightly armored dove? Spin the wheel and let's see what comes up!
I suggest that all of the "hawks" be prepared to "lead from the front" if it be war as it's far to easy to squander the lives of others. If Mr. Netanyahu is so concerned, he's got an army, air force, etc. and being the leader of a "grown up" country, he could start his own little war. I'm sure our arms manufacturers would be quite happy supplying him with more weapons and ammo.
As for the current agreement, it does tend to stink but it beats "boots on the ground" getting blown to pieces over "cooked up" intelligence. And, I assume, Iran will develop if not a nuclear weapon, at least a "dirty" conventional bomb (radioactive material contained in a regular old "dumb bomb" no "smart bomb" needed). Where they use it and whom they choose to use it to be disclosed at a later date.
The Mid East is a mess, a mess that would be best to walk away from. Until the countries in the area start behaving like real countries, not religious fueled fanatical brigands, it would be best to leave the butchering to themselves.
15
War is America's business, our largest export. America has been engaged in war for 90% of its existence (a real number, not a hyperbolic one). We borrow to make war; we sent our children to die to make war with pretend enemies in conflicts w which have no bearing on American security or interests; we lie to get into war (not just Bush's Iraq War but LBJ's Vietnam War, Polk's Mexican War, McKinley's Spanish-American War). Since hindsight is 20/20, it never ceases to amaze me that the hawks in the US Congress remain so blind. We should and do have Israel's back, but Bibi has been wrong about Iran's nuclear capabilities for over a decade. Why should Obama defer to the very same people who delivered the Iraq War, without which Iran would be a neutered dog? Until the hawks deliver an alternative proposal that makes sense without enriching the military-industrial complex, a 10-year template makes great sense. The sanctions were effective in part because Iraq remained a check to Iran aggression. Without that check in place, Iran had no downside in pressing forward with its nuclear program. And given the "ease" with which the US convinced itself to go to war in Iraq, Israel and others see an opportunity to scare us into yet another. Obama has character -- hard for the hawks to deal with that.
144
You forgot to mention Wilson's war, Roosevelt's war, and Tryman's war.
I find it particularly galling that Israel led by its strident PM, a country dominated by a group of religious extremists, itself sitting on a huge undeclared arsenal of atomic weapons, including hydrogen bombs, would so vocally oppose this sensible agreement. Perhaps the only thing more galling is that this tiny nation, the largest single recipient of US foreign aid over the last 5 decades, can skillfully use checkbook lobbying to so influence our Congress that there can be concern that Congress might block the agreement.
My own Congressman, Jerry Nadler, wrote me saying that he was "there to defend the interests of Israel!" Hey, who elected him? He is there to protect the interests of Americans!! And my Senator, Chuck Schumer likewise forgets that he is elected by US citizens resident in NY State to represent our interest, not Israel’s.
Israel with at least 200 nuclear weapons is not a member of the IAEA, refuses to sign the NPT & allows NO international inspections of its nuclear facilities. How is it possible that so many members of Congress blithely condone this behavior while criticizing the agreement with Iran?
The answer is money spread widely throughout the halls of Congress by the clever operatives of the AIPAC. And they have publicly announced a special fund of $20million to fight approval of this agreement.
My own Congressman, Jerry Nadler, wrote me saying that he was "there to defend the interests of Israel!" Hey, who elected him? He is there to protect the interests of Americans!! And my Senator, Chuck Schumer likewise forgets that he is elected by US citizens resident in NY State to represent our interest, not Israel’s.
Israel with at least 200 nuclear weapons is not a member of the IAEA, refuses to sign the NPT & allows NO international inspections of its nuclear facilities. How is it possible that so many members of Congress blithely condone this behavior while criticizing the agreement with Iran?
The answer is money spread widely throughout the halls of Congress by the clever operatives of the AIPAC. And they have publicly announced a special fund of $20million to fight approval of this agreement.
62
America has the most worthless morally militarily economically legally costly "allies" in the Middle East.
The Gulf oil Sunni Muslim Arab autocrats use American arms to crush their own people and Shia Muslims. The Saudis are ignoring ISIS while at war with Shia Muslim Arabs in Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia. The Egyptian military is backing ISIS while at war with the Muslim Brotherhood. Israel is at war with the equal certain unalienable rights of the 6 million Palestinians under Israeli dominion. Turkey is at war with the Kurds.
The Sunni Muslim Kurds and Shia Muslim Arabs and Persians are at war with AL Qaeda and it's affiliates and ISIS and it's followers.
The Gulf oil Sunni Muslim Arab autocrats use American arms to crush their own people and Shia Muslims. The Saudis are ignoring ISIS while at war with Shia Muslim Arabs in Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia. The Egyptian military is backing ISIS while at war with the Muslim Brotherhood. Israel is at war with the equal certain unalienable rights of the 6 million Palestinians under Israeli dominion. Turkey is at war with the Kurds.
The Sunni Muslim Kurds and Shia Muslim Arabs and Persians are at war with AL Qaeda and it's affiliates and ISIS and it's followers.
Is there anyone who will challenge Schumer and Nadler in the next election? Please come forward.
4
I am afraid that most of the opponents of this deal either do not understand what the word 'deal' means, or they support more military intervention in the Middle East.
The first group says things like "we are not against a deal we just think that we should negotiate a better deal". That position presupposes that the Iranians and the other five nations will all agree to all our demands. For many of this group, the number one demand is a sort of regime change for Iran. This is not so much a deal as articles of surrender signed by Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and China.
The second group wants to continue the failed attempt by the west to remake the Middle East. Any good reason to attack Iran is a good one for these people and anything that ratchets down the tension between Iran and the U.S. is a bad thing.
In the end Obama is right. The only way to guarantee that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapon capability is war and prolonged occupation. Even then that occupation will end some time. A vote against this plan is a vote for more of the same 100 years of war in the Middle East.
The first group says things like "we are not against a deal we just think that we should negotiate a better deal". That position presupposes that the Iranians and the other five nations will all agree to all our demands. For many of this group, the number one demand is a sort of regime change for Iran. This is not so much a deal as articles of surrender signed by Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and China.
The second group wants to continue the failed attempt by the west to remake the Middle East. Any good reason to attack Iran is a good one for these people and anything that ratchets down the tension between Iran and the U.S. is a bad thing.
In the end Obama is right. The only way to guarantee that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapon capability is war and prolonged occupation. Even then that occupation will end some time. A vote against this plan is a vote for more of the same 100 years of war in the Middle East.
105
First off, there are other nations involved besides the U.S.
American arrogance on display again as if we are the only ones that matter and decide on war or no war. We already not long ago bombed and destroyed a nation that did nothing to us...because of lies and fear, at a cost of over a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands lives. All we are saying, is give peace a chance.
American arrogance on display again as if we are the only ones that matter and decide on war or no war. We already not long ago bombed and destroyed a nation that did nothing to us...because of lies and fear, at a cost of over a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands lives. All we are saying, is give peace a chance.
We Jewish American voters should continue our wise track record, and support the P5+1/Iran deal, actively.
79% of Jewish Americans voted for Gore in 2000.
76% of us voted for Kerry in 2004.
78% of us voted for Obama in 2008.
69% of us voted for Obama in 2012.
We Jewish Americans know who is best for the U.S. and Israel.
Netanyahu and Likud won 29 of 120 Knesset Seats, 25%. Netanyahu's coalition could only manage 61 of 120, 50%. Yet Netanyahu claims to speak not only for all Israeli, but for all Jews. Clearly, he does not. We Jewish Americans know better. He does not represent us. He does not represent Israel. He has not earned our support.
Do AIPAC, Adelson, the GOP, represent Israel, Jewish Americans, or Jews? No. AIPAC, Adelson, the GOP, represent Likud. We Jewish Americans know this.
We Jewish Americans need to support the best interests of the U.S., our country. And we Jewish Americans, unfortunately, need to be the true friends of Israel, of Jews, of Judaism, and ourselves.
Yes, there is anti-Semitism. Yes, there was the Holocaust. But the Holocaust happened during a literal World War, which followed a world financial crisis, and socio-economic chaos. War, financial crisis, socio-economic chaos, have never been good environments for Jews. Why would Jews anywhere support a path towards war?
We Jewish Americans are wise enough to support peace and diplomacy. We are wise enough to support ourselves, the U.S., Israel, and the P5+1/Iran nuclear agreement.
79% of Jewish Americans voted for Gore in 2000.
76% of us voted for Kerry in 2004.
78% of us voted for Obama in 2008.
69% of us voted for Obama in 2012.
We Jewish Americans know who is best for the U.S. and Israel.
Netanyahu and Likud won 29 of 120 Knesset Seats, 25%. Netanyahu's coalition could only manage 61 of 120, 50%. Yet Netanyahu claims to speak not only for all Israeli, but for all Jews. Clearly, he does not. We Jewish Americans know better. He does not represent us. He does not represent Israel. He has not earned our support.
Do AIPAC, Adelson, the GOP, represent Israel, Jewish Americans, or Jews? No. AIPAC, Adelson, the GOP, represent Likud. We Jewish Americans know this.
We Jewish Americans need to support the best interests of the U.S., our country. And we Jewish Americans, unfortunately, need to be the true friends of Israel, of Jews, of Judaism, and ourselves.
Yes, there is anti-Semitism. Yes, there was the Holocaust. But the Holocaust happened during a literal World War, which followed a world financial crisis, and socio-economic chaos. War, financial crisis, socio-economic chaos, have never been good environments for Jews. Why would Jews anywhere support a path towards war?
We Jewish Americans are wise enough to support peace and diplomacy. We are wise enough to support ourselves, the U.S., Israel, and the P5+1/Iran nuclear agreement.
281
If Likud has 29 seats in a coalition of 61, how exactly does that make Israel's government Likud? For someone who professes to "know" so much, your understanding of how parliamentary democracies work appears a bit thin.
Considering that all political partiesin Israel are unanimous in their opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, who precisely have you identified as being "best for Israel"? Certainly, no one representative of the views of the average Israeli.
That said, who elected you to speak on behalf of "we Jewish Americans" or of anyone other than yourself anyway?
Considering that all political partiesin Israel are unanimous in their opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, who precisely have you identified as being "best for Israel"? Certainly, no one representative of the views of the average Israeli.
That said, who elected you to speak on behalf of "we Jewish Americans" or of anyone other than yourself anyway?
1
Speak for yourself, you don't speak for me and I too am an American Jew.
Obama and Kerry don't care about Jews or Israel. They are like some management consulting types. Let's score a deal now so we look good, by the time it blows up we will be gone and it will be the next guy's fault.
Obama and Kerry don't care about Jews or Israel. They are like some management consulting types. Let's score a deal now so we look good, by the time it blows up we will be gone and it will be the next guy's fault.
1
"Do AIPAC, Adelson, the GOP, represent Israel, Jewish Americans, or Jews? No. AIPAC, Adelson, the GOP, represent Likud. We Jewish Americans know this." I guess you would rather have a man like George Soros pay your bills?
1
Editorial left out Obama saying Iranian opponents of the deal who chant “Death to America” are “making common cause with the Republican caucus.”
First it´s the Iranian leaders who are chanting "death to America," not some insignificant minority group. As Britt Hume said the speech was "Dishonest, Partisan, Insulting".
As for me - Was the worst of Obama´s entire presidency and maybe the most un-presidential speech any President has made. Nearly cracked my flat screen monitor as Obama's nose kept getting larger with each lie.
Whenever I think Obama can´t stoop any lower....he then exceeds my expectations.
First it´s the Iranian leaders who are chanting "death to America," not some insignificant minority group. As Britt Hume said the speech was "Dishonest, Partisan, Insulting".
As for me - Was the worst of Obama´s entire presidency and maybe the most un-presidential speech any President has made. Nearly cracked my flat screen monitor as Obama's nose kept getting larger with each lie.
Whenever I think Obama can´t stoop any lower....he then exceeds my expectations.
9
Brett Hume says it all. He meets your expectations.
Well if Britt Hume said it, from that paragon of bipartisanship, FOX news then it must be true. Repugs always offer the same prescription, I'm against it but please do not ask for my plan. Still waiting on the replace part of Obamacare. It's been 6 years. Hello, hello
It is irrelevant what people say. It is only relevant what they do. I'll take someone chanting "Death to America" while negotiating a deal that limits that possibility any day. It's called international politics, a great deal of which consists of posturing.
The editorial distorts Netanyahu's 2002 presentation to Congress as a private citizen. It is easily found on C-SPAN and is worth listening to in its entirety (including the introductory remarks by each committee member to help remind everyone of the context back then). His guarantee of good things coming from a war with Iraq - a war, it should be remembered, that was not against the nation Israel deemed the most dangerous and destabilizing force in the region, that was Iran, but U.S. policy was effectively set by then - was that the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the stirrings of democracy could provide the impetus for Iranians to demand democratic changes too. We know what happened: Iran suspended its nuclear research temporarily (at the same time Gaddafi gave up his entire nuclear stockpile) and then the 2009 Green protests broke out in Iran - on which President Obama famously turned his back, an earlier indication of his solicitude for the ruling Ayatollahs over advancing civil rights and democracy among, what we are repeatedly reminded, is a pro-American Iranian public.
Even with a botched post-invasion period, however, Netanyahu's prediction was not completely off-base. Some positive outcomes were actually achieved, others may have slipped through our hands. Perhaps he simply had too much faith in our abilities, political will and capabilities. Whatever the case, Netanyahu was hardly the cartoonish "warmonger" the usual suspects continue to try to paint him to be.
Even with a botched post-invasion period, however, Netanyahu's prediction was not completely off-base. Some positive outcomes were actually achieved, others may have slipped through our hands. Perhaps he simply had too much faith in our abilities, political will and capabilities. Whatever the case, Netanyahu was hardly the cartoonish "warmonger" the usual suspects continue to try to paint him to be.
3
He has alienated many American Jews and rightly so due to his one- dimensional approach. Let's not pretend he is some kind if statesman.
1
Wow, I hope you didn't throw your back out during the contortions you made in the process of trying to defend Bibi. The best that can be gleaned from your comment is that he was more naive and optimistic 13 years ago. And that may be true - Bush was also naive and optimistic about nation-building, despite having disavowed it as futile a few years earlier. But with both men, those misunderstandings stem from their jingoistic habit of judging others by your own standards rather than the ones that are actually in play. Thus, Bush uses the term "crusade" to describe our actions in the middle east, and not a single advisor raises a red flag. These are people who take offense at cartoons - they are deeply sensitive about certain matters in comparison to Westerners. Calling our action a crusade is like calling Palestinian resistance a holocaust. I'm surprised Bibi hasn't gone there yet.
Some people believe that when they look at a thing with 2 eyes they are seeing it objectively.
The arguments opponents use against president Obama´s Iran deal do not really say a lot about the subject matter itself but they tell us a lot about the opponents. Opponents raise themselves above the problem and claim to be in possession of objectivity by stating to see the Iranians how they really are. President Obama sees America as part of the problem and seeks a responsible and ethical solution by accepting the Iranians as equal negotiating partners to a common problem. – The core difference between both positions can be reduced to the following question.
Do we perceive the world as it is or
is the world because we perceive it that way? –
The decision on what is right is not just a philosophical one. The conflict with your mother-in-law, with Russia over Ukraine, and last not least over the Iran deal are the consequence when people believe that they see the world as it is. In the last 50 years the science of cybernetics has dealt with this problem. Here is a simple summary on the findings.
http://www.english.kamus-quantum.com/11.html
The arguments opponents use against president Obama´s Iran deal do not really say a lot about the subject matter itself but they tell us a lot about the opponents. Opponents raise themselves above the problem and claim to be in possession of objectivity by stating to see the Iranians how they really are. President Obama sees America as part of the problem and seeks a responsible and ethical solution by accepting the Iranians as equal negotiating partners to a common problem. – The core difference between both positions can be reduced to the following question.
Do we perceive the world as it is or
is the world because we perceive it that way? –
The decision on what is right is not just a philosophical one. The conflict with your mother-in-law, with Russia over Ukraine, and last not least over the Iran deal are the consequence when people believe that they see the world as it is. In the last 50 years the science of cybernetics has dealt with this problem. Here is a simple summary on the findings.
http://www.english.kamus-quantum.com/11.html
2
Good Job once again, President Obama! You are right - the same war mongers who want a gun in every hand in America and plenty of poor, uneducated young people as fodder for their war machines want to try to kill this hard-won deal with Iran and have perpetual war in the middle east. The ALEC/Koch brothers operative aka GOP candidates can spout off the talking points their money masters give them all they want. Taken together they are not half the intelligent, thoughtful, honest, democracy-loving man you are, even if we add Ms. Fiorini and DT.
16
This path is not sustainable forces of evil within Republican political system What matters is that the agreement is respected The Globalisation is focused on International agreements Happy Sustainability 2015
As the President pointed out, President Reagan negotiated with an adversary, the Soviet Union, that actually had nuclear missiles pointed at most of our major cities and was actively arming and supporting efforts across the globe that were fighting against us.
That deal seems to have worked out pretty well, as there are far fewer nuclear weapons aimed at us and the United States is now unquestionably the most powerful nation on Earth. As troubling as Russia can be, it no longer poses the existential threat to the United States that the Soviet Union did before the negotiations.
But facts don't matter when it comes to criticizing anything this President does. Republican Senate Majority Leader terms the President's comments ''bizarre and preposterous.'' McConnell, like many leading Republicans, ''informs'' the public in talking points that are catchy, but usually lacking facts and logic. The press gives them a pass on matters of substance.
Thus, there have been no substantive alternatives proposed to the Iran nuclear deal other than that we attack Iran when that becomes necessary. Republicans in Congress will vote against the deal, and only if enough Democrats vote to preserve it will we avoid another war.
That deal seems to have worked out pretty well, as there are far fewer nuclear weapons aimed at us and the United States is now unquestionably the most powerful nation on Earth. As troubling as Russia can be, it no longer poses the existential threat to the United States that the Soviet Union did before the negotiations.
But facts don't matter when it comes to criticizing anything this President does. Republican Senate Majority Leader terms the President's comments ''bizarre and preposterous.'' McConnell, like many leading Republicans, ''informs'' the public in talking points that are catchy, but usually lacking facts and logic. The press gives them a pass on matters of substance.
Thus, there have been no substantive alternatives proposed to the Iran nuclear deal other than that we attack Iran when that becomes necessary. Republicans in Congress will vote against the deal, and only if enough Democrats vote to preserve it will we avoid another war.
61
@ClearEye: Facts don't matter, you say? True, when Obama give a speech. Majority Leader's comments "bizarre and preposterous" are right on the mark, since it was petty and ridiculous to claim that Iran's rulers and Republicans were making common cause.
Absence of new substantive alternatives does not make Obama's deal with Iran any good. Increased sanctions were a good option before serious negotiations began, but they were dismissed by the President. Trying to defend your guy by insisting that his political opposition - the enemy as he frequently called - did not come up with a "substantive alternative" will not work; people who followed this Iran business know better.
But there another way of looking at it: IT IS a very good deal. For Iran.
Absence of new substantive alternatives does not make Obama's deal with Iran any good. Increased sanctions were a good option before serious negotiations began, but they were dismissed by the President. Trying to defend your guy by insisting that his political opposition - the enemy as he frequently called - did not come up with a "substantive alternative" will not work; people who followed this Iran business know better.
But there another way of looking at it: IT IS a very good deal. For Iran.
To ClearEye who says that since Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union Obama should not be criticized for negotiating with Iran and also that critics of the deal have no substantive alternatives: you are making two fundamental errors. We critics are not criticizing the negotiation only the result. As to an alternative, and I have read the text of the treaty which is on-line, a few alternatives which can still be changed (nothing is final until it is final) would be 1. change the verification protocol so that any nation of the signatories that wishes inspection of a site can have UN inspectors at that site within 24 hours not, maybe, if current protocol followed in 35-40 days with the "assurance" " don't worry, we'll find evidence then and we'll take care of it". Right now the agreement talks only of "consensus" which is vague and clearly includes more than the USA. Secondly, insist that the treaty does not become finalized until Iran produces the material which it has promised for years to reveal on its prior nuclear research.
These are two critical changes which can be inserted into the agreement, even now, and do not involve war. If Iran is genuinely interested in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in receiving 150 billion in frozen assets, it will accept. The President, any president, has to insist. When you buy a car the dealer has to know you are really, really prepared to walk out until he adds one other item or two to get your down payment.
These are two critical changes which can be inserted into the agreement, even now, and do not involve war. If Iran is genuinely interested in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in receiving 150 billion in frozen assets, it will accept. The President, any president, has to insist. When you buy a car the dealer has to know you are really, really prepared to walk out until he adds one other item or two to get your down payment.
Many substantive alternatives have been proposed; neither does the U.S. Military believe that the only alternative is war.
The opposition wants the better deal that should have been negotiated to begin with and was part of the original stated premise of the negotiations.
The opposition wants the better deal that should have been negotiated to begin with and was part of the original stated premise of the negotiations.
Here we go again. Painful to watch the president's by now familiar logic: He has no alternative, constructs a clever straw man and impugns those who challenge him. People in denial defend him. "What's your alternative?"
It's like watching the train wreck of Obamacare all over again. Except there's a lot more at risk than losing plans and doctors.
It's like watching the train wreck of Obamacare all over again. Except there's a lot more at risk than losing plans and doctors.
16
Except the obamacare worked. Are you saying that none of your guys ever told a tall tale about the prez or launched a flat earth theory as gospel?
2
And yet you see so many liberals, right here in this comments sections, trying hard to defend him. When will they learn!?!
Since when is diplomacy that leads to containment versus war a 'straw man'?
Only, obviously, to the US hardliners such as you who broke out in joy when the first bombs rained on Baghdad.
Diplomacy is an art. War is not.
Only, obviously, to the US hardliners such as you who broke out in joy when the first bombs rained on Baghdad.
Diplomacy is an art. War is not.
3
I watched the whole speech and Obama's arguments are straightforward and 100% persuasive. The truth should be obvious just by the fact that every country in the world except Israel and Iran's arab enemies supports the deal – in a world where the major powers usually cannot agree on much.
Now we will see if the forces of sanity still have the upper hand in the U.S. If not and the crazies prevail, then that will be much more frightening and dangerous than any iranian bomb.
Now we will see if the forces of sanity still have the upper hand in the U.S. If not and the crazies prevail, then that will be much more frightening and dangerous than any iranian bomb.
60
@GS: this deal was supposed to have been good for USA. Do you know what its benefits are us? Even Obama insisted early on that Iran should NOT get nuclear weapons. Now he says they will after 10 years or so. Aside from this loss, have we gained anything at all? Or does Iran get all the benefits?
GS, Saudi Arabia does support the deal. That leaves Israel as the only country that prefers an attack on Iran. History redux: Israel was the only country egging us on to go to war in Iraq. We obliged and knocked out Saddam Hussein, who at the time Israel considered their greatest enemy. You know the rest of the story.
1
The real question in all this is why anyone, anywhere is still listening to the rightwing about anything when they have been so wrong on just about everything.
94
The New York Democratic congressional delegation is leaning to opposing the plan.
Steve Isreal has already announced his opposition to the plan.
There appears to be much bipartisan opposition.
Anyone approving the plan is hoping that Iran behaves. That's not a good bet.
Steve Isreal has already announced his opposition to the plan.
There appears to be much bipartisan opposition.
Anyone approving the plan is hoping that Iran behaves. That's not a good bet.
I would bet that if Bibi Netanyahu was OK with this deal it would be a slam dunk for the administration. Whose side are the republicans on ? Even Israeli security chiefs think it's a good deal and have told Netanyahu to back down. Today is the 70th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima . Have we not learned anything ?
55
War is a gravy train for many vested interests, including bankers and suppliers of aircraft, armed vehicles, uniforms, security services, warships, satellite systems, meals ready to eat etc. - all worth tens if not hundreds of billions. No wonder so many politicians, whose campaigns have been funded by those same vested interests, are categorically opposed to peace.
In the meantime, Iran has for decades been actively involved in the global nuclear disarmament movement. It poses no threat to America whatsoever, neither does it to Israel....who by the way is fully loaded with nuclear missiles. And like any other nation, Iran is perfectly free to harness nuclear energy for its domestic electricity requirements.
In the meantime, Iran has for decades been actively involved in the global nuclear disarmament movement. It poses no threat to America whatsoever, neither does it to Israel....who by the way is fully loaded with nuclear missiles. And like any other nation, Iran is perfectly free to harness nuclear energy for its domestic electricity requirements.
28
Questions from someone leaning toward the deal but not convinced:
Isn't the negotiated inspection regime better than what we have now?
Does the deal preclude an American attack if Iran is blatantly cheating or if we simply don't like what Iran is doing in the region?
We're told the younger Iranians are tiring of the clerics. Does that count for anything?
Isn't the negotiated inspection regime better than what we have now?
Does the deal preclude an American attack if Iran is blatantly cheating or if we simply don't like what Iran is doing in the region?
We're told the younger Iranians are tiring of the clerics. Does that count for anything?
17
The most reality-grounded declaration in Obama’s speech is: “I say this as someone who is done more than any other president to strengthen Israel’s security”. If by strengthening Israel’s security one means pouring about 4 billion dollars every year of his presidency to Israel’s defense budget, then, yes indeed he deed so.
By hugely preferring Israel over any other foreign aid applicant, Obama basically ensured Netanyahu’s rule over Israel – there is nothing Israelis, of all political persuasions, love more than a Prime Minster who bolster their victimhood status while bringing the fat American bacon home. In this sense, Netanyahu is morally right when he pronounces the Israelis “my people” -- he is indeed the historical embodiment of the current Israeli Spirit.
As to the Iran nuclear deal, the stability-shattering implications of the long delay in concluding what was a quite achievable agreement at least four years ago are evident all over the global order: from the acidic impact on U.S-Russia relations of the American anti-missile defense in Eastern Europe to the claims of regional powers to a legitimate need for strategic respond to Iran’s alleged “nuclear threshold” status. It is an agreement far too late.
By hugely preferring Israel over any other foreign aid applicant, Obama basically ensured Netanyahu’s rule over Israel – there is nothing Israelis, of all political persuasions, love more than a Prime Minster who bolster their victimhood status while bringing the fat American bacon home. In this sense, Netanyahu is morally right when he pronounces the Israelis “my people” -- he is indeed the historical embodiment of the current Israeli Spirit.
As to the Iran nuclear deal, the stability-shattering implications of the long delay in concluding what was a quite achievable agreement at least four years ago are evident all over the global order: from the acidic impact on U.S-Russia relations of the American anti-missile defense in Eastern Europe to the claims of regional powers to a legitimate need for strategic respond to Iran’s alleged “nuclear threshold” status. It is an agreement far too late.
2
Also - common interests in fighting ISIS with Iran which may mitigate tensions between us.
Up to now, ISIS performed as if it was an Israeli “shock corps” – invading Iraq while Israel was destroying Gaza and fighting Israel’s nemesis Hezbollah – but its days are numbered.
It was wrong for Obama to argue that a vote against this deal with Iran is akin to voting for war against Iraq. The two situations are different and each must be svaliated on their own merits.
The two key questions here are (1) is the present deal better than no deal? and (2) is this the best deal we can get?
Only insiders and experts can try to cogently answer these questions.
But what we can do is compare the deal with the goals set forth by the Obama administration itself. Here is an example.
Obama originally said that in any deal, Iran would not be permitted to enrich uranium or stockpile enriched uranium on its own soil.
But in the final deal, Iran can continue to operate 5,060 centrifuges out of the 19,000 currently operating at the Nantz enrichment facility, with the remaining 14,000 merely held idle in storage at that facility. Also, although Obama once insisted that Iran would not be able to develop or acquire new, advanced centrifuges, under the final agreement, it can (the IR6 and IR8 centrifuges).
As for stockpiling, under the agreement, Iran can stockpile 300 kg (660 pounds) of enriched Uranium, in addition to the 8 tons they have already enriched. About 5 kg (11 lbs.) is enough to make a bomb.
This however does not mean that Congress should necessarily scuttle the deal.
Frankly I'm on the fence on this one. I just wish everyone would be a bit more thoughtful in their support or opposition.
The two key questions here are (1) is the present deal better than no deal? and (2) is this the best deal we can get?
Only insiders and experts can try to cogently answer these questions.
But what we can do is compare the deal with the goals set forth by the Obama administration itself. Here is an example.
Obama originally said that in any deal, Iran would not be permitted to enrich uranium or stockpile enriched uranium on its own soil.
But in the final deal, Iran can continue to operate 5,060 centrifuges out of the 19,000 currently operating at the Nantz enrichment facility, with the remaining 14,000 merely held idle in storage at that facility. Also, although Obama once insisted that Iran would not be able to develop or acquire new, advanced centrifuges, under the final agreement, it can (the IR6 and IR8 centrifuges).
As for stockpiling, under the agreement, Iran can stockpile 300 kg (660 pounds) of enriched Uranium, in addition to the 8 tons they have already enriched. About 5 kg (11 lbs.) is enough to make a bomb.
This however does not mean that Congress should necessarily scuttle the deal.
Frankly I'm on the fence on this one. I just wish everyone would be a bit more thoughtful in their support or opposition.
11
I think your facts are wrong about them keeping the uranium (at least the amounts)
President Obama does not believe in regime change. President Obama believes that the regime given the relaxation of sanctions will use the tremendous bounty to improve their own society. Some believe that Israel's only desire is to suck the US unto a war that serves its interests alone. President Obama says that if the deal fails to get through Congress Iran may not attack Israel directly but through a prolonged surrogate war.
REGIME CHANGE. It can be argued that for reasons best known to the President alone, he favors the continuance of the Shia dictatorship backed by its ruthless Guard despite the knowledge that there are millions of Iranians who yearn for for freedom from despotism and medieval religious constraints that manifested itself in no uncertain terms just a few years ago and that was brutally surpressed (we all saw the videos) without so much as a murmur from the White House.
THE RELAXATION OF SANCTIONS will bolster the Regimes ability to finance and attract disaffected youth to join the ranks of Jihad through its surrogates such as Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., not only against Israel but in its unstoppable Holy War against the Sunni's. Surrogate attacks could continue against American Interests responsibility for which could easily be "disowned".
REGARDING ISRAEL, simultaneously with the agreement, the "Supreme Leader", published his book on the strategy to be employed to destroy Israel through surrogate war.
The best deal? For whom?
REGIME CHANGE. It can be argued that for reasons best known to the President alone, he favors the continuance of the Shia dictatorship backed by its ruthless Guard despite the knowledge that there are millions of Iranians who yearn for for freedom from despotism and medieval religious constraints that manifested itself in no uncertain terms just a few years ago and that was brutally surpressed (we all saw the videos) without so much as a murmur from the White House.
THE RELAXATION OF SANCTIONS will bolster the Regimes ability to finance and attract disaffected youth to join the ranks of Jihad through its surrogates such as Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., not only against Israel but in its unstoppable Holy War against the Sunni's. Surrogate attacks could continue against American Interests responsibility for which could easily be "disowned".
REGARDING ISRAEL, simultaneously with the agreement, the "Supreme Leader", published his book on the strategy to be employed to destroy Israel through surrogate war.
The best deal? For whom?
7
Guess you haven't had enough of the idea that our foreign policy should include deciding which clique should be ruling the other countries of the world. The list of countries where we have intervened, either directly or subversively, is long, and the results are unanimous that such a policy is bankrupt.
I doubt he prefers the current Iraj regimen any more than Reagan did the Ayatollah. How would you propose that this deal (or Obama in general) achieve regime change? War? If that is what the opponents of the deal want, they need to say it.
The consequence of a rebuttal of the nuclear agreement by Congress will be a failure of epic proportions. The 4 other negotiating powers (China,Russia, UK, France and Germany) will ease or drop economic sanctions and an isolated U.S. will be left with only the option to start a unilateral (and probably illegal) military action against Iran. It is amazing that partisanship can transform a win win solution; i.e. tight controls of the nuclear facilities, limits on uranium stockpiles, creation of goodwill among the 2 nations, possible cooperation in fighting ISIS and massive economic opportunities for U.S. firms to a total loss...
41
You white wash the "positives". the controls are not "tight" and there are many loopholes. If past experience is a guide - Iran will cheat and confrontation question will rise again. But, overturning this "deal" now - however poorly it's been negotiated, will have very real negative consequences. In that you are correct. But that also underlines the failure of Obama's diplomacy.
Who will be blamed for war if it breaks out AIPAC?
1
Any type of negotiated compromise will have loopholes. There is no point of trying to negotiate if we're assured in advance that the other party will not respect its end of the bargain.
As the New York Times reports in Thursday's edition:
“To remove any misinformation or confusion, Aipac took no position whatsoever on the Iraq war, nor did we lobby on this issue — this is an entirely false and misleading argument,” said Marshall Wittmann, the group’s communications director.
“To remove any misinformation or confusion, Aipac took no position whatsoever on the Iraq war, nor did we lobby on this issue — this is an entirely false and misleading argument,” said Marshall Wittmann, the group’s communications director.
11
Barney Frank says Israel and AIPAC lobbied Congress to support Iraq war - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/lobbied-congress-support#sthash.GIOAcgNj.dpuf
1
This is very misleading. Aipac is affiliated with a constellation of PACs and think tanks like WINEP and AEI which along with the Likud bloc played a central role in promoting the Iraq war based upon a mountain of concocted intelligence.
AIPAC didn't need to take a position. Many of the neocons were already confirmed Zionists. Richard Perle, for example, was a leading neocon, was chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, and pushed for war in Iraq. During Clinton's term, Perle wrote to Netanyahu describing the benefits of regime change in Iraq.
While I have grievances with the current president for being too eager to please the right wing government of Israel, the agreement with Iran to delay or make it more difficult for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon is not one of those grievances.
15
I am in full support of our President and of the Iran deal at this time in history. On another Hiroshima Day, today it is 2015: If peace in our time dies, yet again—whom shall we blame ... from its and our own graves? Might we remember peace this day, today?? From our bombs to our drones, it would seem that we have learned nothing. Only the ghosts are conscious of such blindness. Only such blindness keeps our history in such an endless grave. Only such a grave—widens—with every murder that imagined it had a cause that it called freedom... Let us remember. And let us, yes, give peace in our time the only chance it now has.
27
Congress should decide whether it is a representative of the American People and answers to them - or of and to to a foreign power, isrl, who is flagrantly interfering in US internal and foreign policy.
52
There are really no arguments against engagement with Iran. It's all propaganda and nonsense. That is why The President said It's not even a close call. It isn't. ... What ? They could destroy Israel ? If they wanted to right now Iran could attack Israel with at least 400 Strategic Missiles that would pretty much destroy Israel. They could attack with gas ( WMD's ) and wipe out the Israelis and also all the Palestinians. Which by the way they didn't use in the war with Iraq, even though Saddam used it against them with the U.S, blessing. Iran doesn't attack cause first they really have no desire to, and they know the response would wipe them out.
The truth is that we shouldn't even be having this vote. But it will show if Israel really runs our country, or at least the congress, which seems to be the case. And the opponents act like the other countries aren't involved. The rest of the world has had it with our ridiculous blinders on view of the world. The U.S. answer to everything, drop bombs. And to those who believe that Iran would not respond to any attack are beyond naive and stupid. Iran is a proud country that has put up with western meddling for way too long. They would almost certainly respond with an attack on Israel and by shutting the Persian Gulf. We would be drawn in. China and Russia would line up against us. It could easily spiral way out of control. And for what, a bunch of maybes.....
39
Finally a president who stands up to Netanyahu and Aipac. I admire Obama for standing up to the war mongers in the Republican party and Israel. You cannot bomb a country of 80 million people, many of whom admire America even if they're not allowed to say it. I salute you, President Obama!
100
NYT continues to carry water for this President. some 40-50 years in the future, people will be amused by reading these editorials as we are now about some of the editorials in the 50's.
7
It's rational to negotiate in good faith for a peaceful solution than to pursue a reckless course for war. If Iraq violates the agreement then we along with the other nations involved in the agreement will take the necessary course of action. War should be the last resort, not the first.
49
You mean as opposed to the Neo-Con/Likud propaganda being churned out by the likes of Judith Miller and Michael Gordon?
1
By printing what he actually said?
1
There is no "better deal". The only alternative is war.
The Republicans are okay with that. They like war, and they hate Obama. It's a win-win for them. Throw in the fact that they have already had secret dealings with Iran, via Ronald Reagan, and you can see why we are where we are today.
The Republicans are okay with that. They like war, and they hate Obama. It's a win-win for them. Throw in the fact that they have already had secret dealings with Iran, via Ronald Reagan, and you can see why we are where we are today.
40
Mr. Obama engages in an ad hominem argument. Some people who supported the Iraq War also oppose the agreement with Iran. He believes the Iraq War was ill-advised, so in his mind the Iran agreement must be the right course of action. As an ad hominem argument, this is purely fallacious reasoning, but if Mr. Obama and the NY Times insist on pursuing such an argument, let’s be clear on what happened in Iraq.
When Mr. Obama became president, Iraqis were living under better conditions than they had been in living memory. Their country had successfully emerged from the decades of dictatorship and an insidious insurgency, and they had done so on the strength of a surge in American forces, which Mr. Obama opposed. President Obama and his administration even tried to take credit for the success of President Bush’s policies, claiming success in Iraq as recently as 2011. But then President Obama squandered this success by prematurely withdrawing all American forces from Iraq. And no he did not negotiate with the Iraqis in good faith to try to keep forces there. He admitted in his debate with Mitt Romney that he did not want to keep troops there. President Obama’s policies toward other Middle Eastern states—Libya, Syria, Yemen—have also been a disaster. So, if we are to judge the wisdom of the Iran agreement based on the passed judgments of political leaders, President Obama’s judgments provide overwhelming evidence that the agreement should be rejected.
When Mr. Obama became president, Iraqis were living under better conditions than they had been in living memory. Their country had successfully emerged from the decades of dictatorship and an insidious insurgency, and they had done so on the strength of a surge in American forces, which Mr. Obama opposed. President Obama and his administration even tried to take credit for the success of President Bush’s policies, claiming success in Iraq as recently as 2011. But then President Obama squandered this success by prematurely withdrawing all American forces from Iraq. And no he did not negotiate with the Iraqis in good faith to try to keep forces there. He admitted in his debate with Mitt Romney that he did not want to keep troops there. President Obama’s policies toward other Middle Eastern states—Libya, Syria, Yemen—have also been a disaster. So, if we are to judge the wisdom of the Iran agreement based on the passed judgments of political leaders, President Obama’s judgments provide overwhelming evidence that the agreement should be rejected.
16
Your premise is that Obama inherited a successful war. Not true. Iraqis never had the ability to take over. The feudal tribe fighting has been going on for two-thousand years. It was a disaster from the start. The troop draw down changed nothing except in the minds of W worshippers and those unwilling to admit the total failure of the Iraq war. Your argument is rejected.
6
it's great when you don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. the government in iraq demanded that the US forces leave their country. the current administration did everything they could to reach an accord but to no avail. it was clear the then rulers in iraq want US forces out of the country so they could pursue their historic ethnic battles with their countrymen. which they did, which in turn has created the current chaos.
and what, per se, were Bush's successes? i cannot think of one involving the Middle East. in fact the Bush administration tried to reach a similar nuclear accord with Iran but failed. the terms were similar and the Right supported it, but now that Obama and Kerry have actually reach a workable understanding along the same lines they are against it. never a thought as to what is good for the world, or the country, just how it plays on Fox news.
and what, per se, were Bush's successes? i cannot think of one involving the Middle East. in fact the Bush administration tried to reach a similar nuclear accord with Iran but failed. the terms were similar and the Right supported it, but now that Obama and Kerry have actually reach a workable understanding along the same lines they are against it. never a thought as to what is good for the world, or the country, just how it plays on Fox news.
6
Actually, you do now know your latin. This is not an "ad hominem" argument at all. You may disagree with Obama's rationale or logic, but the argument he makes is not ad hominem.
4
This deal is similar nature of the Iran deal with the one negotiated with North Korea that eventually was evaded easily by the rogue nation, allowing it to construct a nuclear arsenal and ballistic missile capability that now threatens South Korea, Japan, Canada and the western United States. The larger problem is that, like North Korea, Iran is a big country: If the government wants to hide something, it will likely succeed. Compliance depends on voluntary cooperation. Perhaps Iran will cooperate, but so far, it has not come clean with the IAEA about 12 existing ‘areas of concern’ regarding the ‘possible military dimensions’ of its nuclear program. It suggests that Iran, like North Korea is likely to play a game of cat-and-mouse with inspectors — and that if it does cheat, as North Korea did, the world will again discover it is too late to do anything about it.
7
And NK's cheating has put the world in danger of...what?
So, should we attack North Korea?
1
Obama's foreign policy over the last 7 years has been a complete disaster. This deal gives money to our enemy with little in return but making enevitable that Iran gains a nuclear weapon. One thing more trenchant than connecting the Iran deal to the Iraq war which is completely unrelated, this deal reminds me and I'm sure many others of the North Korea deal. It's a shame Obama is more concerned with his legacy than with doing good.
12
It seems that the years prior to Obama were far worse: 9/11, the Iraq war for WMD. If we accept this deal, why would Iran "gain" a bomb, inevitably? Should we declare war on North Korea? Would that be "doing good"?
1
I guess you must miss continual war
Now the President is arguing that the choice is between his deal and an Iran that is free to engage in mass terror and asymmetric warfare against the U.S. and its allies? But wait a second, the deal does absolutely nothing to prevent Iran from doing any of those things. Indeed, it gives Iran's regime billions of dollars to fund its terror infrastructure. It seems that the President's rhetoric is arguing against his deal.
9
The President laid out clear and compelling reason why this step is the right move for our country. The GOP have to recognize the truth that world sanctions are now done. If we want to reimpose sanctions it will only be unilaterally, which we know are not effective enough if done alone. The deal is not perfect but it achieves the goals we want and should be acknowledged for that. Saying yes is the best answer.
40
Despite the President's rhetoric, this is not just a partisan issue, there is significant concern within the Democratic caucus, where the real stress and fights are occurring. Various Democrats are splitting with the President over this international agreement. The public is opposed to the deal, and the victory the President seeks is to not lose over two thirds of the votes in the two houses of Congress. Looked at objectively, this is an administration again trying to impose something on the country which the majority are wary of.
Mind you, I personally think that since we are dealing with a sovereignty this probably is the best that could be done and hopefully it will work, but in light of the many statements from this administration which become inoperative, many among the public no longer trust this President's rhetoric.
Mind you, I personally think that since we are dealing with a sovereignty this probably is the best that could be done and hopefully it will work, but in light of the many statements from this administration which become inoperative, many among the public no longer trust this President's rhetoric.
The US.....run by Ivy League lawyers on K street directed by their paymasters in Riyadh and Jerusalem. Weren't the Saudis big stockholders in Citibank.....and beneficiaries of the bailout? Let us hope Obama wins this one for common sense.
22
Comments against the deal are for the most part based on the idea that they simply cannot be trusted. Not on any specifics abut the deal (its complicated), nor on any other reasonable alternative solution.
Dan from Newton Ma says Obama and Kerry could have done better. Didn't see Dan from Newton at the negotiating table nor pouring over the agreement, nor discussing alternatives with our allies.
If someone has a legitimate alternative solution (an guess what-war with Iran AIN'T IT) then let them speak. So far no one has, yet they speak anyway. We treat our veterans like dirt yet so many Americans are so willing to go back to yet another war in the Middle East so fast. This is sad.
We give Israel more money than any other foreign government, yet they want us to bomb Iran to protect them. If we have to go to war with Iran, then we should pay for it with the money we give Israel,
Dan from Newton Ma says Obama and Kerry could have done better. Didn't see Dan from Newton at the negotiating table nor pouring over the agreement, nor discussing alternatives with our allies.
If someone has a legitimate alternative solution (an guess what-war with Iran AIN'T IT) then let them speak. So far no one has, yet they speak anyway. We treat our veterans like dirt yet so many Americans are so willing to go back to yet another war in the Middle East so fast. This is sad.
We give Israel more money than any other foreign government, yet they want us to bomb Iran to protect them. If we have to go to war with Iran, then we should pay for it with the money we give Israel,
43
If we go to war for Israel, Israel will be blamed for the war. It is unlikely that support of Israel will survive a war. Israel's support in Europe has collapsed thanks to Netanyahu's "war" with Gaza, and theft of Palestinian land. War against Iran to prevent a nuclear capability will not improve Israel's support in the world except in Saudi Arabia, the real source of terrorism. Israel has a lot to lose. It is not our best ally, we are Israel's only ally.
1
To be clear, John, nobody in Israel has said anything about the US going to war for them. The US didn't bomb the Osirik reactor nor did it bomb the Syrian reactor (built with North Korean help). No US troops have stepped foot in Gaza or Lebanon in any of the conflicts of the last decade.
Obama impressed upon Netanyahu the need to wait and let diplomacy run its course saying all the while that no deal is better than a bad deal. I have not seen a cogent argument how the alleged safeguards in this deal avert another North Korean like intransigence when it comes to development and proliferation. I have not seen a coherent argument for why Iran must still be able to develop long-range missiles. Or get access to $150b of proceeds without any assurances against application towards state-sponsored terror. Or release of hostages. Or payment of judgments rendered against the government for past terror. Or transparency relating to the history of the program (which will surely uncover that the nuclear program was NOT for peaceful means). How is it that "snapback" sanctions will go into play upon violation (what level of violation?) and yet the US apparently doesn't even have the power to maintain sanctions now?
Obama has been wrong so many times on Iran already. He opposed the uptick in sanctions back in 2011. Now he takes credit for them getting Iran to the table. He did nothing to support the Green Revolution. C'mon.
Obama impressed upon Netanyahu the need to wait and let diplomacy run its course saying all the while that no deal is better than a bad deal. I have not seen a cogent argument how the alleged safeguards in this deal avert another North Korean like intransigence when it comes to development and proliferation. I have not seen a coherent argument for why Iran must still be able to develop long-range missiles. Or get access to $150b of proceeds without any assurances against application towards state-sponsored terror. Or release of hostages. Or payment of judgments rendered against the government for past terror. Or transparency relating to the history of the program (which will surely uncover that the nuclear program was NOT for peaceful means). How is it that "snapback" sanctions will go into play upon violation (what level of violation?) and yet the US apparently doesn't even have the power to maintain sanctions now?
Obama has been wrong so many times on Iran already. He opposed the uptick in sanctions back in 2011. Now he takes credit for them getting Iran to the table. He did nothing to support the Green Revolution. C'mon.
If Congress overrides his veto, Obama says "the only way to keep Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon will be war"
This is the false premise behind the decades-long US effort for regime change in Iran, launched first against the elected Mosadegh in 1953 and than against the fundamentalists who overthrew his successor, the US ally Shah, in 1979.
Iran is not and has not been in nuclear weapons business. That's why they're confident they can't be caught "cheating" on the current deal. The sole Mideast proliferator is Israel.
Iranian nukes are like Iraq's WMDs or Vietnam's torpedo boat attacks-- pretexts to bamboozle the public to support war for regime change.
This is the false premise behind the decades-long US effort for regime change in Iran, launched first against the elected Mosadegh in 1953 and than against the fundamentalists who overthrew his successor, the US ally Shah, in 1979.
Iran is not and has not been in nuclear weapons business. That's why they're confident they can't be caught "cheating" on the current deal. The sole Mideast proliferator is Israel.
Iranian nukes are like Iraq's WMDs or Vietnam's torpedo boat attacks-- pretexts to bamboozle the public to support war for regime change.
15
President Obama rightly presented a very stark choice; WAR or PEACE.
There are many detailed arguments that support both ideas of taking either course, but the simple fact remains.................
Either WAR or PEACE.
There are many detailed arguments that support both ideas of taking either course, but the simple fact remains.................
Either WAR or PEACE.
23
We are smarter than this. It's not the 20th Century anymore. Upgrade your thinking, strangeloves.
War hasn't worked anywhere since Vietnam in my memory---why should it now? You have no case against this deal after all the work that went into it by 6 countries.
Please Congress don't humiliate the American people more than you already have.
War hasn't worked anywhere since Vietnam in my memory---why should it now? You have no case against this deal after all the work that went into it by 6 countries.
Please Congress don't humiliate the American people more than you already have.
62
Since Vietnam? Did the Vietnam War 'work'?
It is Obama who is humiliating America! Even many media outfits that supported him finally in the last 2-3 years have give him loads of lying, con artist, incompetence, etc. "awards". For example, The Washington Post fact checkers have been piling on the Pinocchios, sometimes 3-4 at a time. Furthermore, they have a rare, ultra "prestigious" Upside-Down Pinocchio "award". Almost no one on the planet even has one, and no one on the planet has more, EXCEPT Obama who has pulled off at least a THREE-PEAT!!!
Why in the world should anyone believe a word that Obama says?
Just for starters, Obama has ZERO answers to to some huge problems. Even many Democrat/leftwing politicians, academics, etc. say so.
Iran WILL be able to beat the deal. Among the many problems are that Iran can research, develop, produce, test, store, etc. nukes in North Korea and elsewhere. They already have done loads of nuke & missile work together. Plus, they were at 1-2 North Korean tests. There are lots of other showstoppers.
The deal is INSANE!
Why in the world should anyone believe a word that Obama says?
Just for starters, Obama has ZERO answers to to some huge problems. Even many Democrat/leftwing politicians, academics, etc. say so.
Iran WILL be able to beat the deal. Among the many problems are that Iran can research, develop, produce, test, store, etc. nukes in North Korea and elsewhere. They already have done loads of nuke & missile work together. Plus, they were at 1-2 North Korean tests. There are lots of other showstoppers.
The deal is INSANE!
2
It's tragic that politicians are mostly of two types: appeasers and warmongers. In other words, whereas the Bush administration scared our enemies, it didn't pursue diplomacy as vigorously as it should have; and while the Obama administration does all it can to mollify our enemies, it would glorify the cynical bureaucratic business of diplomacy (there can be little doubt that John Kerry thinks of himself as a hero right now), which if left to its own devices, just mouths off toothlessly. Brinksmanship is a fine art.
The White House seems to be winning the media coverage with their spin on this deal. The basic argument is that they were as hard on the Iranians as they could be, without accepting the thought of another war. They know that it is a losing argument on television to point out that, by excluding war as an acceptable possibility at the start, they give the Iranians (who are even now waging regional war) the upper hand strategically, and therefore make war more likely in the long run--this sensible attitude, that we must confront and challenge our enemies, is thus attacked as "the mind-set that led America into the Iraq war." Obama argues that the opponents of the deal would leave no option but war--in this way the deal is represented as the only way of securing peace. But if revolutionary Iran ever moves towards a nuclear weapon, then there will be need for war--the Obama's administration's cynicism lies essentially in its denial of this contingent need.
The White House seems to be winning the media coverage with their spin on this deal. The basic argument is that they were as hard on the Iranians as they could be, without accepting the thought of another war. They know that it is a losing argument on television to point out that, by excluding war as an acceptable possibility at the start, they give the Iranians (who are even now waging regional war) the upper hand strategically, and therefore make war more likely in the long run--this sensible attitude, that we must confront and challenge our enemies, is thus attacked as "the mind-set that led America into the Iraq war." Obama argues that the opponents of the deal would leave no option but war--in this way the deal is represented as the only way of securing peace. But if revolutionary Iran ever moves towards a nuclear weapon, then there will be need for war--the Obama's administration's cynicism lies essentially in its denial of this contingent need.
4
We are at the crossroads with the Islamic world and this agreement is smack dab in the middle of the intersection. The entire region, from Northern Africa all the way to India is in complete turmoil. War is everywhere. The only stable constant is its instability.
The Iraq invasion shattered the place. The Afghanistan debacle has become unwinnable. Desperate refugees are pouring out by the tens of thousands each month from many countries.
All of this can be directly connected by the overuse of military force and interference in the region. We threw gas on the place, lit the match, and then threw more gas on it. Then the locals joined the party.
Those that oppose this agreement want to continue these same failed policies. And we call the Islamists fanatics.
Peace is a process, not an event. War is an event. We need process which is what this agreement represents. It is far from perfect, but it establishes process, a process that can lead to further easing of tensions.
Netanyahu needs to coolit. Did he ever consider that Iran wants the bomb to protect itself against him? He is the one that keeps threatening war.
The Republicans need to cool it. Toying with the security of the world is worse than foolish. It is terribly dangerous. This agreement is not a political football tossed around to get votes. It is deadly serious business. We shall see if in the debates any of them comprehend the seriousness of the situation.
The Iraq invasion shattered the place. The Afghanistan debacle has become unwinnable. Desperate refugees are pouring out by the tens of thousands each month from many countries.
All of this can be directly connected by the overuse of military force and interference in the region. We threw gas on the place, lit the match, and then threw more gas on it. Then the locals joined the party.
Those that oppose this agreement want to continue these same failed policies. And we call the Islamists fanatics.
Peace is a process, not an event. War is an event. We need process which is what this agreement represents. It is far from perfect, but it establishes process, a process that can lead to further easing of tensions.
Netanyahu needs to coolit. Did he ever consider that Iran wants the bomb to protect itself against him? He is the one that keeps threatening war.
The Republicans need to cool it. Toying with the security of the world is worse than foolish. It is terribly dangerous. This agreement is not a political football tossed around to get votes. It is deadly serious business. We shall see if in the debates any of them comprehend the seriousness of the situation.
35
Your argument is sound but I would disagree with your statement that the entire Islamic world is in "complete turmoil". Turkey and Iran are very stable, as are Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman and Jordan. Syria's troubles were compounded when the US and Europe gave arms and weapons to Islamist opponents of the secular Assad regime (who, like his father, is the protector of religious minorities including Jews, Syrian Orthodox, Catholic, Druze and Alawite). As for Iraq and Afghanstan, both have been thrust into protracted civil wars with the active complicity of the US. The best thing America can do is to back off and let the Middle East resolve its own issues without the military interference of aggressive outsiders who tend to be clueless about ground realities.
Just finished watching the video of the speech. The NYTimes editorial is helpful, but I absolutely recommend to everyone interested in the geopolitics of the Iran deal to watch the speech from start to finish (yes, all 56 minutes of it) before they make up their minds one way or the other. Any debate by anyone who has not considered Obama's very detailed arguments in favor of the deal is quite simply misinformed and not worth having. You can be Einstein for all I care but if you don't have the facts there is no sense in debating the issue.
Here is a link to the video of the speech (scroll to 1:14:40, it starts there for some reason):
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/08/05/live-video-obama-de...
Here is a link to the video of the speech (scroll to 1:14:40, it starts there for some reason):
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/08/05/live-video-obama-de...
18
Mr. Obama and his team are among the best teams that the Us has ever seen. Just remember Bush, who destroyed not only the US's economy by wars he created, but the economy of the entire world.
Building is always more time and effort consuming than destroying. So let Mr. Obama along with the rest of the international community carry out the integration of Iran into the international community.
Even the Iranian authorities suspended and warned some magazines that intended to damage the deal.
So I think all want the deal, with the exception of just one country, Isreal, and Iranian and American hardliners. What an irony!
Building is always more time and effort consuming than destroying. So let Mr. Obama along with the rest of the international community carry out the integration of Iran into the international community.
Even the Iranian authorities suspended and warned some magazines that intended to damage the deal.
So I think all want the deal, with the exception of just one country, Isreal, and Iranian and American hardliners. What an irony!
14
No amount of Obama channeling or other propaganda can change the fact that the Iran Nuke Deal is madness! He has been a total disaster regarding Russia, China, Syria, Iraq, ISIS, Iran, etc., etc., etc. Plus, he literally has many countries over a barrel, indeed millions of them, but no thanks to his own policies. He throws away that huge advantage too.
As one commentator said about his foreign bungle-a-thon, "Obama trades his pocket aces for a 7 and a 2!"
Obama has ZERO ANSWERS to some huge problems. Even many Dem/lefty politicians, academics, etc. say so.
Iran WILL be able to beat the deal. Among the many problems are that Iran can research, develop, produce, test, store, etc. nukes in North Korea and elsewhere. They already have done loads of nuke & missile work together. Plus, they were at 1-2 North Korean tests. Some people suspect some testing might have been for joint work, or even just Iran. They also will be able to deliver nukes to loads to countries. Unlike all the propaganda, they do not have to be small, be delivered by missiles/planes, etc. It also might be extremely difficult to figure out who set them off --- and especially to do so fairly quickly. The list goes on & on.
They will get $150 BILLION plus loads more soon thereafter from all kinds of deals. AND have nukes too!
The deal is INSANE!
As one commentator said about his foreign bungle-a-thon, "Obama trades his pocket aces for a 7 and a 2!"
Obama has ZERO ANSWERS to some huge problems. Even many Dem/lefty politicians, academics, etc. say so.
Iran WILL be able to beat the deal. Among the many problems are that Iran can research, develop, produce, test, store, etc. nukes in North Korea and elsewhere. They already have done loads of nuke & missile work together. Plus, they were at 1-2 North Korean tests. Some people suspect some testing might have been for joint work, or even just Iran. They also will be able to deliver nukes to loads to countries. Unlike all the propaganda, they do not have to be small, be delivered by missiles/planes, etc. It also might be extremely difficult to figure out who set them off --- and especially to do so fairly quickly. The list goes on & on.
They will get $150 BILLION plus loads more soon thereafter from all kinds of deals. AND have nukes too!
The deal is INSANE!
4
Netanyahu said that Iran was already a year away from a nuclear weapon. So how is this worse?
Also, it is insulting to assume that the other countries involved in this deal are all either idiots or ignorant or simply beholden to what Obama wants
Also, it is insulting to assume that the other countries involved in this deal are all either idiots or ignorant or simply beholden to what Obama wants
President Obama needs to grab this by the horns and lay out the case, alongside John Kerry. Don't let this get hijacked a la death panels with the ACA! And do not leave it to Congress or the public's wisdom to see the accords' value!
7
The world needs more checks on US power....the fact that such an obviously good deal is under attack demonstrates the power of the evil forces within the U.S. Political system (Republicans, AIPAC).
16
Here's my question: If, as the president said today, whether to approve this agreement with a foreign power is one of the most consequential choices Congress will make in a generation, why didn't Obama submit it to the Senate as a treaty, for ratification by a two-thirds vote, as the Constitution clearly requires?
Another point: In saying that opponents of this deal "demanded that Iran capitulate and completely dismantle all of its nuclear facilities," the
Times is setting up a straw man. I, for one, am appalled by an agreement that would place NO restrictions on the ability of the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism to have an industrial scale nuclear program, far exceeding that conceivably necessary for any peaceful purpose, after 10 or 15 years. But I might very well have supported an agreement with permanent restrictions similar to those embodied in the current, temporary deal. Even Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his speech to Congress, strongly suggested that Israel could have lived with a deal well short of "complete dismantling." For the record, it was President Obama who talked about dismantling in his third debate with Mitt Romney, saying “the deal we'll accept is, they end their nuclear program.”
Finally, the idea that nothing better was achievable became a self-fulfilling prophecy. According to its president, Iran was threatened with an "economic stone age" absent sanctions relief. We could and should have done better.
Another point: In saying that opponents of this deal "demanded that Iran capitulate and completely dismantle all of its nuclear facilities," the
Times is setting up a straw man. I, for one, am appalled by an agreement that would place NO restrictions on the ability of the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism to have an industrial scale nuclear program, far exceeding that conceivably necessary for any peaceful purpose, after 10 or 15 years. But I might very well have supported an agreement with permanent restrictions similar to those embodied in the current, temporary deal. Even Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his speech to Congress, strongly suggested that Israel could have lived with a deal well short of "complete dismantling." For the record, it was President Obama who talked about dismantling in his third debate with Mitt Romney, saying “the deal we'll accept is, they end their nuclear program.”
Finally, the idea that nothing better was achievable became a self-fulfilling prophecy. According to its president, Iran was threatened with an "economic stone age" absent sanctions relief. We could and should have done better.
5
It was a speech of hate. Hate for his opponents, hate for those standing in his way. Hate for those criticizing him. It was a speech totally devoid of facts. It was a speech which did not provide answers to the many, many questions asked by the American public. It was a speech that simply said "trust me because I'm smart and you're not." In short, it was just another, albeit important act of a President who only knows hot to do one thing - give a speech.
5
I think your confusing it with Netanyahu's speech to Congress.
It provided more answers and less hatred than any of the deal's opponent s have put forth so far
"War, war, what are we waiting for ?!"
GOP 2015, 2016, 2017..................................
GOP 2015, 2016, 2017..................................
7
So Obama says the choice is between this deal and war. The AIPAC types and their puppets on Capitol Hill want war.
How about the third choice. Do nothing?! Who says we with thousands of nukes get to dictate what Iran can or cannot do? Or Israel with its own stockpile? The NPT is a joke and discriminatory.
The only countries that have violated the NPT as defined are the nuclear powers
How about the third choice. Do nothing?! Who says we with thousands of nukes get to dictate what Iran can or cannot do? Or Israel with its own stockpile? The NPT is a joke and discriminatory.
The only countries that have violated the NPT as defined are the nuclear powers
3
It's rich for this president to claim that America stands to lose its "credibility as a leader of diplomacy. America's credibility is the anchor of the international system." The President's words point to a global reality--the Pax Americana, that constellation of agreements, expectations, and material realities currently facing an unprecedented challenge. Two events have damaged America's credibility abroad the most in recent years: Obama's swallowing of his words when he drew a redline against chemical weapons being used in Syria, and the Republican party's brinksmanship on the debt ceiling, threatening an American default on our obligations to global investors. You could also add our failure to send a high level representative to the Paris march honoring Charlie Hebdo.
With this as the immediate track record, to speak of American credibility is to pay homage to a debased legacy: the president's rhetoric smacks of cynicism. Granted, Obama did not have a free hand in Syria--if he had authorized airstrikes, it would have caused a political crisis at home. But the American public's marked distaste for military intervention certainly makes our diplomacy less "credible." If we really want credible diplomacy, opinion leaders need to explain to the American public why somethings are worth fighting for.
But it does seem to me that if you recognize the importance of Pax Americana, you should struggle against the American public's desire to pull out of the Middle East.
With this as the immediate track record, to speak of American credibility is to pay homage to a debased legacy: the president's rhetoric smacks of cynicism. Granted, Obama did not have a free hand in Syria--if he had authorized airstrikes, it would have caused a political crisis at home. But the American public's marked distaste for military intervention certainly makes our diplomacy less "credible." If we really want credible diplomacy, opinion leaders need to explain to the American public why somethings are worth fighting for.
But it does seem to me that if you recognize the importance of Pax Americana, you should struggle against the American public's desire to pull out of the Middle East.
2
History Repeats:
Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of England; "It's Either Nazi Germany's Czech Deal or 'Some Sort of War'."
Barack Obama, President of the United States; "It's Either The Islamic State of Iran's Nuclear Deal or 'Some Sort of War'."
Chilling
Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of England; "It's Either Nazi Germany's Czech Deal or 'Some Sort of War'."
Barack Obama, President of the United States; "It's Either The Islamic State of Iran's Nuclear Deal or 'Some Sort of War'."
Chilling
6
I think the NY Times is doing us all a service by informing us that the Iran Deal is online and I suggest we all read it before we shoot our mouths off.
Its very easy to say Netanyahu was wrong on Iraq back then (2000-2003) he was not even part of the Israeli government. On the other hand Kerry was and he voted for the Iraq war. So its a little odd to hear him mock Netanyahu.
As for Israel let's recall that Iraq attacked Israel during the Iraq war.
I realize this is minor and must have been Israel's fault but most analysts in the Israeli military establishment pointed to Iran at the time and not Iraq as the problem.
As for Iran's intentions they have been clear "Death to Israel", for those who think Israel should just calm down I would like to remind all of the hysteria over the Red Menace and the USSR never even mentioned Death to America.
A little levity and understanding, after all the Mullahs have shown their sincerity to killing the Jews (they have a track record) and they are simply one nation among many in history who have said and done their best to deliver on these threats.
Its very easy to say Netanyahu was wrong on Iraq back then (2000-2003) he was not even part of the Israeli government. On the other hand Kerry was and he voted for the Iraq war. So its a little odd to hear him mock Netanyahu.
As for Israel let's recall that Iraq attacked Israel during the Iraq war.
I realize this is minor and must have been Israel's fault but most analysts in the Israeli military establishment pointed to Iran at the time and not Iraq as the problem.
As for Iran's intentions they have been clear "Death to Israel", for those who think Israel should just calm down I would like to remind all of the hysteria over the Red Menace and the USSR never even mentioned Death to America.
A little levity and understanding, after all the Mullahs have shown their sincerity to killing the Jews (they have a track record) and they are simply one nation among many in history who have said and done their best to deliver on these threats.
5
President Obama, in his speech, went out of his way to not single out Israel or Netenyahu as the only factor influencing Congress to vote against the agreement. In fact, the lobbying of our own military industrial complex is a much bigger factor and led to the Iraq war. There is no question that Israel become irrational over the Iran threat due to the real world actions of Hezbollah and Hamas, but how irrational did the U.S. become over the Gulf of Tonkin incident far from our shores or the U.S. become in giving President George W. Bush war powers to go after Iraq after being struck at the World Trade Center by residents of Saudi Arabia?
Just wondering if there is any real difference between the threat of war now as our beloved President seems to suggest or the threat of war ten years down the road. If we set all the peripheral issues aside it seems to me that is what we are facing. Does anyone really think that by doing this deal those running Iran will become our bosom buddies during this 10 year "cooling off period"? or that they will be so anxious to become a responsible participant in the world order that they will give up their sponsorship of terror along with the various other nefarious activities that they are accused of being involved with. I kind of doubt it. We will eventually have to deal with them in a confrontational manner. We are just kicking the can down the road, something our pols have become rather adept at lately, and that is assuming that they execute their part of the deal honorably.
5
And so, we shouldn't even try diplomacy?
I really dislike this "10 years down the road" nonsense.
We have no idea what the world will be like in six months.
10 years? Silly.
We have no idea what the world will be like in six months.
10 years? Silly.
Here's the difference: In 10 years Obama will be on the beach in Hawaii, surrounded by Secret Service men, collecting huge sums of money for books, speeches and his pension, without a care in the world.
No one is asking for war. That is a false alternative and he knows it. However, continued sanctions just may work. How can he not include the security and recognition of Israel as a nation by Iran as part of the agreement? Also, he continues to badmouth others who don't agree with him. That's why he decided to not make this a treaty so that he could bypass Congress with a simple veto. He has no idea how to build consensus and it continues to haunt him. He is his own worst enemy. If he acted like he promised in 2007, the world would be much different in the U.S. And elsewhere.
5
Continued sanctions just may have worked? By most reckonings, including Israel's, Iran was close to a unclear weapon as it is. So, no, sanctions weren't working,
Why we should listen to Obama,Obama's foreign policy successes, Iran 2009 the youth of Iran begged they even specifically sought help from President Barack Obama, chanting, "Obama, Obama, ya ba oona ya bama" (Farsi for "Obama, you are either with them or with us") in the streets, nothing. Libya doing wonderful there, only 4 American's dead in Benghazi. Syria barrel bombs killing civilians, and finding out that Assad lied about chemical weapons, oops. That reset with Russia has worked out well,Secretary of State John Kerry’s angry speech against Russia for violating the diplomatic agreement Kerry co-signed in Geneva, supposedly stabilizing the crisis in eastern Ukraine.Daesh that JV team. Begging Turkey for use of air bases to fight terrorists, who would of thought that Turkey was the buyer of Daesh's oil and getting the ok to destroy the Kurds. Obama actually became friendly with the Muslim Brotherhood and similar Islamist organizations in Egypt, calling for Mubarak to step down. That worked out well. Yemen another success, oh for Iran I mean. He wants us to forget the past, but we should trust him with an agreement, with a psychotic regime who wants us dead because he knows better and offers a bad agreement or war. I thought Obama was brilliant, Harvard educated and this is the best he can come up with, Harvard should ask for their diploma back.
5
"Mr. Obama said that he understood Israel's security concerns".
It is legitimate for the US to pursue a deal in its own interests, but it is not legitimate to continue to claim that it is in other's interests. From an Israeli vantage point, reflecting still the majority of public opinion as well as leadership and government of most if not all political parties, it does have "fatal flaws". Has Mr. Herzog or Ms. Livni or Mr. Lapid or even leaders of Meretz come out for it? I do not even recall the leader of the United Arab list coming out in support.
The question is only how to react to it. Try and fight or is it a done deal and there is no recourse but to make do:
"Mr. Obama promised to redouble American support for Israel's security". The problem is that Mr. Obama does not always deliver on his promises, and that his understanding of Israel's security is not the same as Israel's understanding of its security. "We've got your back" is a nice promise. I personally do not believe it.
Mr. Obama's speech, as many of his speeches, was trenchant. A masterpiece. Follow me or there is war. Who opposes me? Only warmongers.
Unfortunately speeches and reality are not the same.
This is most likely a done deal. Time and history will judge.
It is legitimate for the US to pursue a deal in its own interests, but it is not legitimate to continue to claim that it is in other's interests. From an Israeli vantage point, reflecting still the majority of public opinion as well as leadership and government of most if not all political parties, it does have "fatal flaws". Has Mr. Herzog or Ms. Livni or Mr. Lapid or even leaders of Meretz come out for it? I do not even recall the leader of the United Arab list coming out in support.
The question is only how to react to it. Try and fight or is it a done deal and there is no recourse but to make do:
"Mr. Obama promised to redouble American support for Israel's security". The problem is that Mr. Obama does not always deliver on his promises, and that his understanding of Israel's security is not the same as Israel's understanding of its security. "We've got your back" is a nice promise. I personally do not believe it.
Mr. Obama's speech, as many of his speeches, was trenchant. A masterpiece. Follow me or there is war. Who opposes me? Only warmongers.
Unfortunately speeches and reality are not the same.
This is most likely a done deal. Time and history will judge.
4
Excellent speech! All he is saying is give peace a chance.
1
You know what happened to the guy who coined that lyric in a song?
Nonsense.
I watched the entire speech from my office today.
Here's exactly what Barack Obama tried to do:
1. Invoking JFK as a way to bolster non-existent credibility
2. Blamed Bush (first of many times in the speech)
3. Posed his Hobson's Choice of either his bad deal with Iran or war.
4. Blamed Bush again.
5. Bashed the same Iraq War that he tried taking credit for in 2011.
The worst lies from today's speech? Obama repeatedly blaming Bush for the growth of ISIS (when Obama's negligence, Red Line debacle in Syria and JV team dismissal of ISIS is why they were able to find sanctuary in Syria and organize into what they became). Obama refusing to admit that his Iran deal does NOT do what he repeatedly promised, to dismantle Iran's nuclear program.
It was an insane speech, made after Obama invited himself to American University to give the whining, often incoherent speech to an audience filled with WH aides, Obama friends and Democratic party officials.
I watched the entire speech from my office today.
Here's exactly what Barack Obama tried to do:
1. Invoking JFK as a way to bolster non-existent credibility
2. Blamed Bush (first of many times in the speech)
3. Posed his Hobson's Choice of either his bad deal with Iran or war.
4. Blamed Bush again.
5. Bashed the same Iraq War that he tried taking credit for in 2011.
The worst lies from today's speech? Obama repeatedly blaming Bush for the growth of ISIS (when Obama's negligence, Red Line debacle in Syria and JV team dismissal of ISIS is why they were able to find sanctuary in Syria and organize into what they became). Obama refusing to admit that his Iran deal does NOT do what he repeatedly promised, to dismantle Iran's nuclear program.
It was an insane speech, made after Obama invited himself to American University to give the whining, often incoherent speech to an audience filled with WH aides, Obama friends and Democratic party officials.
6
The fact of the matter is that ISIS is composed of the very same Iraqi forces of Saddam Hussein that were deposed in the Iraq war. And we know who was responsible for that.
GOP solutions list -
World Peace - Bomb, Bomb, Bomb
Economy - tax cuts and subsidies to corporations and the wealthy
Federal Budget - more tax cuts and more subsidies to corporations and the wealthy
Healthcare - repeal Obamacare, Medicare
Women's health - ban contraception, shut down Planned Parenthood
Public safety - guns , guns and more guns
Environment - abolish EPA, destroy alternate fuels industry, more subsidies to fossil fuel corporations
Education - raise student loans interest rate, cut school and university funding
Safety net - privatize Social Security
Democracy - unlimited dark money for campaigns, disenfranchise voters
Poverty - let them eat cake
Any questions?
World Peace - Bomb, Bomb, Bomb
Economy - tax cuts and subsidies to corporations and the wealthy
Federal Budget - more tax cuts and more subsidies to corporations and the wealthy
Healthcare - repeal Obamacare, Medicare
Women's health - ban contraception, shut down Planned Parenthood
Public safety - guns , guns and more guns
Environment - abolish EPA, destroy alternate fuels industry, more subsidies to fossil fuel corporations
Education - raise student loans interest rate, cut school and university funding
Safety net - privatize Social Security
Democracy - unlimited dark money for campaigns, disenfranchise voters
Poverty - let them eat cake
Any questions?
15
Yes....when did you become this narrow minded ideologue?
If there is any Democrat who voted for the Iraq war that is still in Congress, and they go ahead and vote against the deal to find a peaceful solution in Iran, well, that is an eternal mark. There will never be a better second chance given to any human being.
It's really patronizing to compare opponents of the Iran deal to supporters of the Iraq war or the crowds shouting "death to America and Israel". Hillary Clinton, you will recall, voted to authorize the war in Iraq. This treaty is long and complex and deserves careful scrutiny without invective directed by either side at the other. There are many people in the administration who support the treaty and many in the congress from both parties who oppose it. It is a disservice to the democratic process to denounce the treaty without time to study it and also to denounce critics who have legitimate concerns about its provisions.
2
It is not a treaty .. it is an agreement between I believe seven countries.
Balance of Power prevents final solution war: this is a basic Henry Kissinger premise. It makes sense. That being said, there may be skirmishes with weapons on a lesser scale, but curbing the "Final Solution" is smart.
Republicans don't seem to be as smart as Obama and Kissenger, but we don't know. They never advocate anything positive to know. I'm sure tomorrow night will be a tank full negativity to justify change.
The question is simple: to what, for what? Strenghening the military was covered by Romney the last time around: he wanted to build more ships, but loose lips shink ships -- loose, like in the evil 26%.
You saw the clip: the same people who endorsed that are in it again.
Obama is step'n. He is bringing home some bacon where he can, and you've got to applaude that. Let's face it; Great Britain and the United States gave the holy land to Israel carte blanc. That's why we have what we have in the Mid-East. Mitigating the damage is a very positive move by Obama.
Yes, Obama is taking on opponents, and he is winning in areas where federal decision-making policy allows him to do that. He is successful.
Thank God he got affordable health care in when he had the power on the front end of Presidency. Great job Barrack!
Republicans don't seem to be as smart as Obama and Kissenger, but we don't know. They never advocate anything positive to know. I'm sure tomorrow night will be a tank full negativity to justify change.
The question is simple: to what, for what? Strenghening the military was covered by Romney the last time around: he wanted to build more ships, but loose lips shink ships -- loose, like in the evil 26%.
You saw the clip: the same people who endorsed that are in it again.
Obama is step'n. He is bringing home some bacon where he can, and you've got to applaude that. Let's face it; Great Britain and the United States gave the holy land to Israel carte blanc. That's why we have what we have in the Mid-East. Mitigating the damage is a very positive move by Obama.
Yes, Obama is taking on opponents, and he is winning in areas where federal decision-making policy allows him to do that. He is successful.
Thank God he got affordable health care in when he had the power on the front end of Presidency. Great job Barrack!
What this comes down to is the undo influence that Israel has on the US political and legislative process. That a foreign government literally has a number of elected politicians in its pocket hectoring for a deal that is not in the best interests of their constituents, the American people, seems to go unaddressed. Another party to the spear rattling is the manufacturers of the weaponry and support services ready to make billions of taxpayer dollars not only for our defense but the generous subsidies and direct gifts that benefit Israel. The real question is why has israel's interests continued to trump our own?
1
Sad that those with the money can Lobby with their big bucks to destroy President Obama's good intentions. Please see my story about my son serving 70 years in a state prison and no violence ever in his history and to make matters worse 100% time must be served. Cruel justice with excessive sentencing. http://change.org/p/jerry-brown-reduce-my-son-s-sentence
Yes Obama! Most non Americans well wishers do agree that the Iran nuclear treaty is based on a sound policy
Critics of the remarkable nuclear treaty with Iran suffers from Politicians' Logic. "Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it". This logic is as bizarre as "all cats have four legs, my dog has four legs therefore, my dog is a cat!"
We agree with Ron Paul's saying in Swords into Plowshares: "Our unwise policy with Iran is a perfect example of what the interventionists have given us—60 years of needless conflict and fear for no justifiable reason. This obsession with Iran is bewildering. If the people knew the truth, they would strongly favor a different way to interact with Iran. Let’s not forget that the Iran crisis started not 31 years ago when the Iran Sanctions Act was signed into law, not 35 years ago when Iranians overthrew the US-installed Shah, but rather 52 years ago when the US CIA overthrew the democratically-elected Iranian leader Mossadegh and put a brutal dictator into power. Our relations with the Iranians are marked by nearly six decades of blow back".
Diabolic military-industrial complex needs a constant enemy to justify huge military spending, Iran accordingly should be the threat to the US. The stories about Iran building a nuclear weapon were myths and lies, continue to be repeated to this day.
Reneging the Iran nuclear deal, America run the risk of digging itself in a hole from it cannot possibly climb out!
Critics of the remarkable nuclear treaty with Iran suffers from Politicians' Logic. "Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it". This logic is as bizarre as "all cats have four legs, my dog has four legs therefore, my dog is a cat!"
We agree with Ron Paul's saying in Swords into Plowshares: "Our unwise policy with Iran is a perfect example of what the interventionists have given us—60 years of needless conflict and fear for no justifiable reason. This obsession with Iran is bewildering. If the people knew the truth, they would strongly favor a different way to interact with Iran. Let’s not forget that the Iran crisis started not 31 years ago when the Iran Sanctions Act was signed into law, not 35 years ago when Iranians overthrew the US-installed Shah, but rather 52 years ago when the US CIA overthrew the democratically-elected Iranian leader Mossadegh and put a brutal dictator into power. Our relations with the Iranians are marked by nearly six decades of blow back".
Diabolic military-industrial complex needs a constant enemy to justify huge military spending, Iran accordingly should be the threat to the US. The stories about Iran building a nuclear weapon were myths and lies, continue to be repeated to this day.
Reneging the Iran nuclear deal, America run the risk of digging itself in a hole from it cannot possibly climb out!
3
Who should Americas trust, the American President or the Israeli Prime Minister?
At the base level, one is obligated to protect American lives, the other is not.
One voted against a war that needlessly caused thousands of American lives, the other one aggressively promoted it.
One, working with all of major world powers, agreed to a deal that would keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons for 15 years. The other has been "predicting" that Iran already has nuclear weapons for the last 15 years.
One has predicted that if Congress scuttled the Iran deal, the other world powers, whose cooperation was critical in bringing Iran to the negotiation table, would lift sanctions anyway, rendering American continuing sanctions completely toothless. The other? He's hoping Americans can go to war against Iran, again sacrificing countless young American lives needlessly.
In fact, if Mr. Netanyahu was anyhow contrite for the loss of thousands of American lives during the war he championed so aggressively, he would stay out of this AMERICAN debate.
If Americans had heeded Mr. Obama's vote instead of Mr. Netanyahu's bluster back in 2002, thousands of Americans will still be around today, with their families. And maybe, we would have avoided that ruinous Great Recession.
At the base level, one is obligated to protect American lives, the other is not.
One voted against a war that needlessly caused thousands of American lives, the other one aggressively promoted it.
One, working with all of major world powers, agreed to a deal that would keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons for 15 years. The other has been "predicting" that Iran already has nuclear weapons for the last 15 years.
One has predicted that if Congress scuttled the Iran deal, the other world powers, whose cooperation was critical in bringing Iran to the negotiation table, would lift sanctions anyway, rendering American continuing sanctions completely toothless. The other? He's hoping Americans can go to war against Iran, again sacrificing countless young American lives needlessly.
In fact, if Mr. Netanyahu was anyhow contrite for the loss of thousands of American lives during the war he championed so aggressively, he would stay out of this AMERICAN debate.
If Americans had heeded Mr. Obama's vote instead of Mr. Netanyahu's bluster back in 2002, thousands of Americans will still be around today, with their families. And maybe, we would have avoided that ruinous Great Recession.
6
While I agree with your premise here, Pres Obama did not vote against the Iraq War, he wasn't in the senate yet. He said he would have voted against it, but we will never really know.
What clearly is a victory for diplomacy and peace has become sadly just another political football. The Republican opposition is either ignorant of history and facts or just consumed by their determination to destroy any achievement of President Obama's Administration. Either way they are displaying for all to see their disloyalty to the Country.
The President has earned his Nobel Peace Prize. Now John Kerry deserves one.
The President has earned his Nobel Peace Prize. Now John Kerry deserves one.
6
Much like the situation in Greece where the Prime Minister negotiated for a better deal, only to be saddled with a worse deal, Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry negotiated for a worse deal. We are now facing the real prospect of being saddled with the results of their diplomatic incompetence. However, unlike Greece, which never had the upper hand nor any position of strength, America and its allies, did have the upper hand. Unfortunately, that was two years ago. To make matters worse, we are now being lectured by Messrs. Obama and Kerry on how good this deal is for America, when anyone who takes the time to wade through the report will see who really won the negotiations. Do your homework and read the reports on this lemon to see what a genuine wreck it really is. When you have the winning hand you don't look to break even or look to compromise, and you certainly don't acquiesce to your opponent's inferior position.
3
It really is time for Democrats to take the gloves off and vehemently defend sensible policies on Iran, ACA, Climate-change, Cuba and Planned Parenthood. When you know you are right, you are right and there is no sense in trying to reason with the talk-radio loudmouths strategy that have infected the GOP Presidential candidates.
1
Israel has claimed for decades that it only wishes to live alongside its neighbors in peace and security. Now that Iran has agreed to forego nuclear weapons and submit to an inspection regimen that monitors its compliance with the agreement, why has no one suggested that Israel itself sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and agree to similar enforcement measures? Such an action would clearly add credibility to Israel’s claim, and should advance the progress of Mideast peace efforts. If Israel genuinely seeks to reassure the rest of the world of its totally benign intentions, would not such a move be perfectly logical?
Oh, I forgot. Israel is “the good guys” and their neighbors are “bad guys,” and everybody knows that “bad guys” absolutely cannot be trusted to keep any agreement whatsoever. History clearly demonstrates that only “good guys” are capable of restraining themselves from bombing their neighbors back into the Stone Age and rendering the entire planet uninhabitable by vertebrates for ten thousand years or so. (Unfortunately, history also records that the only nation actually to use nuclear-fission weapons in warfare was one of “the good guys,” namely us, as in U.S.A.) Well then, I suppose I’ve got to go along with the idea that, since diplomacy can’t possibly work, we had better just make sure that WE bomb THEM before THEY can bomb US. Where can we hole up for ten thousand years?
Oh, I forgot. Israel is “the good guys” and their neighbors are “bad guys,” and everybody knows that “bad guys” absolutely cannot be trusted to keep any agreement whatsoever. History clearly demonstrates that only “good guys” are capable of restraining themselves from bombing their neighbors back into the Stone Age and rendering the entire planet uninhabitable by vertebrates for ten thousand years or so. (Unfortunately, history also records that the only nation actually to use nuclear-fission weapons in warfare was one of “the good guys,” namely us, as in U.S.A.) Well then, I suppose I’ve got to go along with the idea that, since diplomacy can’t possibly work, we had better just make sure that WE bomb THEM before THEY can bomb US. Where can we hole up for ten thousand years?
6
It is a good deal. Rock don't bomb "the Cradle of Civilization" give peace a chance...all that. And this: "From the large jug, drink the wine of Unity/So that from your heart you can wash away the futility of life's grief" ~Hāfez (Persian poet)
1
"Mr. Obama also promised to redouble American support for Israel’s security."
He had me thinking all was well, until he said this. Concern for Israeli security is what led to the war in Iraq. Concern for Israeli security is what led to the US bankrupting itself so they could build Iron Dome. Concern for Israeli security is what has caused the US to look the other way on countless crimes against humanity. Concern for Israeli security is what is causing Congress to kowtow to Netanyahu, and denounce their own president.
Concern for Israeli security should not be a motivating factor when talking about deals with nations that do not directly concern Israel. Let the Israelis fend for themselves, for goodness sake. If Israel so wants to fight a war to dismantle Iran's nuclear program, than by all means... call up the Israeli reserve and start the invasion... I won't hold my breath, though.
Meanwhile, I'll hope for diplomacy. And I'll hope the president doesn't give one penny more to the Israeli government (who, by the way, never needed it in the first place - they just know suckers when they see them).
He had me thinking all was well, until he said this. Concern for Israeli security is what led to the war in Iraq. Concern for Israeli security is what led to the US bankrupting itself so they could build Iron Dome. Concern for Israeli security is what has caused the US to look the other way on countless crimes against humanity. Concern for Israeli security is what is causing Congress to kowtow to Netanyahu, and denounce their own president.
Concern for Israeli security should not be a motivating factor when talking about deals with nations that do not directly concern Israel. Let the Israelis fend for themselves, for goodness sake. If Israel so wants to fight a war to dismantle Iran's nuclear program, than by all means... call up the Israeli reserve and start the invasion... I won't hold my breath, though.
Meanwhile, I'll hope for diplomacy. And I'll hope the president doesn't give one penny more to the Israeli government (who, by the way, never needed it in the first place - they just know suckers when they see them).
1
Obama and his supporters deride their opponents claiming they want war. But didn’t Obama say no deal was better than a bad deal? Was he saying no deal meant war? This might be the best deal possible, but so was the Munich agreement in 1938 the best deal the world could get from Hitler. Bush fear mongered that the safest path for America was to follow him into a war with Iraq. Obama is fear mongering that the only way to not go to war with Iran is to follow him. At least Bush got a large majority vote in Congress for his momentous decision. Obama is content to squeak by with 1/3 vote in Congress for his momentous decision. The Constitution calls for a 2/3 vote for momentous decisions. Isn’t Obama the cowboy if he gets his way with so few votes in Congress?
Iran will have $150B to support war and terror in the area. Snap-back sanctions seem less and less likely and inspections seem to rely on trusting the Iranians.
If Cubans were developing nukes and supporting terrorists attacking America with rockets how many supporters would view this deal as great for America?
I think the deal is great for Obama’s legacy (head he wins, tails he claims it was the best deal possible anyway), great for America, is not really threatened by Iran, great for Europeans in trade, great for Russian and Chinese interests. Just as Munich was great for everyone, but not for the ones not at the table – the Czechoslovakians. Tiny Israel doesn’t want war, but appeasement doesn’t necessarily bring peace.
Iran will have $150B to support war and terror in the area. Snap-back sanctions seem less and less likely and inspections seem to rely on trusting the Iranians.
If Cubans were developing nukes and supporting terrorists attacking America with rockets how many supporters would view this deal as great for America?
I think the deal is great for Obama’s legacy (head he wins, tails he claims it was the best deal possible anyway), great for America, is not really threatened by Iran, great for Europeans in trade, great for Russian and Chinese interests. Just as Munich was great for everyone, but not for the ones not at the table – the Czechoslovakians. Tiny Israel doesn’t want war, but appeasement doesn’t necessarily bring peace.
3
I wish Times Editorial Board would occasionally take the trouble to go back and examine old editorials of theirs in which they excoriate Mr. Netanyahu for one or another opinions or actions of his that have later turned out to be eminently reasonable and correct. For example, his opposition to the release of Palestinian murderers of women and children as a condition for peace talks; his opposition to the importation of cement and other building materials into Gaza; and his quite accurate labeling of Iran as a sponsor of terror and supplier of highly dangerous weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah. For a man the Times greatly dislikes and would like to see gone and forgotten, Mr. Netanyahu seems to be correctly understanding quite a lot of things about the Middle East these days that the Times and President Obama appear to be missing.
5
The proper perspective on this arises from counting noses on each side of the agreement. Responsible national governments (e.g., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany) and others (e.g., the Gulf States) support it. Reliably recalcitrant bad actors like Benjamin Netanyahu, AIPAC and the Republican pro-war lobby want to derail it. It might deprive Israel of its much-abused status as the regional hegemon and be bad for the profitability of the GOP's piggy-bank of military-industrial profiteers.
So Netanyahu & Co. has mounted a multimillion-dollar campaign going direct to American Jewish leaders hoping to enlist them in denouncing this rather remarkable agreement. And the GOP is having a knee-jerk hissy fit over something that is actualy in the long term best interests of the United States and the Middle East generally.
Sorry, opponents have cried "wolf" too often and we have all paid dearly in blood and treasure. Opponents should just go away because they are DEAD WRONG.
So Netanyahu & Co. has mounted a multimillion-dollar campaign going direct to American Jewish leaders hoping to enlist them in denouncing this rather remarkable agreement. And the GOP is having a knee-jerk hissy fit over something that is actualy in the long term best interests of the United States and the Middle East generally.
Sorry, opponents have cried "wolf" too often and we have all paid dearly in blood and treasure. Opponents should just go away because they are DEAD WRONG.
13
The Iraq War was catastrophically wrong on all counts - no WMDS, no involvement with the 9/11 attack on this country, a distraction at a moment at Tora Bora when Osama bin Laden could have been captured or killed, an unjust war according to the pope and other religious leaders at the time, and a war that left thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, and far more wounded as well as a trillion dollar war price tag that the country will be paying for a long time.
Why can't Republicans learn from such a recent past mistake? Americans will not support another Middle Eastern war. There were no centrifuges in Iran at the beginning of Bush's term, and there are some 2,000 now.
The negotiations represent the dedicated work of diplomats and scientists. Sanctions are ending. Republicans (and some Democrats) in Congress should join the real world of the present day, and not condemn future Americans to die abroad in another pointless war.
Why can't Republicans learn from such a recent past mistake? Americans will not support another Middle Eastern war. There were no centrifuges in Iran at the beginning of Bush's term, and there are some 2,000 now.
The negotiations represent the dedicated work of diplomats and scientists. Sanctions are ending. Republicans (and some Democrats) in Congress should join the real world of the present day, and not condemn future Americans to die abroad in another pointless war.
11
Listen, pay heed, to President Obama! The Iran Accords - in the name of peace in the foreseeable future for our world - must be approved and backed by both parties and all Americans. As moving as President John F. Kennedy's speech at American University fifty-two years ago - some of us listened to that speech, "A Strategy for Peace"- President Barack Obama's speech today was a brilliant clarion call against "the drumbeat of war" we must all heed. "Confident and unafraid, we must labor on - not towards a strategy of annihilation but towards a strategy of peace." (JFK, 10 June 1963.)
Anerican pro-Israeli groups lobbying American lawmakers to reject the Iran Deal is as wrong as lobbyists for the NRA and gunsellers and dealers; fearsome foxes guarding the henhouse. We face nuclear catastrophe if the Iran Deal is killed. Diplomatic agreement and approval by Congress is the route to peaceful accord with Iran.
Tomorrow night we shall see what the Republicans - the first tier of ten chosen wannabe POTUS candidates - have to say about President Obama's Iran Deal. President G.W. Bush fomented grievous losses - deaths and maimings of our military and looting of the US Treasury in his two failed Middle East initiatives that are still ongoing 14 years after his neo-con hawks convinced him to make war, not diplomacy and peace. "Wherever we are, we must all in our daily lives live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together." (JFK, 1963) Give peace a chance.
Anerican pro-Israeli groups lobbying American lawmakers to reject the Iran Deal is as wrong as lobbyists for the NRA and gunsellers and dealers; fearsome foxes guarding the henhouse. We face nuclear catastrophe if the Iran Deal is killed. Diplomatic agreement and approval by Congress is the route to peaceful accord with Iran.
Tomorrow night we shall see what the Republicans - the first tier of ten chosen wannabe POTUS candidates - have to say about President Obama's Iran Deal. President G.W. Bush fomented grievous losses - deaths and maimings of our military and looting of the US Treasury in his two failed Middle East initiatives that are still ongoing 14 years after his neo-con hawks convinced him to make war, not diplomacy and peace. "Wherever we are, we must all in our daily lives live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together." (JFK, 1963) Give peace a chance.
5
First, President Obama's sworn obligation is to act in the interests of the United States. Not Israel's (though it ought to be clear to those willing to think honestly, this deal is also in Israel's interest), and certainly not Israel's Likud party.
Second, those who are most keen to see the agreement fail are many of the same folks who led us into Iraq - neocons, militarists, AIPAC and the rest of the Israel lobby, as well as the politicians whom they've bought and/or duped.
Third, the rhetoric used by all too many opponents - mainly Republican - to justify their opposition is so fraught with venom and absurdities relating to the Holocaust that attempts by sensible politicians to evaluate the proposal in an evenhanded, careful way are virtually impossible. And that's by design.
Second, those who are most keen to see the agreement fail are many of the same folks who led us into Iraq - neocons, militarists, AIPAC and the rest of the Israel lobby, as well as the politicians whom they've bought and/or duped.
Third, the rhetoric used by all too many opponents - mainly Republican - to justify their opposition is so fraught with venom and absurdities relating to the Holocaust that attempts by sensible politicians to evaluate the proposal in an evenhanded, careful way are virtually impossible. And that's by design.
6
In the argument of diplomacy versus war, here's some points to consider:
Diplomacy didn't work with the Nazis - we went to war anyway, but:
Texas cowboy Pres Johnson opposed global communism with war - result? - a counterproductive catastrophe in Vietnam & Cambodia.
California cowboy Reagan opposed global communism primarily economically & diplomatically, with defense but no full scale war - result? - success - the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War & effectively the end of the spread of global communist tyranny.
A military invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs – result? A counterproductive disaster. A measured defensive & diplomatic approach to the Cuban missile crisis – result? – success. And now we’re renewing diplomatic relations & trade with Cuba.
Carter got Egypt & Israel together diplomatically - result? - decades of peace between them.
Pres Bush SENIOR conducts a limited, defensive, military action in the Persian Gulf – result? - success - a short, well-executed conflict with minimal American casualties that quickly, thoroughly & lastingly accomplishes its mission.
Texas cowboy G W Bush starts an unnecessary war in Iraq with an all-out invasion based on dubious pretexts - result? - an endless counterproductive catastrophe.
Obama deals with Iran diplomatically - well, we’ll see - there is some precedent for hope.
Diplomacy didn't work with the Nazis - we went to war anyway, but:
Texas cowboy Pres Johnson opposed global communism with war - result? - a counterproductive catastrophe in Vietnam & Cambodia.
California cowboy Reagan opposed global communism primarily economically & diplomatically, with defense but no full scale war - result? - success - the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War & effectively the end of the spread of global communist tyranny.
A military invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs – result? A counterproductive disaster. A measured defensive & diplomatic approach to the Cuban missile crisis – result? – success. And now we’re renewing diplomatic relations & trade with Cuba.
Carter got Egypt & Israel together diplomatically - result? - decades of peace between them.
Pres Bush SENIOR conducts a limited, defensive, military action in the Persian Gulf – result? - success - a short, well-executed conflict with minimal American casualties that quickly, thoroughly & lastingly accomplishes its mission.
Texas cowboy G W Bush starts an unnecessary war in Iraq with an all-out invasion based on dubious pretexts - result? - an endless counterproductive catastrophe.
Obama deals with Iran diplomatically - well, we’ll see - there is some precedent for hope.
6
"Pres Bush SENIOR conducts a limited, defensive, military action in the Persian Gulf – result? - success"
That was just a prelude to pave the way for his offspring to finish the dirty job that he did not want to become a part of his legacy. The Neocons made sure it was finished, disastrously I might add.
"Carter got Egypt & Israel together diplomatically - result? - decades of peace between them. "
That is true and it is still valid, despite the fact that the late president Sadat of Egypt was killed by Muslim Brotherhood members as a result. Those same criminals who were in prison were released by the MB elected president and Western beloved, M. Morsi. Later those same criminals were rewarded with cushy government jobs.
Yet most corporate media in this country that pretends to lean to the left has been selling Americans the idea that the MB group was peaceful and should remain in power regardless of what most Egyptian people think. This was reflecting the policy of the Obama administration who saw what happened as a military coup, and not a popular uprising that invoked the Armed Services to carry out its will. Tens of millions that demanded that the MB government either reform or leave. When the response was received the people's demand was answered by ousting the government who was in gross violation of the constitution.
I notice you forgot the progress achieved by Bill Clinton towards achieving a peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis.
That was just a prelude to pave the way for his offspring to finish the dirty job that he did not want to become a part of his legacy. The Neocons made sure it was finished, disastrously I might add.
"Carter got Egypt & Israel together diplomatically - result? - decades of peace between them. "
That is true and it is still valid, despite the fact that the late president Sadat of Egypt was killed by Muslim Brotherhood members as a result. Those same criminals who were in prison were released by the MB elected president and Western beloved, M. Morsi. Later those same criminals were rewarded with cushy government jobs.
Yet most corporate media in this country that pretends to lean to the left has been selling Americans the idea that the MB group was peaceful and should remain in power regardless of what most Egyptian people think. This was reflecting the policy of the Obama administration who saw what happened as a military coup, and not a popular uprising that invoked the Armed Services to carry out its will. Tens of millions that demanded that the MB government either reform or leave. When the response was received the people's demand was answered by ousting the government who was in gross violation of the constitution.
I notice you forgot the progress achieved by Bill Clinton towards achieving a peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis.
1
Why are opponents of this deal unwilling to see if this deal works? Why are they unwilling to give it a chance?
I think the main reason is that the outcome of the deal might challenge their long held assumptions about Iran. They would rather create a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy to prove themselves right, rather than give up on that assumption. Another motivation is to divert attention from a country that feels that it has the right to keep another people under subjugation (and to have expelled hundreds of thousands from their land).
I think the main reason is that the outcome of the deal might challenge their long held assumptions about Iran. They would rather create a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy to prove themselves right, rather than give up on that assumption. Another motivation is to divert attention from a country that feels that it has the right to keep another people under subjugation (and to have expelled hundreds of thousands from their land).
3
Obama is a traitor to the ideals that have made America great. He is intent on deconstructing the American dream and the ideals which have made this country the most successful on Earth, and a model for other nations to emulate. His legacy will be one of division and dissension, and it will be well deserved. Signing on to this deal will: 1. Give Iran a nuclear weapon in 10 years or less. 2. Allow Iran access to impounded billions of dollars to spend on conventional weapons immediately. 3. Remove the trade embargo on Iran, allowing them to trade with Russia and China to purchase whatever weapons they want. Is this a sane course of events? It is if you are President Obama, who is always ready, willing and able to defend America's enemies and to abandon America's allies.
1
And what is YOUR alternate plan? War?
It's unbelievable that after 15 years of bloodshed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are politicians who are willing to risk more bloodshed by not accepting the nuclear agreement with Iran. At this point, it is hopeless for President Obama to obtain any support from the Republicans who oppose everything he wants of proposes no matter how reasonable or necessary. But I take issue with the Democrats in the Congress who are opposing this deal or are hesitating to approve it, and I question their reason, is it because the leader of Israel is fulminating against the deal or because they somehow care more about Israel than the United States? I'd like the representatives from my state to know that I voted for them because I believe they would look after American interests first of all. I certainly don't remember that I voted for Netanyahu.
5
When Senator Tillis (R-NC) was campaigning he ran an ad against incumbent Kay Hagan, attacking her for missing a committee meeting about ISIS.
The other day HE missed a meeting about ISIS. His excuse: He was meeting with (alleged war criminal) Dick Cheney discussing ISIS.
When President Obama was elected, Neocon PNAC Founding Father Jeb Bush said that "we must set up a shadow government."
Here you have that "shadow government" born from the seeds of Iran-Contra, trying to take the nation further down the road of eternal war.
It's time for the president to man-up and tell the truth about exactly who is behind this bloodlust.
The other day HE missed a meeting about ISIS. His excuse: He was meeting with (alleged war criminal) Dick Cheney discussing ISIS.
When President Obama was elected, Neocon PNAC Founding Father Jeb Bush said that "we must set up a shadow government."
Here you have that "shadow government" born from the seeds of Iran-Contra, trying to take the nation further down the road of eternal war.
It's time for the president to man-up and tell the truth about exactly who is behind this bloodlust.
3
Funny, but I distinctly remember when Barack Obama took the oath of office at the Capital he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I admit that I'm getting older and perhaps my hearing is not what it once was but I don't recall Israel being mentioned in the oath he swore to uphold.
I believe that the citizens of America voted the President into office to do what is in the best interests of America, not France, not Britain, not Germany, not China, not Russia, and not the State of Israel.
I am a Jewish American who has long tired of Mr. Netanyahu's drumbeat to war with Iran, his constant evocation of The Holocaust to justify his militant stand, his publicly humiliating our President, his support of Mitt Romney in 2012, and his avoidance and failure to do anything in Israel about the increasing violence against Palestinians and the intolerance of the settlers and religious zealots towards other people.
Unless America wants to see a conflagration in the Middle East that will set the entire region ablaze Congress needs to heed President Obama's advice and the advice of scientific experts and the past five Secretary's of State who have urged Congress to support the deal with Iran.
I believe that the citizens of America voted the President into office to do what is in the best interests of America, not France, not Britain, not Germany, not China, not Russia, and not the State of Israel.
I am a Jewish American who has long tired of Mr. Netanyahu's drumbeat to war with Iran, his constant evocation of The Holocaust to justify his militant stand, his publicly humiliating our President, his support of Mitt Romney in 2012, and his avoidance and failure to do anything in Israel about the increasing violence against Palestinians and the intolerance of the settlers and religious zealots towards other people.
Unless America wants to see a conflagration in the Middle East that will set the entire region ablaze Congress needs to heed President Obama's advice and the advice of scientific experts and the past five Secretary's of State who have urged Congress to support the deal with Iran.
9
Unfortunately, one way to frame this debate is the "anything but Obama" mindset that grips the Republican party. Time and time again we see attempts to thwart the President, even if it means hurting the interests of American people in the process (see: crumbling infrastructure, gov't shutdowns, etc.).
The naked political calculation has always been that the NEXT president will be a Republican as long as the current presidency is damaged enough. And Republicans continue to bring out the wrecking ball.
In this case the scorched earth policy may actually result in actual scorching. I don't see a reasonable conversation on the Iran deal ever happening in the same House that repealed Obamacare 50x.
The naked political calculation has always been that the NEXT president will be a Republican as long as the current presidency is damaged enough. And Republicans continue to bring out the wrecking ball.
In this case the scorched earth policy may actually result in actual scorching. I don't see a reasonable conversation on the Iran deal ever happening in the same House that repealed Obamacare 50x.
5
Doesn't Obama have any shame? To put his "legacy" above the safety of American is troubling. Plus, lying about his opponents seems to be the only approach he can come up with, especially when one has just negotiated a very bad deal for America, Israel and the rest of the free world.
Fortunately Congress will send a strong signal to this inept, lawless "leader" that a bad deal which ensures Iran a straight pathway to the bomb will not be passed. And instead of diplomacy as his legacy it will be one of lies.
Fortunately Congress will send a strong signal to this inept, lawless "leader" that a bad deal which ensures Iran a straight pathway to the bomb will not be passed. And instead of diplomacy as his legacy it will be one of lies.
2
Lying about his opponents? Your evidence, sir! The Iran agreement has the support of England, France, Germany, Russia and China. Are you accusing their leaders of lying as well? You are the one without shame.
Before negotiations, Iran was 2 months from getting enough fissile material for a bomb. Iran is still in this position, as they halted enrichment during the negotiations. Post agreement, Iran will be at least a year away from the same point because their supply of 80% enriched Uranium will be (almost) gone. This status will be valid for 10 to 15 or more years, with every actual nuclear expert in agreement that the restrictions will establish this. The issue of cheating has been significantly considered. The previous 4 intelligence chiefs of Israel are in agreement with this position based on their knowledge of the issues.
An assertion that a better deal is available is easy to make--but do we really believe that Western Europe, Iran, Russia, and China will agree? Will the sanctions stay in place? Not likely. Rather, we will just end up with Iran forced to continue work toward a bomb, and sanctions from everyone but the US gone. New negotiations would start with very limited sanctions. Better deal? No chance.
So it's bombing then. Our military and the Israeli military have said they can set back the Iranians by a year or 2 at most, but can't stop the Iranians from getting a bomb. So, 2 months with no agreement, 1-2 years with bombing, and 10 to 15+ years plus 2 or more years with the agreement.
So its invasion then as we did Iraq--only Iran is far larger, richer, and more united than Iraq so the price will be far higher, and the outcome far worse.
Make your choice.
An assertion that a better deal is available is easy to make--but do we really believe that Western Europe, Iran, Russia, and China will agree? Will the sanctions stay in place? Not likely. Rather, we will just end up with Iran forced to continue work toward a bomb, and sanctions from everyone but the US gone. New negotiations would start with very limited sanctions. Better deal? No chance.
So it's bombing then. Our military and the Israeli military have said they can set back the Iranians by a year or 2 at most, but can't stop the Iranians from getting a bomb. So, 2 months with no agreement, 1-2 years with bombing, and 10 to 15+ years plus 2 or more years with the agreement.
So its invasion then as we did Iraq--only Iran is far larger, richer, and more united than Iraq so the price will be far higher, and the outcome far worse.
Make your choice.
3
What is ironic is that so many of the Republicans calling to throw away this agreement has never seen combat or served in the military. Included in this number is John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Donald Trump and others of their ilk.
Included in this number is freshman Sen. Joni Ernst. The only way she can lay claim to the spurious idea of her being a combat veteran, it was because President G.W. Bush declared the entire country of Iraq a combat zone.
When I served in the army, our definition of a combat veteran was someone who actually came under enemy fire. It was not someone leading a transportation company.
Finally, a real combat veteran who served in Vietnam as a mortar specialist (and spent days walking through the countryside while coming under attack) said, "Only a fool want to to war." It easy to call for war when you or your loved ones are not on the front line.
Included in this number is freshman Sen. Joni Ernst. The only way she can lay claim to the spurious idea of her being a combat veteran, it was because President G.W. Bush declared the entire country of Iraq a combat zone.
When I served in the army, our definition of a combat veteran was someone who actually came under enemy fire. It was not someone leading a transportation company.
Finally, a real combat veteran who served in Vietnam as a mortar specialist (and spent days walking through the countryside while coming under attack) said, "Only a fool want to to war." It easy to call for war when you or your loved ones are not on the front line.
6
President Obama's rebuttal to the critics of the Iran deal is not only fitting and quite convincing but also in full compliance of the norms of international diplomacy. For, the basic purpose of nuclear deal between the P5 1 and Iran was to restrain Iran from its weapon grade nuclear pursuit and let rest of it's nuclear programme for civilian purposes unhindered as permitted under the N PT regime too which Iran has every right to do being a signatory to the N PT treaty. So the kind of capitulation and complete surrender of Iran on the nuclear issue that the critics like the hard line Congress Republicans or the Israeli PM Netanyahu are really demanding in the name of better deal that Obama should have insisted on and also asked the other five participating nations too to follow seems not only churlish and a sign of an unfounded US unilateralism but defies the basic tenets of diplomacy and international negotiations.
8
Praise for Obama seems to be predicated on his calling out his opponents and his ability to rationalize this deal using intellectual arguments.
The problem is his arguments are wonderful and scintillating in the abstract but disconnected from reality. If only he could rationalize the Iranian regime's behavior as smoothly. He cannot. It will never allow a Westerner to determine whether it develops a nuclear weapon. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding himself, which unfortunately is what it takes to buy into Obama's narratives.
The problem is his arguments are wonderful and scintillating in the abstract but disconnected from reality. If only he could rationalize the Iranian regime's behavior as smoothly. He cannot. It will never allow a Westerner to determine whether it develops a nuclear weapon. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding himself, which unfortunately is what it takes to buy into Obama's narratives.
7
How truly strange.
"The problem is his arguments are wonderful and scintillating in the abstract but disconnected from reality"
"It will never allow a Westerner to determine whether it develops a nuclear weapon. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding himself, "
To what reality is the second sentence connected to?
Since the event you cite is clearly in the future, the answer would be, "None".
And what if IRAN decides it is in their best interest to pursue economic growth as a first priority instead of nuke weapons? Why is that disconnected from reality?
"The problem is his arguments are wonderful and scintillating in the abstract but disconnected from reality"
"It will never allow a Westerner to determine whether it develops a nuclear weapon. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding himself, "
To what reality is the second sentence connected to?
Since the event you cite is clearly in the future, the answer would be, "None".
And what if IRAN decides it is in their best interest to pursue economic growth as a first priority instead of nuke weapons? Why is that disconnected from reality?
1
Your projection of Iranian intent only leads on to think you view the whole country as evil, less than human, without sympathy or empathy. When actually your vision could only be applied to the hardline Iranian theocracy. Those men are not the people of the region. Every indication and report of individual contact with Iranians, is of a gracious and inviting people.
The President is not relying on behavior, the agreement sets verifiable standards about the physical elements needed to make a nuclear bomb and nullifies their use. There will not be the materials to make a weapon, even if they wanted. He is using the Reagan dictom, "Trust but verify". That is what everyone wants.
The President is not relying on behavior, the agreement sets verifiable standards about the physical elements needed to make a nuclear bomb and nullifies their use. There will not be the materials to make a weapon, even if they wanted. He is using the Reagan dictom, "Trust but verify". That is what everyone wants.
you may be a realist but we need guarded optimism if the world will move ahead.
As long as it's volunteers who are doing the fighting--never mind foreign civilians who didn't volunteer for anything and whom we shrug off as collateral damage--and the war can be "paid" for with one emergency appropriation after another, most Americans aren't worried about the threat of another Middle East war. As long as war news doesn't interrupt the football game, we're okay with it.
6
You see only war. I see only an Iranian regime not complying. Then a lot of spinning. Obama's not going to war with anyone.
6
What reason would they have to not comply?
That is what they had before the came to the table.
That is what they had before the came to the table.
The Presidents logic is not faulty. Voiding the agreement only leaves us with a military option. That would be tragic at this juncture.
The president is hitting on all burners. He's now the president that we expected when he was elected. His progressive philosophies will become landmarks of American history. No one knows what will happen in Iran, and as much as I dislike nuclear power, I respect their right to develop it, like the many other nations of the world. The several Iranians I've personally known share many of our western values, perhaps raising the possibility of friends in the troubled Middle East.
19
Trust me not everyone agrees with you.
If the deal did anything to stop Iran, it would have some merit. Unfortunately, it really does not. It gives the US a fig leaf of having signed a piece of paper. But it gives Iran the bomb. And it gives Iran $100+ billion dollars, to spend on subverting and terrorizing. And legitimacy. The alternative? Continue sanctions and go back to the bargaining table. Obama and Kerry could have done much better. And they should do so now. It is not too late, if they show determined leadership.
27
I couldn't disagree more. It does a HUGE amount to stop Iran. In addition, without this agreement the US would have to go it alone on sanctions. China, Russia, Japan, Korea and most of our European allies would drop out and resume conducting business with Iran. Rejecting this agreement would play into Iran's hand. There is no chance that Iran would go back to the bargaining table and everyone involved knows this.
The only sanctions getting reimposed would be US ones alone. The other countries have signed off on the agreement and are moving forward with that in mind.
Continuing sanctions with the support of our allies and co-signatories? They have already indicated that they will not.
"It gives Iran the bomb." How?
This is a Netanyahu propaganda line without value, without merit. It is a NYT pick? The American Jewish community does not agree. Rejecting this effort for the sake of the Netanyahu cause will place Israel and Jewish people in line for blame when war breaks out. This war will be the Netanyahu/Israeli war. This is a foolish blunder.
"It gives Iran the bomb." How?
This is a Netanyahu propaganda line without value, without merit. It is a NYT pick? The American Jewish community does not agree. Rejecting this effort for the sake of the Netanyahu cause will place Israel and Jewish people in line for blame when war breaks out. This war will be the Netanyahu/Israeli war. This is a foolish blunder.
1
Netanyahu is doing everything he can to force US' hands in eventually having no choice but to engage in a war with Iran. Not only does he want continuous military aids from the US, he wants the US to take down its nemesis in that of Iran. I hope the American public have enough sense not to be fooled by this man who thinks he can manipulate the US Congress and act as if he is the elected leader of the United States. Why should the US soldiers fight for Israel and die for Israel when there is absolutely no need to do so by the US signing this agreement with Iran?
35
you are right but i think he wants an excuse to bomb them himself then we will have to defend israel, sadly.
Without this agreement, deal, understanding (no one is quite certain what it is, except that is is not a treaty) with Iran, we are told the sanctions regime will crumble. With it, the sanctions also go away, $150 billion are immediately freed up for Iran to use as it sees fit and, in the unlikely event sanctions are "snapped back" because of a sufficiently egregious violation by Iran that even Russia or China could not tolerate, Iran can declare itself free from any obligations. neither scenario solves what we had been told was the problem to be addressed in negotiations. .
The President's seeming certainty and refusal to tolerate any opposition is, to say the least, disconcerting. Trying to make this issue about Israel, AIPAC and, sot to vice, Jews, is unfortunate. Every poll shows that, percentage-wise, many more non-Jewish Americans oppose the President than do Jewish Americans.
That a better deal is no longer available could plausibly be explained by Iran's outmaneuvering the US negotiating team. And, contrary to this editorial's assertion, President Obama consistently opposed Congress' sanctions regime but has not been shy about taking full credit for its success.
Everyone knows the U.S., at least under this administration, will never use force against Iran. Everyone also knows that Israel will, as it has twice before, do the West's dirty work if it believes it is threatened too.
The President's seeming certainty and refusal to tolerate any opposition is, to say the least, disconcerting. Trying to make this issue about Israel, AIPAC and, sot to vice, Jews, is unfortunate. Every poll shows that, percentage-wise, many more non-Jewish Americans oppose the President than do Jewish Americans.
That a better deal is no longer available could plausibly be explained by Iran's outmaneuvering the US negotiating team. And, contrary to this editorial's assertion, President Obama consistently opposed Congress' sanctions regime but has not been shy about taking full credit for its success.
Everyone knows the U.S., at least under this administration, will never use force against Iran. Everyone also knows that Israel will, as it has twice before, do the West's dirty work if it believes it is threatened too.
4
what do you mean wests work let Israel defend itself why should we let our infrastructure fall while israel has perfect roads and bridges, let us keep our money let iran and isreal destroy each other.
Why is the Times so reluctant to say that the only force in Washington opposing the deal is the Israel lobby? But it's the truth. Only the lobby and its satellites (including the Christian Right) are lobbying against it,
That is bad enough: the lobby of a foreign government going to war with a US President over an issue of our security.
But it's worse because that foreign government has a lobby here that mobilizes PACS (political action committees) and individual donors to contribute to Members of Congress who support Israel's interests while withholding contributions to those who put US interests first.
No other country would permit this and, in fact, it would have been unheard of here before the rise of AIPAC.
Can you imagine Winston Churchill going over President Roosevelt's head to organize a campaign to involve the US in World War 2 before Pearl Harbor forced FDR's hand.
The analogy is not perfect. Netanyahu is no Churchill. And Israel no longer behaves an an ally.
For the record, most US Jews (unlike the lobby, Jewish organizations and some Jewish members of Congress, support our president on the Iran deal not Israel's prime minister.
The Times should call out the lobby, specifically AIPAC, for using money to manipulate our political process in behalf of a foreign government.
That is bad enough: the lobby of a foreign government going to war with a US President over an issue of our security.
But it's worse because that foreign government has a lobby here that mobilizes PACS (political action committees) and individual donors to contribute to Members of Congress who support Israel's interests while withholding contributions to those who put US interests first.
No other country would permit this and, in fact, it would have been unheard of here before the rise of AIPAC.
Can you imagine Winston Churchill going over President Roosevelt's head to organize a campaign to involve the US in World War 2 before Pearl Harbor forced FDR's hand.
The analogy is not perfect. Netanyahu is no Churchill. And Israel no longer behaves an an ally.
For the record, most US Jews (unlike the lobby, Jewish organizations and some Jewish members of Congress, support our president on the Iran deal not Israel's prime minister.
The Times should call out the lobby, specifically AIPAC, for using money to manipulate our political process in behalf of a foreign government.
37
Right Jeff. This will go through in the end -- the hard way. America's foreign policy should not be "entangled" with that of other nations. We knew this a long time ago. ….
IN 1953 Winston Churchill "Lied" that Iran's Democratically Elected Prime Minister was a "Communist" and persuaded President Eisenhower to Overthrow "Iran's Democratic/Legitimate Government" and "Bring Back UK's Puppet".
Iran's "Nuclear Weapon's Threat" is another "Lie" and Iran will NOT Capitulate as the GOP Dream.
AND here is a reminder of what we have done to Iran, the Epicenter of Human Civilization, by our Falsehoods and Propaganda not long ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYutojeC5Kk
AND The Iranians Are Saying: "Never Again".
Iran's "Nuclear Weapon's Threat" is another "Lie" and Iran will NOT Capitulate as the GOP Dream.
AND here is a reminder of what we have done to Iran, the Epicenter of Human Civilization, by our Falsehoods and Propaganda not long ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYutojeC5Kk
AND The Iranians Are Saying: "Never Again".
1
It was clear from President Obama's speech today that he is the brightest and most articulate President since JFK.
29
He would be even smarter if he did not read speeches from the scrolling teleprompter, instead interjecting some really human emotion, especially at such a critical time as this when the decisions that may kill thousands are made.
Neither brightest nor most articulate makes one right. Does the Bay of Pigs ring a bell? Does VIet Nam sound familiar (60,000 dead Americans), KL? Ah, but those were the bright ideas of JFK.
I am convinced that the only real reason why the neo-cons agitating for war in Iraq in 2003 and now war in Iran in 2015 is that America didn't "win" in Vietnam. Yes, it sounds remarkably silly when stated like that, but people like Rumsfeld began their careers with the Vietnam "defeat" and they have probably been stewing about it ever since. So now that their careers are coming to an end, they want to make up for it by going out with a blaze of glory.
2
The Times has become a newspaper that is unable to report the weather without saying something derogatory about Mr. Netanyahu, and it does it here again today. He fought hard and will lose this round, but deserves great credit for making the deal a far better one than it otherwise would have been.
Looking ahead, I think it is a safe bet that Mr. Netanyahu will be making the Times unhappy on many more occasions in the future.
Looking ahead, I think it is a safe bet that Mr. Netanyahu will be making the Times unhappy on many more occasions in the future.
5
This is a ridiculous comment from Mr. Stanton. Mr. Netanyhu requires mention because he's inserting himself into the conversation, loudly, incessantly, every day.
Netanyahu deserves zero credit for any aspect of this deal. His insistence on Iran dismantling their entire nuclear program is a complete non-starter and would have led to war. Meanwhile he continues building settlements and stoking nationalist fears for his own political gain. Fortunately Obama ignored him and will continue to do so.
I don't think that Mr. Netanyahu could lose much right now by inviting all the Republican candidates for President in 2016 to Israel for further discussion of this misbegotten Iran deal. President Obama is not going to be receptive to any further arguments against the deal he might make and Jewish Democrats in the House and Senate are likely to hold their noses and vote for the deal in sufficient numbers to assure its passage. The Republican Party has demonstrated a commitment to Israel’s safety and well-being by its actions throughout the Iran deal negotiations far surpassing those currently on display in the Democratic Party; and must now be taken much more seriously by Jewish voters and others interested in furthering good relations between Israel and the U.S. The 2016 election is the best place to start.
4
The speech was neither "trenchant" nor convincing. Having exhausted his very limited arsenal of duds -- far more thoughtful pieces have exposed the Iran deal's shortcomings, half truths and bits of outright mendacity -- Obama delivered simplistic remarks in the vein of George W. Bush: all is boiled down to a faulty dilemma. The choice is not a failed piece of amateurish diplomacy or "some sort of war." (The childish vagueness of that formulation reveals the mindset behind it has little nuance.) The choice is for Congress to reject this deal and demand that a better one be presented to the Iranians. Then real negotiation can take place. When the Iranians understand we actually mean business and our red lines don't disappear with depressing regularity they may recognize that they will not get the moon in exchange for nothing.
3
This position is a complete fantasy masquerading as hardnosed realism. The only thing that brought Iran to the negotiating table was globally orchestrated sanctions. The other powers who were part of this negotiation all support the deal obtained. They will not support a US refusal now, an American move to prolong the sanctions and renegotiate. Without their support, prolonged US sanction will be toothless. As globally coordinated sanctions collapse, no deal will be in place, and Iran's nuclear build-up will continue.
President Obama seeks to "persuade" us by means of fear. I am not impressed.
6
And you are not afraid of the alternative to the deal?
International sanction fall apart
Russia and China start doing business with Iran bringing them billions.
Iran is completely free to develop their nuke program
No international inspections or monitoring
Or the US unilaterally bombs Iran, driving their nuke program even more underground, angering the entire Middle East against the US.
Just what do you think is going to really happen if this deal does not go through? Please enlighten us?
International sanction fall apart
Russia and China start doing business with Iran bringing them billions.
Iran is completely free to develop their nuke program
No international inspections or monitoring
Or the US unilaterally bombs Iran, driving their nuke program even more underground, angering the entire Middle East against the US.
Just what do you think is going to really happen if this deal does not go through? Please enlighten us?
Congratulations, TH, you seem to be one of the only Americans -- Republican, Democrat or otherwise -- who do not "fear" an uninspected, unmonitored, uncontrolled Iran possessing a nuclear weapon. You can't be serious.
" if American negotiators and the allies — France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China — had demanded that Iran capitulate and completely dismantle all of its nuclear facilities"
That's a breathtakingly huge IF. Do the opponents really think that Russia and China would go along with that? There is no historical precedent for that kind of unity in multi-lateral efforts to curtail a nation's military capability.
The right - US congress and their funders, Netanyahu, AIPAC - has always kept war on the table as a first resort. That is not helpful, as Iraq clearly showed, and is a gift that keeps on giving.
That's a breathtakingly huge IF. Do the opponents really think that Russia and China would go along with that? There is no historical precedent for that kind of unity in multi-lateral efforts to curtail a nation's military capability.
The right - US congress and their funders, Netanyahu, AIPAC - has always kept war on the table as a first resort. That is not helpful, as Iraq clearly showed, and is a gift that keeps on giving.
5
Finally, a POTUS with the courage to call out AIPAC and its allies. I've been waiting years for this moment. Way to go, President Obama!
32
The speech was arrogant, dismissive of ALL opponents questions even though Obama said few times that the deal is not perfect. He doesn't like even the DEMOCRATS questions/doubts about parts of the deal! He called "fantasy" when talking about Netanyahu without mentioning his name. REALLY? While Ayatollah JUST released a guiding book "Palestine" how to eliminate the state of Israel! Obama is the one who threaten (especially the Israelis) THIS DEAL OR WAR. Israelis - even Netanyahu doesn't want war. They think that Obama rushed to have a deal. Why didn't he extended the talks for fourth time, to get more from Iran? Instead the deal is with lots of open questions. He gave the speech at the American University to be compared to president Kennedy! Obama will never be J. F. Kennedy!
5
"Mr. Obama said the possibility of war if the deal fails was a matter of logic. Though Iran may not attack the United States directly, it could threaten American troops in Iraq with Shiite militias there, threaten Israel with rocket attacks by Hezbollah or send a suicide bomber in a small craft against American naval ships in the Strait of Hormuz, he said."
Nothing in the purported agreement prevents any of this. What sophistry. But then the Obama cheering section below would, it seems, welcome rocket attacks on Israel.
Nothing in the purported agreement prevents any of this. What sophistry. But then the Obama cheering section below would, it seems, welcome rocket attacks on Israel.
2
If a Times reporter were to ask President Obama whether he believes "Never Again" means never again, I'm certain the President would answer
yes, and I would take him at his word. But I believe that Mr. Netanyahu holds this conviction much more strongly than the President, which is why I
support him on all matters pertaining to the survival of Israel.
yes, and I would take him at his word. But I believe that Mr. Netanyahu holds this conviction much more strongly than the President, which is why I
support him on all matters pertaining to the survival of Israel.
4
Mr. Netanyahu's main concern is his own political survival. The leadership in the Israeli intelligence community supports this deal. Does anyone know what Mr. Netanyahu's alternative plan is?
I strongly resent the criticism of President Obama by AIPAC. President Obama is the leader of the United States of America, not of Israel. Our leaders need to look out for the interest of all Americans, and I hope all members of Congress put the interest of America ahead of the interests of Israel.
While I have always given my strong support to Israel, I condemn Israel today for its anti-American position regarding the Iran Deal.
I opposed the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. They wasted American blood and treasure. Most of the opponents of the Iran Deal foolishly urged us to invade Iraq, and just as they were wrong then, they are wrong today.
While I have always given my strong support to Israel, I condemn Israel today for its anti-American position regarding the Iran Deal.
I opposed the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. They wasted American blood and treasure. Most of the opponents of the Iran Deal foolishly urged us to invade Iraq, and just as they were wrong then, they are wrong today.
27
"thousands of American and Iraqi lives lost"? Try half a million Iraqi deaths. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-s...
5
As an American, I've got to ask myself:
1. Netanyahu doesn't like the deal. So what? Who cares? We are not here to serve either Netanyahu nor Israel and, worse for Bibi, lots of Israelis are less hot blooded and more intelligent and are for the deal. But, first, bottom line, we are not here to serve Israel.
2. We provide Israel with weapons, money and protection. And, now, we are supposed to scuttle a complex deal because a country we help wants us to do its becking?
3. Sadly, congress is a body of "no"; it seems to me that, after years and years of crafting a deal, it is just too easy to just should "not good enough" by people who have neither been there nor negotiated complex deals in their lives. I don't hear a realistic alternative (or even a mildly plausible one) from the rank and force of the rightist fundamentalists in congress.
1. Netanyahu doesn't like the deal. So what? Who cares? We are not here to serve either Netanyahu nor Israel and, worse for Bibi, lots of Israelis are less hot blooded and more intelligent and are for the deal. But, first, bottom line, we are not here to serve Israel.
2. We provide Israel with weapons, money and protection. And, now, we are supposed to scuttle a complex deal because a country we help wants us to do its becking?
3. Sadly, congress is a body of "no"; it seems to me that, after years and years of crafting a deal, it is just too easy to just should "not good enough" by people who have neither been there nor negotiated complex deals in their lives. I don't hear a realistic alternative (or even a mildly plausible one) from the rank and force of the rightist fundamentalists in congress.
20
Love how Obama singled out Israel's lobbying efforts in public. Loved how he said this is about American Security, by which he didn't specifically say this is more about US interests than about Israeli opinion.
About time this was called out. This is the beginning of the dismantling Israeli influence on Washington. And you have Netanyahu to thank for it.
About time this was called out. This is the beginning of the dismantling Israeli influence on Washington. And you have Netanyahu to thank for it.
15
This is the President who wants to fight Sunnis and wants help from Shiites. Does he really believe that anything he does will win over Iran? Does he think America has standing in the 1300 year split between Sunni and Shia over who the successor to Mohammed should have been?
Iranians alone can solve the problem of the government that they have. When they have had enough, they will let their leadership know. Don't think it is up to us. Obama has shown himself to be far from seeking peaceful solutions. Kerry, who opposed the Vietnam war, speaks openly of sending young Americans to Syria. Enough of these Nobel Peace Prize chasers.
Iranians alone can solve the problem of the government that they have. When they have had enough, they will let their leadership know. Don't think it is up to us. Obama has shown himself to be far from seeking peaceful solutions. Kerry, who opposed the Vietnam war, speaks openly of sending young Americans to Syria. Enough of these Nobel Peace Prize chasers.
2
Just because the republicans were wrong about Iraq and the presence of weapons of mass destruction, does not mean they are wrong about everything. And in this particular case, they are right. Iran is not the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a developed industrial nation, run by European bureaucrats. Even though the Soviet Union scared the West with its nuclear brinkmanship, there was probably never any real threat that they would actually push the button. Iran is an underdeveloped Central Asian Muslim theocracy, run by a cadre of unpredictable religious despots who would dream of few things more than pushing the button on Israel. So we are really talking about apples and oranges when the President tries to compare negotiating with the Soviet Union as somehow similar to negotiating with Iran. Beware. We are forging a relationship with truly evil men.
2
Perhaps Israel is threatened not only by a nuclear Iran, but a profitable, westernized Iran--one that is thriving, changing, open, developing a dynamic economy that becomes a beacon in the Middle East, nurturing its relationships with China and Russia and America. If this deal were to go through, that could be the most probable outcome--not nuclear war. The engines that are funding all the PR against this Iran deal must have an economic interest in keeping Iran down.
7
And Iran's two lackeys, Hezbollah and (barrel bomb) Assad will undoubtedly join Iran in this fantasy.
The stark nature of reality is just a little clearer here.
The stark nature of reality is just a little clearer here.
1
Rational minds know that, in the end, the Republicans could care less about Israel. This is a major wedge issue for them. It's simply another opportunity for them to oppose our rational and fact-based, peace-preferring, decision-making president. To witness the treasonous and traitorous acts of the GOP is simply nauseating. To witness the idiocy which follows them without an original thought of its own is downright disgusting.
3
The NY Times fails to mention that the agreement is opposed not only by the Israeli government led by Mr. Netanyahu, but also by the Israeli opposition. Israelis overwhelmingly oppose the agreement. Our other allies in the area, the Gulf Arabs, also strongly oppose the agreement. Israelis and the Gulf Arabs are the people most directly threatened by Iranian aggression, but Messrs. Obama and Kerry are convinced that they are better judges of what is best for these nations than their own governments are. Do you think the Times would be so accepting of such condescending hubris from a Republican President toward say Cuba or Venezuela or the Palestinians?
3
Do you think the Gulf states might oppose the deal because it would mean a flood of Iranian Oil on an already depressed oil market?
The Republicans opposing the deal are the same ones who brought the country to the brink of default by creating a crisis over the debt ceiling and lost the country's AAA credit rating in the process and most recently have been wanting to sacrifice the Export-Import Bank on the altar of ideological purity even if it destroys jobs.
So appealing to reason in order to persuade them to support the deal with Iran is a bit of a crapshoot for a gang of politicians who have repeatedly shown they don't care about the country they're supposed to be serving. And that's because they were elected out of spite in the first place.
So appealing to reason in order to persuade them to support the deal with Iran is a bit of a crapshoot for a gang of politicians who have repeatedly shown they don't care about the country they're supposed to be serving. And that's because they were elected out of spite in the first place.
5
What President Obama has skillfully done is frame this in the right context of diplomacy in contrast to war.
He is reminding us of our most recent history. Are we to follow the hawkish ideology of Israel which foments hatred and enmity towards their neighbors. The fear mongering of hawks led to the industrial military complex, (Eisenhower's warnings), The Vietnam war (see McNamara's apology), Iraq. If there is such a thing as American Exceptualism then it is in having an inspired sense of the right of the human spirit. Our leadership for the 21st Century requires leading the way with diplomacy (See Ireland) and breaking out of the grips of hatred that has led Europe and the Middle East to chronic unrest.
He is reminding us of our most recent history. Are we to follow the hawkish ideology of Israel which foments hatred and enmity towards their neighbors. The fear mongering of hawks led to the industrial military complex, (Eisenhower's warnings), The Vietnam war (see McNamara's apology), Iraq. If there is such a thing as American Exceptualism then it is in having an inspired sense of the right of the human spirit. Our leadership for the 21st Century requires leading the way with diplomacy (See Ireland) and breaking out of the grips of hatred that has led Europe and the Middle East to chronic unrest.
6
President Obama's speech was smart, insightful, thoughtful, filled with historical context and facts, and an appeal to real American Exceptionalism - that as the world's superpower with the most powerful military in history, we still exhaust all diplomatic and peaceful options before resorting to military force. As Obama reminded us, all post-WWII U.S. Presidents have followed this tradition. The exception was the disastrous, preemptive Iraq War - a war triggered by distortions and lies and on fear mongering and a false linkage to 9/11 to a country traumatized by 9/11. The same crowd - Neocons, Saudis, right-wing Israelis like Netanyahu, AIPAC and right-wing American Jews (a clear minority of American Jews, but a vocal and powerful minority) who are willing to put Israel's interest ahead of America's interest (in rare cases when those interest diverge), American Evangelical zealots (who love Israel so Jesus can come back and have 2/3 of all Jews die and 1/3 become Christian), the military-industrial-oil complex, low-information Republicans who confuse jingoism and chest-beating with real patriotism - that led us to the disaster of Iraq now oppose the diplomatic path with Iran - supported by every country in the world except Israel (even the Saudis and Gulf States grudgingly came around). If Iran cheats and breaks the deal, we will have legitimacy in taking military action. Time for all Congressmen and Senators to put America's interest first and support this diplomatic deal.
12
I watched the President's masterful address twice. Definitely one of his most compelling. We're fortunate to have a man of this caliber leading the nation. I found his arguments complete, competent, and convincing.
12
this deal increases the chances of war. The deal destabilizes the Sunni-Shia "balance." It's probably good for Israel, but hundreds of thousands of others will die. This is remarkably naive.
2
Do you trust the judgement of someone who said ISSIS were the JVs?
4
More than I trust the party that has been 100% wrong on every evaluation of the Middle East situation since 2001.
I cannot for the life of me recall seeing either Netanyahu or AIPAC listed on any ballot I've voted on. Who are these people and how did they come to be in charge of the United States of America?
17
The alternative to this treaty, which is bound to have the same result as the one brokered with the DPRK, isn't war. The alternative is the trajectory that we were on, which included sanctions that were having a moderating effect on Iran.
So in this regard there is a similarity with the run-up to Iraq that's in effect, namely - we have a government of chicken littles once more telling us that if we don't agree with their boneheaded decision, we'll pay an unbearable price. When it was lying Condi Rice and Bush, it was the prospect of a mushroom cloud over a major American city. And with lying John Kerry and Obama, it's the prospect of a ridiculous war with Iran. It's funny how certain both sets of liars are when it comes to their doomsday scenario.
And just like in 02-03, the NYT is there to pony up and help the government push its dumb lies. I understand how history repeats itself, but have we gotten so stupid now that the mistakes of history repeat themselves on such a short cycle?
So in this regard there is a similarity with the run-up to Iraq that's in effect, namely - we have a government of chicken littles once more telling us that if we don't agree with their boneheaded decision, we'll pay an unbearable price. When it was lying Condi Rice and Bush, it was the prospect of a mushroom cloud over a major American city. And with lying John Kerry and Obama, it's the prospect of a ridiculous war with Iran. It's funny how certain both sets of liars are when it comes to their doomsday scenario.
And just like in 02-03, the NYT is there to pony up and help the government push its dumb lies. I understand how history repeats itself, but have we gotten so stupid now that the mistakes of history repeat themselves on such a short cycle?
2
"The alternative to this treaty, which is bound to have the same result as the one brokered with the DPRK,..."
How do you know this?
How do you know this?
Netanyahu is only interested in Netanyahu. Without the Iranian bogeyman to scare everyone with, he'll have to deal with real problems like the economy and the continued and brutal occupation of Palestinian lands. Iran and especially the crazier leaders of Iran have been the greatest thing that ever happened to Netanyahu.
6
“Many who argued for the Iraq war are now against the Iran nuclear deal.”
Iraq war had the support from the UN and our allies. The only other option to this deal is war – such a war will not have any support from the UN. The P5’s economic interests in Iran will be so high after this deal that they will not back us against a war with Iran. We will be isolated, along with Israel.
Not accepting this deal is worse than the Iraq war.
Iraq war had the support from the UN and our allies. The only other option to this deal is war – such a war will not have any support from the UN. The P5’s economic interests in Iran will be so high after this deal that they will not back us against a war with Iran. We will be isolated, along with Israel.
Not accepting this deal is worse than the Iraq war.
6
The hue and cry from the Right side of the aisle is monotonously the same regardless of what it is that they are currently "Against!" The Affordable Care Act? "We hate it and we're going to continue to hate it, and we will replace it with....um....something better." Action on Climate Change? "We hate it and we're going to continue to hate it, and we have no intention of doing anything ourselves because we are not scientists." And now the treaty with Iran? "We hate it and we're going to continue to hate it, and actually what we LIKE is going to war to show the world WE ARE TOUGH!!" And the facts, phooey, those are made up by the "Liberal Mainstream Media". When, oh when will American voters stop voting for these nincompoops?
8
Israel pushed hard for the invasion of Iraq. For a long time Netanyahu and Israel have pushed hard for attacking Iran militarily which would have lead to a catastrophic situation in the Middle East. The Republicans work for the same "going it alone policy" during the Iraq invasion which isolated the US from many of its allies in Europe.
5
Is there any other foreign leader that directly addresses American citizens about our foreign policy? What isn't worrisome about that?
3
Obama's best speech ever. Glad I worked and worked for him in '08 and '12. If anyone deserves to be called a statesman, it's President Obama. He has my trust that this is the right move for the US, the Middle East, Israel included, and the world. I've never heard a better reasoned, eloquent foreign policy speech. He was right to cite Kennedy and Reagan in his speech - he belongs in their company. Of course, the midgets with their hatchets are already (within minutes of his finishing the speech) trying to cut him down to their size again, as they've tried and failed throughout his term in office. Let them eat crow when the deal passes.
10
I thought the President made sense. I'm tired of the opponents of this agreement making hyperbolic charges without any idea of what they would do next, or do better.
7
I am as patriotic as the next American and honor my country and our flag, but the array of American flags pictured behind President Obama may be just be too much. A flag, yes, perhaps two flags, not to mention a lapel pin, would be appropriate, but not the extreme display of patriotism shown here. We know you love your country, Mr. President.
1
I'm still waiting for Bibi to address the Russian Politburo or the British Parliament or the Jewish community of France and lecture them on the need to call off the deal. The U.S. hasn't been trading with Iran in decades and is not likely to begin doing so any time soon. If our Congress decides to reject the agreement it will have no authority over what Putin, Merkel, et al choose to do. In point of fact the sanctions will fall apart and Iran will probably just go ahead and build those weapons. So, Bibi, you must just as well call off your running dogs at AIPAC and book a flight to Moscow. See if Putin will hear you out about maintaining his sanctions without his cracking up before you leave the room.
107
U.S. businesses have always traded with Iran through foreign subsidiaries and can be expected to continue.
1
Since Iran has been insisting on immediate sanction removal, we know for sure they were hurting. Why didn't Obama start early on to convince Europe to go along with more sanctions? Even before they sat down at the table with Iran? Make plans to increase them unless Iran agrees to reliable verification, rather than the 24 hour window we got now.
When American makes its case convincingly, Europe follows. Russia isn't economically strong enough for its sanctions to matter. And Bibi is a knowledgable head of state whose advice we should listen to, though not always follow. Your suggestion to Bibi to fly to Moscow won't solve anything.
Face it, Stu, Obama was outnegotiated by a shrewd adversary.
When American makes its case convincingly, Europe follows. Russia isn't economically strong enough for its sanctions to matter. And Bibi is a knowledgable head of state whose advice we should listen to, though not always follow. Your suggestion to Bibi to fly to Moscow won't solve anything.
Face it, Stu, Obama was outnegotiated by a shrewd adversary.
1
your comments show contempt for a leader who is concerned about the safety of his country..........Iranian threats are not make believe.....unlike apparently the world you live in
Obama didn't "take on his opponents" as your headline laughingly states. He mocked them, he derided them, then he called them names. Obama The Bully, at his best.
11
Deservedly so.
1
If anyone is a bully and one who interferes in the politics of a country that is not his own, it is Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama laid out a very sound argument. I wish that some readers of the NYT would engage with it and not call him names.
3
Please listen to his actual speech instead of the talk radio version of what he must have said.
6
Obama got lambasted by the Right for not sufficiently supporting Iran's Green Movement. This deal improves the standard of living of ordinary Iranians, who are by-and-large very much PRO US. This illustrates the hypocrisy of the Conservatives who are denouncing this deal.
Iranians are young, smart, and have WAY more in common with us than the people who would like us not to realize this let on. Empower the People, and they will tolerate less and less theocracy.
Smart deal.
Iranians are young, smart, and have WAY more in common with us than the people who would like us not to realize this let on. Empower the People, and they will tolerate less and less theocracy.
Smart deal.
42
Dictatorships like Iran always keep the bulk of their people at subsistence levels, will continue to do so, and will continue to arrest, torture and/or murder anyone objecting to the policy.
Not even the Obama Administration would divert meaningful amounts of money from defense to social programs or domestic infrastructure.
Not even the Obama Administration would divert meaningful amounts of money from defense to social programs or domestic infrastructure.
Do you believe a single word that he says?
If so, why?
If so, why?
8
Because when I consider the alternative, l 'm appalled and terrified.
1
They like when he insults his opponents and appears to gain the upper hand. Insults they believe wholeheartedly. His words they like to hear. He's so intelligent, as are they for having elected him.
Because he has demonstrated a fair handed approach. I trust him much more then what we got from Bush and Cheney
1
“We will have lost something more precious – America’s credibility as a leader of diplomacy. America’s credibility is the anchor of the international system.”
Sorry, but the time to worry about America's credibility was a few red lines ago. The premature withdrawal from Iraq. The silence as the Iranian protestors pushed against the regime. The fiasco in Libya. The fecklessness as China creates military atolls from open sea. The hands off policy in Syria. The infamous 'JV team' comment. And so on and so on. Does anyone seriously believe America under this president has any credibility left?
Sorry, but the time to worry about America's credibility was a few red lines ago. The premature withdrawal from Iraq. The silence as the Iranian protestors pushed against the regime. The fiasco in Libya. The fecklessness as China creates military atolls from open sea. The hands off policy in Syria. The infamous 'JV team' comment. And so on and so on. Does anyone seriously believe America under this president has any credibility left?
8
You forgot to mention how even America's own military leaders, like General McCrystal, mocked President Obama's policies.
You better hope so.
1
Could Obama (ot the US at large) really do all that? LOL!
1
The battle over this accord is having an educative effect on Americans. Even 6 months ago, in this paper, any mention of AIPAC was followed by "—a pro-Israel advocacy group" or words to that effect. Now everyone knows who they are and what they do. Not so long ago even to say the words "Israel Lobby" branded one as an anti-Semite. I think this fight has put that canard to rest. Next people will begin to wonder where the $25 million to influence the vote in our Congress has come from and into whose pockets it's going. It's not all going to the media. Votes are being bought. Watch and learn...
40
We might or might not doubt Prime Minister Netanyahu's "sincerity" in opposing the P5+1 Agreement with Iran, but nobody should doubt the illegitimacy of his Government's partisan interference in American domestic affairs, spearheaded by the Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer, a former GOP operative.
Examining the GOP's dutiful obeisance to Likud's bidding, one finds nary an articulated alternative to this draft Agreement. On the issue at stake, the GOP is better aligned with Iran's Revolutionary Guard then with reality. This is par for the right-wing course that has already beaten its grim, well-tested path through Iraq.
What we have here is a classic clash of world views; one fearful and pessimistic, the other hopeful and optimistic. Peace was never built on fearful pessimism. If we could, we might ask such world-famous peaceniks as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan about this.
As voters, we are now responsible for resisting a GOP-neocon White House recapture in 2017, which would surely manufacture "intelligence" to "prove" Iranian non-compliance with the pact, just as the G.W. Bush Administration did with Iraq's fantasy WMDs in 2003. That drum-beating ended well, did it not?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Examining the GOP's dutiful obeisance to Likud's bidding, one finds nary an articulated alternative to this draft Agreement. On the issue at stake, the GOP is better aligned with Iran's Revolutionary Guard then with reality. This is par for the right-wing course that has already beaten its grim, well-tested path through Iraq.
What we have here is a classic clash of world views; one fearful and pessimistic, the other hopeful and optimistic. Peace was never built on fearful pessimism. If we could, we might ask such world-famous peaceniks as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan about this.
As voters, we are now responsible for resisting a GOP-neocon White House recapture in 2017, which would surely manufacture "intelligence" to "prove" Iranian non-compliance with the pact, just as the G.W. Bush Administration did with Iraq's fantasy WMDs in 2003. That drum-beating ended well, did it not?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
17
The President indeed made a very compelling case. The option for war has not been precluded for some future president if Iran does not abide by the terms. It appears the republicans are a lost cause and will oppose anything the President supports even to the detriment of the country. What is alarming, however, is that certain democratic senators are on the fence in this regard. If the senate does not sustain the veto, it means war! I understand that is what Netanyahu wants and is trying to flame with the chicken hawks in congress.
Unfortunately history has a way of repeating itself (especially for those that do not know it.) Iran probably will not be as easy to take down as Iraq. Unfortunately for the President some recent rhetoric did not match actions, i.e. the marker laid down regarding chemical weapons use in Syria. The mistake of course was to invoke the need for congressional approval prior to action, which was never going to happen. But still… the unfortunate precedent was set.
Everyone wants a better deal but the reality is Iran would never completely capitulate no matter how severe the sanctions. The reality is also, that Iran apparently has made significant progress while the sanctions have been in place. This has to be checked and the President’s team has laid out a wise and proper course of action to prevent the Iranians from obtaining a nuclear weapon, in my opinion.
Unfortunately history has a way of repeating itself (especially for those that do not know it.) Iran probably will not be as easy to take down as Iraq. Unfortunately for the President some recent rhetoric did not match actions, i.e. the marker laid down regarding chemical weapons use in Syria. The mistake of course was to invoke the need for congressional approval prior to action, which was never going to happen. But still… the unfortunate precedent was set.
Everyone wants a better deal but the reality is Iran would never completely capitulate no matter how severe the sanctions. The reality is also, that Iran apparently has made significant progress while the sanctions have been in place. This has to be checked and the President’s team has laid out a wise and proper course of action to prevent the Iranians from obtaining a nuclear weapon, in my opinion.
8
The President puts together a remarkable coalition of nayions to join the sanctions, which are effective, and then broker a nuclear arms deal under which we have a pretty good agreement, albeit of ten years duration, against Iran's building a nuclear bomb or enriching enough uranium to do so. The GOP and Netanyahu, the same crowd who brought is the 2003 Iraq war and still think it was a good idea, want to kill the deal because Iran did not completely capitulate. They are worse than idiots.
38
So how would the GOP senate vote for the same deal if President Romney had brokered the identical accord? Didn't St. Ronnie almost "defuse" our nuclear arsenal in a whirlwind bromance with the head of the Evil Empire-- or was he simply confused believing he was on a movie set-- creating adlib fiction until he remember his primary role as the guy with the gun and wearing the white hat, and some folks in the Pentagon bailed him out by announcing an alternative fiction: SDI.
7
@James Landi: are you seriously suggesting that Romney would have negotiated equally bad deal?
If you mash up the facts of history and smear them across a comments page, they come out sounding almost poetic. But it doesn't mean you have any more grasp of what you're talking about.
SDI was on the table before, not after, President Reagan's arms control successes with the Soviets. (For example, the 1987 INF treaty that eliminated en entire class of nuclear weapons.)
And from the moment SDI was considered, Reagan's openly declared aim was to share the technology with the Soviets. He wanted to blunt the nuclear threat in both directions. (What a warmonger!)
You know, no one on the right ever uses that "Saint Ronnie" moniker. Only froth-mouthed leftists who need to trim the inconvenient facts off the scary campfire story they tell little baby leftists at night. Booga booga! But sorry, I was alive then and remember better.
SDI was on the table before, not after, President Reagan's arms control successes with the Soviets. (For example, the 1987 INF treaty that eliminated en entire class of nuclear weapons.)
And from the moment SDI was considered, Reagan's openly declared aim was to share the technology with the Soviets. He wanted to blunt the nuclear threat in both directions. (What a warmonger!)
You know, no one on the right ever uses that "Saint Ronnie" moniker. Only froth-mouthed leftists who need to trim the inconvenient facts off the scary campfire story they tell little baby leftists at night. Booga booga! But sorry, I was alive then and remember better.
I am pleased to see the President forcefully call out the warmongers, war criminals, and chicken hawks who have crawled back out of their holes to appear on CNN and rail against the Iran nuclear deal and advocate we engage in war without end, spilling our blood and treasure for the corporate interests and the military industrial complex.
I hope that Hilary Clinton is paying attention. She was wrong when she voted for the war in Iraq, ignoring the Democratic base who warned her again and again. Clinton's warmongering was one of the main factors that cost her the Democratic presidential nomination. She needs to start viewing diplomacy as the main tool to resolve conflicts with other nations.
I hope that Hilary Clinton is paying attention. She was wrong when she voted for the war in Iraq, ignoring the Democratic base who warned her again and again. Clinton's warmongering was one of the main factors that cost her the Democratic presidential nomination. She needs to start viewing diplomacy as the main tool to resolve conflicts with other nations.
51
@Simon: your comment is a pure partisan invective against those who dare to disagree with Obama. I too hope Hillary is listening and will soon realize that Obama signed a bad deal, and then wonder, if elected, how to get out of it or repair it.
Where is the voice of business in all this? Beyond the politicos wrangling endlessly, where is the economic analysis that shows whether this deal is in the interest of America - exports, jobs, oil price etc. Why are we not talking about what's in America's economic interest?
Or are we to assume that American power exists only to defend Israel's interest?
I don't understand how the world's only superpower can be so supine and beholden to a tiny regional power, Israel.
Or are we to assume that American power exists only to defend Israel's interest?
I don't understand how the world's only superpower can be so supine and beholden to a tiny regional power, Israel.
134
Your point is well taken, and disturbing. The dog is indeed getting wagged.
1
Instead Obama is intent on the U.S. being beholden to both Iran & ISIS, who are enemies!
"BRILLIANTLY" done!
"BRILLIANTLY" done!
"I don't understand how the world's only superpower can be so supine and beholden to a tiny regional power, Israel."
You've asked the imponderable question of our age. Right up there with the cosmologists's query of "why is there something instead of nothing?"
I doubt an answer to either will be found in our lifetimes.
You've asked the imponderable question of our age. Right up there with the cosmologists's query of "why is there something instead of nothing?"
I doubt an answer to either will be found in our lifetimes.
It is almost laughable when Congress attacks Kerry and Co. over the negotiations as if we and Iran were the only groups at the table. If Congress kills this deal, our reputation vis-a-vis P5+1 countries will be torn to shreds.
14
Republicans using the scare tactics they used for Iraq? They should listen to the Commander-In-Chief for that war, George W. Bush: "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me... you can't fool me again."
You can't fool us, or the world.
You can't fool us, or the world.
11
The President should not have to "sell" this deal to anyone. The benefits are self evident. His critic's motives are also self evident. When I brought up my reasonable objections to the Iraq invasion I was told to shut up and support the troops. May I now return the favor and say shut up and support the Commander in Chief. Now that even the Arabs states are on board with this deal the president"s opponents are, once again, left with just their hatred of him as their only motivating factor. Their arguments no longer hold any weight so they turn to the old stand-bys, fear, anger and lies. If a Republican Pres. had brought this deal to the Congress there would be no Republican argument against it. The fact that this deal garners zero support amoung Republicans shows that Republicans have zero interest in America, and now, the world. I stand in awe of this group of unpatriotic scoundrels.
22
The pursuit of peace is not as romantic as the pursuit of war'. Quote from JFK. Obama presented his case for diplomacy over military action today in the best speech of his presidency. His historical context reaffirmed a consistent view of the right path for the world. Iraq War as prelude to Iran's rise caused by the same NeoCon hawks still spewing serial stridency of soldiers over diplomats. Generals vs. Appeasers. Hyperbole that has led us into the quagmires of the past.
World War II has been over for a very long time. The Cold War was won without a nuclear detonation. Or invading another sovereign nation. Iran Deal epitomizes Obama's strategy. Nobel Peace Prize was truly won today.
World War II has been over for a very long time. The Cold War was won without a nuclear detonation. Or invading another sovereign nation. Iran Deal epitomizes Obama's strategy. Nobel Peace Prize was truly won today.
10
The negotiators almost got it right. Now the president says that is it either his way, or war.
Yet, I don't see such grim possibilities. If Iraq really wants sanctions lifted, and would satisfy most everyone, just add the reasonable sentence to the agreement that says inspections any time, any place.
That one phrase would go a long ways to showing the US and those opposed to the current gift from Kerry that they are serious about peace and abiding by the world wide need for agreement.
To not do so places any responsibility for war, after all the conditions made so far in the agreement, directly in Iraq's lap.
Yet, I don't see such grim possibilities. If Iraq really wants sanctions lifted, and would satisfy most everyone, just add the reasonable sentence to the agreement that says inspections any time, any place.
That one phrase would go a long ways to showing the US and those opposed to the current gift from Kerry that they are serious about peace and abiding by the world wide need for agreement.
To not do so places any responsibility for war, after all the conditions made so far in the agreement, directly in Iraq's lap.
3
Are we discussing about Iran or Iraq. The above argument loses all its relevance since the country Iraq has been mentioned twice.Where are the editors?
My, but you are naive! There is not a country on the face of the Earth that would agree to such an infringement on its sovereignty as to permit inspections "any time, any place."
You do know which country the deal is with - right Dan?
I'll give you a hint - it's not Iraq.
p.
I'll give you a hint - it's not Iraq.
p.
The invasion and War on Iraq was not a mistake. It was a deliberate act that many connected people besides military armament manufacturers profited from; example, Cheney's Halliburton. Or as Bartcop once said, "When someone makes a "mistake" that they profit from, expect them to make that mistake over and over and over again."
13
Testifying again in front of Congress in 2002, Netanyahu claimed that Iraq’s nonexistent nuclear program was in fact so advanced that the country was now operating “centrifuges the size of washing machines.”
Netanyahu said in 2002. "If you take out Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region."
Netanyahu said in 2002. "If you take out Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region."
14
Netanyahu was not part of the Israeli government at the time. In fact the Israeli government warned the US government that Iran, not Iraq, was/would be the real problem, and, no, they did not suggest that the US go to war against either country.
1
There are two primary reasons for GOP opposition to this deal -
It is bad for business - of the Military-Industrial complex
A good fraction of American voters (Repubs) are robotically against anything and everything proposed by Pres. Obama or Democrats or other nations (besides Israel).
It is bad for business - of the Military-Industrial complex
A good fraction of American voters (Repubs) are robotically against anything and everything proposed by Pres. Obama or Democrats or other nations (besides Israel).
14
After the disastrous Vietnam and Iraq wars, perhaps it's time to give peace a chance. It might have a better result than another unnecessary war in the Middle East. I think most Americans feel it's worth a try. I hope Congress does the right thing and approves the Iran deal.
13
No one is trying to kill a deal, what the Iran deal's critics are trying to do is improve the deal so that it is the deal that the Obama Administration, in the interests of the United States of America and its allies, should have gotten and, President Obama's dissembling not withstanding, still can get, if it cares to.
8
I agree the last several weeks of pushing to 'close' the deal left us with something so very far from the best interests of our nation .
Did you read the article? How can the US improve the deal?? You have no clue and are just whistling in the dark.
Wrong. The other governments have all agreed to this deal; they will not continue to implement sanctions if the US spurns it. Unfortunately, it's this deal or none, in which case Iran will continue its build-up to deter Israel, the only military nuclear power in the region, while the global sanctions regime will collapse.
Why is Israel's nuclear program never mentioned as a basic feature of the balance of power in the Middle East? While this deal will constrain Iran's nuclear program, it does not require Israel to relinquish a single weapon. Is that not favourable to Israel?
Why is Israel's nuclear program never mentioned as a basic feature of the balance of power in the Middle East? While this deal will constrain Iran's nuclear program, it does not require Israel to relinquish a single weapon. Is that not favourable to Israel?
1
Does anyone actually like the Iran deal besides Iran, Kerry, and the far left that will reflexively defend anything Obama does?
Obama could invade Poland and the Op Ed board would have a late afternoon piece on why it's smart diplomacy.
Anything to justify that Nobel Peace Prize Obama got for just not being Bush.
Obama could invade Poland and the Op Ed board would have a late afternoon piece on why it's smart diplomacy.
Anything to justify that Nobel Peace Prize Obama got for just not being Bush.
6
Obama wouldn't invade Poland. I wouldn't rule that out for his GOPponents.
1
Here we go again. It is about Obama, not the substance of the deal! Unbelievable!!
2
Last I checked, apparently the governments of European Union, Germany, China, France, the United Kingdom, the UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon, Saudi Arabia (a rival of Iran), Turkey, India, Pakistan, etc support the Iran deal. But who am to say this actually reading the news and all?
1
It might seem wise to denigrate opposition to your views but in fact in my opinion it weakens the Obama speech today. There are serious concerns of many who honestly oppose what is in fact a very risky agreement. Disagreeing with Obama on this matter should not relegate his opponents to sheer ignorance. There are very wise people struggling to believe this is in fact a good deal.
4
You are correct but none of those you refer to are elected Republicans who obstruct EVERYTHING that this President proposes. EVERYTHING!! That is ignorant and unbelievably unpatriotic.
The debate is not really about whether this is 'a good deal,' but about whether it is the best option available in the real world. There can be a legitimate debate about how strong this agreement is in restraining Iran's breakout capacity to build military nukes in the future. The problem is that this is the only deal available! There is no better agreement that can be obtained by the US spurning this deal, and acting alone in calling for another round of negotiations. The other powers at the table have all embraced this deal. They won't maintain sanctions if the US Congress declines it.
Untying the US at least a bit from the current Israeli govt is the best unsaid or unacknowledged aspect of this agreement. And better for Israel too. Israel has many ties to Iran and those ties will hopefully be restored eventually, as well as those between Iran and the US.
10
All we are saying, is "Give peace a chance."
If that's a position that is "too extreme", then we are lost for sure.
If that's a position that is "too extreme", then we are lost for sure.
180
Another ridiculous Neville Chamberlain type of comment!
We are lost for sure when Iran easily beats the deal, and nukes start going off.
Obama has ZERO ANSWERS to some huge problems. Even many Democrat/leftwing politicians, academics, etc. say so.
Iran WILL be able to beat the deal. Among the many problems are that Iran can research, develop, produce, test, store, etc. nukes in North Korea and elsewhere. They already have done loads of nuke & missile work together. Plus, they were at 1-2 North Korean tests. Plus, there are many more showstoppers.
Ostrichism is not the answer!
We are lost for sure when Iran easily beats the deal, and nukes start going off.
Obama has ZERO ANSWERS to some huge problems. Even many Democrat/leftwing politicians, academics, etc. say so.
Iran WILL be able to beat the deal. Among the many problems are that Iran can research, develop, produce, test, store, etc. nukes in North Korea and elsewhere. They already have done loads of nuke & missile work together. Plus, they were at 1-2 North Korean tests. Plus, there are many more showstoppers.
Ostrichism is not the answer!
Speaking of "zero answers", I see none in your reply.
Mr. Netanyahu is Prime Minister of Israel. Last I heard, we were not their 51st state, and they weren't ours. Our President is correct to do what is good for our country, and this deal is. I do not believe that about the TPP.
7
Absolutely right. In fact, we have a bunch of treasonous congressmen who seem to have greater allegiance to Israel than the US. And if Israel has a beef with Iran, they should go and do the fighting themselves.
It's nothing less than the ultimate test of whether Americans are capable of learning from recent history. Unfortunately, our actual history often suggests otherwise.
The right wing always has a weak case and scant supporting evidence, but they deliver it with such fervor and simpleness that voters are often persuaded, because in the end, Americans want quick, simple solutions and have little patience for the nuances and complexities of waging peace.
The right wing always has a weak case and scant supporting evidence, but they deliver it with such fervor and simpleness that voters are often persuaded, because in the end, Americans want quick, simple solutions and have little patience for the nuances and complexities of waging peace.
12
The most disturbing aspect about Obama's remarks and the commentary that has unfolded on these pages is the talk of war being the only alternative to this deal. The reality is - whether Americans choose to accept it or not - we've been at war with Iran for decades. It seems, however, that only Iran has truly admitted that fact.
8
You make it sound, R, as though you feel that the status quo -- with Iran moving closer to a full nuclear capability and the harsh sanctions joined by the Russians and Chinese likely to be lifted shortly regardless of any agreement -- as perfectly acceptable. That makes no sense, and President Obama frankly said it makes no sense.
Opponents of the deal suggest that more sanctions would work. I have a question for them: when was the last time sanctions stopped a country for doing what it thought was in its strategic and long term interest ? If building a bomb was in Iranian interest, they would have done it already.
There is a Fatwa (law) in Iran that forbids the country of building nuclear weapons. But the only thing Opponents of the deal talk about is what former Iranian President Ahmadinejad in one of his "Donald Trump" moment said about Israel.
Cuba didn't back down because of sanctions. Russia didn't back down because of sanctions. Iran a Nation, more than 3000 years old won't back down because of sanctions.
The US and Iran have common enemies (ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and other Sunni extremists groups). The deal allows both countries to focus on fighting these terrorist organizations which have killed thousands of Americans.
There is a Fatwa (law) in Iran that forbids the country of building nuclear weapons. But the only thing Opponents of the deal talk about is what former Iranian President Ahmadinejad in one of his "Donald Trump" moment said about Israel.
Cuba didn't back down because of sanctions. Russia didn't back down because of sanctions. Iran a Nation, more than 3000 years old won't back down because of sanctions.
The US and Iran have common enemies (ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and other Sunni extremists groups). The deal allows both countries to focus on fighting these terrorist organizations which have killed thousands of Americans.
7
American negotiators and the allies — France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China -- can be trumped by one tiny nation interfering in U.S. politics? Show how corrosive the Israel lobby in the U.S. is when they can get the U.S. to engage in another thoughtless war for them.
12
Ah, yes, Mr. Netanyahu. Always willing to fight to the last American!
32
Whether or not the Iran deal is good or not (I believe it is good) is today largely irrelevant. The fact is that it is the only deal and that fact will remain. The Republicans and the Israeli Premier have come up with no alternatives, because there are none, other than war. The US cannot go it alone to produce any other effective sanctions. The opponents of the deal live in an illusionary world ,believing that the US (with Israel) can alone bring about a more effective curb on Iran. There are only two basic facts. The US cannot alone effectively control the situation and, secondly, the rest of the world (other than Israel), including all the major allies, plus the UN and the IAEA, however enthusiastically or reluctantly, accept these realities and support the deal.
162
It is the only deal because it is a deal that benefits Iran. They would not agree to it otherwise.
Of course. That's what diplomacy is about, getting both sides in agreement.
1
Precisely. In the reporting on Obama's speech we were told that McConnell took umbrage at Obama's tone--what a horse laugh. His GOP members have called Obama a terrorist, a Nazi, and untrustworthy. He should talk!
Cogent, measured, reasoned, powerful, historic, factual, informed: President Obama's speech today—on the Iran deal—was to my thinking his finest moment.
It wasn't just his words, nor his as always near-perfect delivery.
Rather, it was that the speech represented the culmination of a long process displaying the very best of Mr. Obama's leadership skills.
This wasn't some flash-in-the-pan momentary diplomatic breakthrough: it was the result of six years of painstaking effort, credibility-building, demonstration of willingness to use the military, selection and support of a stellar negotiation team—and all throughout, the steady guiding hand of a man captaining a ship he was destined to captain.
Perhaps the greatest part of what he has done—and that was on display today—was to preemptively take the wind out of the sails of the insidious and ill-informed naysayers.
For all the times we wanted Mr. Obama to react angrily to provocation, by checking his anger and always responding with impeccable calm, he has built up such a reservoir of credibility that the hissing of his critics now can easily be exposed and ignored—we all know what their partisan agenda is, and how often this fine man has bent over backwards to tolerate them and put nation first.
To be sure, I have been disappointed in certain decisions made by the President. But today, I'm humbled by his display of leadership and in awe of what he is on the brink of achieving. Count me behind him 100% on this.
@ricfouad
It wasn't just his words, nor his as always near-perfect delivery.
Rather, it was that the speech represented the culmination of a long process displaying the very best of Mr. Obama's leadership skills.
This wasn't some flash-in-the-pan momentary diplomatic breakthrough: it was the result of six years of painstaking effort, credibility-building, demonstration of willingness to use the military, selection and support of a stellar negotiation team—and all throughout, the steady guiding hand of a man captaining a ship he was destined to captain.
Perhaps the greatest part of what he has done—and that was on display today—was to preemptively take the wind out of the sails of the insidious and ill-informed naysayers.
For all the times we wanted Mr. Obama to react angrily to provocation, by checking his anger and always responding with impeccable calm, he has built up such a reservoir of credibility that the hissing of his critics now can easily be exposed and ignored—we all know what their partisan agenda is, and how often this fine man has bent over backwards to tolerate them and put nation first.
To be sure, I have been disappointed in certain decisions made by the President. But today, I'm humbled by his display of leadership and in awe of what he is on the brink of achieving. Count me behind him 100% on this.
@ricfouad
450
A little over the top, don't you think?
Partisanship is a weird thing.
You say that 'certain decisions' made by the president have disappointed you. I wonder which ones. Are there really any?
Partisanship is a weird thing.
You say that 'certain decisions' made by the president have disappointed you. I wonder which ones. Are there really any?
Loved your post!
2
I love this comment. Thank you Ric for succinctly expressing some of the reasons I so admire our current president. May reason and intelligence always prevail.
1
Obama has already lost credibility. More importantly, he's lost it at home by appearing too eager for a deal and then using faulty arguments to support it.
5
Please cite the "faulty arguments." And make sure to acknowledge that there are five other countries involved, all of which are backing this deal.
stu:
The most obvious is the "only alternative is war" meme. Another is the idea that "snapbacks" are an option. No one in his right mind believes once businesses get in there and start investing there won't be intense pressure to avoid sanctions.
As for the other countries, leaks would indicate that it was the US driving this deal. Obama signaled early on that he was willing to capitulate on sanctions.
The problem is that the handwriting is on the walls with his deals. Later if and when Iran doesn't comply and problems arise, the president will likely start spinning narratives that it's really working, just as he did with Obamacare and tried on Benghazi. He'll not acknowledge that the inspection regime isn't working.
He's basically dishonest and cannot be trusted.
The most obvious is the "only alternative is war" meme. Another is the idea that "snapbacks" are an option. No one in his right mind believes once businesses get in there and start investing there won't be intense pressure to avoid sanctions.
As for the other countries, leaks would indicate that it was the US driving this deal. Obama signaled early on that he was willing to capitulate on sanctions.
The problem is that the handwriting is on the walls with his deals. Later if and when Iran doesn't comply and problems arise, the president will likely start spinning narratives that it's really working, just as he did with Obamacare and tried on Benghazi. He'll not acknowledge that the inspection regime isn't working.
He's basically dishonest and cannot be trusted.
1
How are his arguments "faulty"? And do make sure to acknowledge that there are five other nations involved, all of whom support the deal. The ONLY other alternative- short of war- is to sit back and watch as every other nation drops its economic sanctions while Iran builds nuclear weapons with no IAEA inspectors around to tell the world that they're doing so.
1
War with Iran will be a cakewalk in the park.
After all, it's only four times larger than Iraq, with four times the population, much better educated, much richer, with a functioning government and a large army that will stand and fight.
The US has not fought an army worthy of the name since Viet Nam. And, of course, that worked out so well.
After all, it's only four times larger than Iraq, with four times the population, much better educated, much richer, with a functioning government and a large army that will stand and fight.
The US has not fought an army worthy of the name since Viet Nam. And, of course, that worked out so well.
6
Incredibly, Obama's argument at this point is that it's a bad deal, but we have to take it because the alternatives are worse.
He's probably right, but it feels so wrong to approve the deal when Obama and Kerry backed us into the corner where all of the alternatives were worse!
He's probably right, but it feels so wrong to approve the deal when Obama and Kerry backed us into the corner where all of the alternatives were worse!
4
Like his specious claim that he had no choice on immigration and had to issue his Executive Order. And before that his claim that there were no alternatives to Obamacare, so we had to accept his monstrous legislation.
The alternative is always worse when Obama is pushing something hard. It's just surprising how many parrot this every time.
The alternative is always worse when Obama is pushing something hard. It's just surprising how many parrot this every time.
He hasn't said it's a bad deal, only that it's an imperfect deal. As is virtually every other such deal that's been struck since a lone carpenter took it upon himself to die for the sins of all mankind. That was the only "perfect deal" that I'm familiar with.
Obama never said it's a bad deal. At times, he acknowledges that this deal is not air-tight, but he argues that inspectors we will know if Iran is not complying. Diplomacy is about give and take, not one state surrendering its sovereignty to others. Obama's main argument is that the alternatives are worse, that the deal's opponents have nothing better to propose.
2
Presidents who have had to go into wars have told us many, many times to tread lightly -- I abor the fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld got us into such a quagmire. My opinion is that we should accept this deal and drown out the warmongers. I am reminded of years ago when we sang "All we are saying, is give peace a chance" -- maybe we should just do that right here, right now!!!
6
The obvious problems that most people know about is the rule on inspections with a 3 or 4 week notification or warning and the fact that Iran will definitely continue to prepare for launching a bomb and building a bomb during the period covered by the deal so they will be able to kill all of those who live in Israel with one shot. They have already told the World that their goal is to drop an atomic bomb on Israel and kill all the Jews.
Another problem for Obama is his credibility. He is a proven liar and has lied to the American people before. Unfortunately for him most people subscribe to the "once a liar, always a liar" theory.
Another problem for Obama is his credibility. He is a proven liar and has lied to the American people before. Unfortunately for him most people subscribe to the "once a liar, always a liar" theory.
3
Sanctions can be effective as a blunt stick in the short term, but are not a foundation for building a more constructive order. They alienate and isolate and can lead to all sorts of dangerous misconceptions between enemies, as happened so disastrously between the U.S. and Saddam's Iraq. In the case of Iran's nuclear threat, they brought major Western allies together, along with China and Russia, and prodded Iran to the negotiating table. Now it's time to build a more durable, constructive foundation for relations with Iran, which is the real promise of the nuclear agreement. John Lennon said it most succinctly at the height of our futile conflict in Vietnam: "Give peace a chance."
3
Why doesn't Israel invade and fight Iran? Why do we always have to do the heavy lifting?
6
I am far from anti-semetic but I want to say that Netanyahu is a clear and present danger to America. I move that the people of Israel and American Jewish people call for his ouster before he starts a war that destroys vast portions of both hemispheres.
War is the insanity of humanity. Anyone who chooses war when peace prevails is very clearly insane.
War is the insanity of humanity. Anyone who chooses war when peace prevails is very clearly insane.
19
And who do you want to replace Netanyahu with? Hertzog, the leader of the Zionist party, the majority central left/liberal party, in Israel? Won't make any difference, on Iran and the deal, Hertzog agrees with Netanyahu.
I listened to President Obama's speech. He has a well laid out arguments for my California senators to support. I would write to them to support. Also, in my opinion president earned his Noble peace prize if he succeeds in implementing the agreement
7
We Americans have so little contact with Iranians through social situations, or social media, that fear based on unfamiliarity rules the argument against this agreement from the right leaning amongst us. That, and the constant beating of war drums on the all potent 'talk radio,' with religion of distrust and paranoia thrown in by the Republican extremists. The hate built up against President Obama reminds me of George Orwell's group hates against the target of the moment in 1984. If this deal is rejected because of the hate and paranoia of the right wingers, and we have another Iraq style war in Iran this time? Instigated by the same delusional ones who gave us Iraq; I don't know if our country would survive the results. An interesting PBS show by Rick Steves on world travel, put him in Iran, and when you heard show common it was for Iranians on the street, younger Iranians, to fluently speak English, and they all said they liked Americans, it makes you wonder what they would think after we started bombing them. It would no longer just be the hard liners in Iran who hate us, they would all hate us.
7
I have a dozen or so neighbors in two states. Virtually all of them in both places readily reject the President's agreement with Iran. Is it any wonder this country essentially remains at war?
3
The Obama team's accords with Iran also reduce the likelihood of warfare because it brings away from an adversarial position and to the table. Which is safer, Iran as an outlier or under internationally-agreed guidelines?
9
War is the last option, when all else has failed. This deal surely falls under the heading of "all else." How the deal's opponents cannot see that is profoundly bizarre. They hunger for war, and rail all the louder when they see its prospects dim. This deal reduces the chance of a war with Iran, hence the vituperation.
7
President Obama and his administration are presenting the deal as "take it or leave it" with no alternative. Meanwhile, many details of the deal are secret- even from our own state department- as evidenced by their recent testimony to congress. The president did not confer with congress and therefore cannot expect they will blindly follow him.
1
The deal has been ratified by the UN Security Council. Regardless of what Congress does, the other signatories will remove sanctions as soon as Iran completes the steps it is required to take. All Congress can control is US sanctions, and, given geography, Iran's natural trading partners are in Asia and Europe. As far as I can see, the train has left the station. Congress can lie down on the tracks if they wish, but that is about it.
17
The opponents of this deal are the picture of hypocrisy. They see themselves as patriots, but they find it acceptable to defy and oppose the President of the United States and side with a foreign leader. Sadly, they are blind to the contradiction, and such is the nature of arrogance. Obama will prevail, because the rest of us aren't as naive as they assume.
20
A piece in the Guardian reports that French, British and German businessmen are already in Teheran angling for business. The elaborate international sanctions we have painstakingly assembled are already crumbling. Without our participation the inspections regime will probably also vanish. We should take what we can get.
11
AIPAC and Netanyahu, quite rightly, have made the case for how how dangerous this "treaty" is to Israel. It needs to be fought all the way. Considering how the American people have elected Obama, a man who goes out of his way to prevent the Israeli people from living and building homes anywhere they have a right to in Israel, is this a surprise?
2
"to prevent the Israeli people from living and building homes anywhere they have a right to in Israel"
That is really twisted settler-think.
The US opposes settlements. All of our Presidents and all of our official government positions have always opposed settlements.
That is really twisted settler-think.
The US opposes settlements. All of our Presidents and all of our official government positions have always opposed settlements.
3
War is never the answer. Human beings need to understand we are one human family and killing each other, for land, property, border, religion, economic or any other reasons, will not solve our perceived problems and misconceptions about each other.
6
Every night when PBS announced the names of American Service Personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan , my wife and I stood and silently paid respect. I hope we do not have to do the same again.
For the first few months, we understood why our armed forces were in Afghanistan. After the terrorists who attacked the United States and their supporters were severely punished, we waited for our armed forces to return home. We are still waiting.
We never understood why we to war in Iraq. We do not understand how not one of the original advocates who dissembled the truth have not been punished.
“If the rhetoric in these ads and the accompanying commentary sounds familiar, it should, for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal,”
We cannot believe the very same dissemblers are back.
For the first few months, we understood why our armed forces were in Afghanistan. After the terrorists who attacked the United States and their supporters were severely punished, we waited for our armed forces to return home. We are still waiting.
We never understood why we to war in Iraq. We do not understand how not one of the original advocates who dissembled the truth have not been punished.
“If the rhetoric in these ads and the accompanying commentary sounds familiar, it should, for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal,”
We cannot believe the very same dissemblers are back.
9
I've read the 159 page publicly available version of the agreement and I think it's a good one, at least from the perspective of one who worked on something called the HEU Transparency Program which was the verification process for the Megatons to Megawatts program. That program spent 20 years buying 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium from Russia, had it blended-down to 2 to 4 percent enrichment in Russian uranium enrichment plants, and shipped it here to be used to generate 10 percent of U.S. electricity for that period of time. I worked in the Russian enrichment plants checking seals, observing processing, measuring uranium enrichment, etc. The remote surveillance equipment available for use in verifying compliance with the present Iran agreement is what gives assurance that on a 24/7/365 basis we will know if the Iranians are cheating. The on-site presence of IAEA inspectors (office space for them at various facilities is written into the agreement) assures me that cheating will be investigated in a timely manner. I hope we don't throw away this golden opportunity for non-proliferation progress because of simple fear or pandering to political bases in the US and in Israel. A chance like this won't come again.
22
I well remember the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The Bush team was skilful in making it seem unpatriotic to oppose the war. I could see right through the rush to war, as Hans Blixt and his team kept reporting no finds on the search for "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. Each passing week without finding anything would make it harder to invade, so the invasion happened before the inspections were completed. And I'll never forget, after the war had been underway for a while, when Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz was asked how many American lives had been lost so far, and he replied "I'll have to get back to you on that." I knew the number, which had recently been published, for crying out loud!
I'm thankful we have a President this time around who will try the negotiation route first.
I'm thankful we have a President this time around who will try the negotiation route first.
30
My paradox I sent him to Congress with 50% majority , he gets in and immediately his approval in there becomes 8%.
1
Unfortunately, there are elected actors in our national governing bodies who will compromise their oaths to the U.S. Constitution & to the American people for a profit, who's very foundation-(funded by lobbyist) are built on the industry of War. These politicians & special interest view the mighty military arsenal possessed by the U.S. armed forces as a tool only to initiate unprovoked aggression. Sadly, even with a huge volume of undisputed evidence highlighting the endless follies & wasteful cost that result from these ego war adventures, few in Government are wise enough to speak in unison with foreign policy of our responsible President. War is often a necessity when diplomacy fails to enlighten opposing parties, but when opposing parties reach a consensus for the purpose of exploring peace, then how can the interest of those who would argue for more war win the ear of reasonable minds? Money & distorted convictions should not be allowed to highjack common sense.
7
The intransigence of the GOP resembles that of the Islamist radicals in Iran. Both are resistant to facts and logic and both have done great harm to their countries. If either causes a war to happen, they will have blood on their hands.
11
I live in Canada and I am very disappointed in my Prime Minister Stephen Harper who will not support Obama in his peaceful negotiations with Iran. Harper too supported George W. Bush in his terrorist attack on Iraq. Obama has the courage to stand up to Israel while Harper coddles the Israelis and Jews even if it means another terrible war, this time with Iran. Prime Minister Harper makes me ashamed to be a Canadian.
25
I am Canadian as well and most people I know support the deal that President Obama and his allies made with Iran-as for Stephen Harper-we'll see you in October[our election]-good luck with that....
It does not work, this fish stinks and i am not buying!
6
If the fish stinks, check the head. This president is a masterful...shall we say, "salesman". He's fortunate to have many who desperately want to believe in him.
As for the rhetoric we've heard before, it's mostly his. We heard promises and assurances from him on Obamacare, and we're hearing more now on this deal. The same people who wouldn't listen to criticism then are the same ones now who won't listen. They were all wrong before and likely are now.
As for the rhetoric we've heard before, it's mostly his. We heard promises and assurances from him on Obamacare, and we're hearing more now on this deal. The same people who wouldn't listen to criticism then are the same ones now who won't listen. They were all wrong before and likely are now.
3
The ACA has been working even more effectively than the President had suggested it would. Then again, the same people who wouldn't listen then continue to deny reality now.
9
We really have three options: (1) this deal, (2) war, or (3) sit on our hands while Iran spins 20,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 centrifuges and starts producing plutonium at Arak.
If the critics of the deal deny they want war, then they need to explain why #3 is okay.
If the critics of the deal deny they want war, then they need to explain why #3 is okay.
15
Hezbollah, funded and armed by Iran, will attack Israel within a couple of years possibly less. They already have Iranian supplied missles aimed directly at Tel Aviv.
4
1) That has nothing to do with this deal or even this article.
2) It is much more likely Israel that will attack Lebanon, again.
2) It is much more likely Israel that will attack Lebanon, again.
1
And Israel has a nuclear arsenal no doubt aimed at both Lebanon and Iran.
1
Well said. Now look at the comments from newly minted Senator Cotton who learned nothing from his military service.
8
Wonder how this equation impacts Republican objection to the Iranian deal?
War = Big profits for weapons manufacturers, big oil, etc
Diplomacy = No meaningful corporate profits
Republicans need to back military action to win support from their big donors.
War = Big profits for weapons manufacturers, big oil, etc
Diplomacy = No meaningful corporate profits
Republicans need to back military action to win support from their big donors.
9
Perhaps a better solution, rather than invading countries like Iraq and Iran, would be to stop installing and supporting dictators in those nations in the first place, thus radicalizing their people with anti-American fervor.
But this peace accord is a nice second-best option, since the horse is out of that barn.
But this peace accord is a nice second-best option, since the horse is out of that barn.
4
It amuses me that he asked us to assume the US was considered a leader in diplomacy. We lost that back before the Bush imbecile took power.
4
Isn't there a crime we can charge these noecons with? They got us into one war which killed and maimed over 100,000 young American men and women. And for what again? If Bibi and Aipac have the clout in the US Congress to defeat this deal, then we need to elect a new Congress. That behavior is close to treason. Maybe it actually is.
25
Obama isn't convincing. Instead of attacking those who dont like this deal with Iran, why not list its benefits to USA, openly and in detail, and then advocate them?
His approach confers legitimacy to the opponents, suggesting the deal isn't good enough to defend, and the best sell is to trash those who disagree with him. The speech sounds so similar to the numerous ones he gave on the campaign trails, praising democrats and calling Republicans the enemy.
His approach confers legitimacy to the opponents, suggesting the deal isn't good enough to defend, and the best sell is to trash those who disagree with him. The speech sounds so similar to the numerous ones he gave on the campaign trails, praising democrats and calling Republicans the enemy.
20
He did, you just didn't listen. It's better for us (security, credibility, leading role in the world, not another trillion dollar war), Israel (security) and all of Iran's neighbors (security) that Iran does not become a nuclear state.
7
@rimantas: He's done that ad nauseum. Have you been paying attention?
8
Henry, oh I heard!! When he accused Republicans and Iran rulers of making common cause, it was so petty and ridiculous to lose all credibility. If anyone is making common cause with Iran, it would be Obama. But no one here is, and Obama is making things up because the deal isn't good enough for rational defense.
Do you know enough of the secrets of the deal to say outright that Iran won't become a nuclear state? Even Obama admitted it will.
Do you know enough of the secrets of the deal to say outright that Iran won't become a nuclear state? Even Obama admitted it will.
Regardless of who wins the next election, as a country, we are going to miss Obama. Very much. History will show just how critical his leadership has been to shepherd us into a post-9/11, post-Iraq, post-financial crisis, ever warming and increasingly interdependent world while keeping as many of the core values and strengths that built America as intact as possible.
324
The 22nd amendment should be altered to apply only to those over the age of 65 when contemplating a third term. After all, it's neither the intended consequence, nor in America's interest, to send accomplished leaders like Obama, with at least 20 more years of productive service remaining, to retirement. As it turns out, the amendment is discriminating against young presidents, in effect punishing them for blooming early. Obama especially is getting a triple whammy. He's black, so he gets racist wind every now and then, he's black and capable, which gets him infuriation which gets him stubborn hard resistance from Congress, and then he's young, so he gets pushed out before his prime. Under normal circumstances he could have sued for both race and age discrimination, but in his case, the only options are to disappear under TedX and presidential foundations, or be Biden's choice for VP.
6
I will be happy to see a guy like Joe Biden in the White House in 2017. Before Obama leaves office you will see a major recession due to the failure of Obamacare and the economic disaster due to all these new regulatory requirements on industry. If this treaty is approved you will see Iran set up a nuclear war with Israel. By then Obama will be playing golf in Hawaii. He will go down in history as the worst President ever elected.
Without question, the most absurd thing I have ever read in these comments. Sir or Madam, you are a marvel.
Don't forget, President Obama's present critics are the very same people who invaded Iraq to stop the demonstration by the UN that it could peacefully arbitrate disarmament agreements with inspections.
17
I trust Mr. Obama. I am saddened, as an American Jew, to have lost trust in the Israeli leadership, and in the American legislators who put their loyalty to one Israeli coalition above their loyalty to the United States.
33
This is precisely why Obama is considered a "divider". You're either with him or against him. He's just more clever about it.
3
Nah; he's just fed up. And after six-plus years of being regarded as an illegitimate President he can scarcely be blamed for finally treating the contemptible with contempt.
10
You are implying that the american people cannot be fooled again.
I hope it is true, but I don't think it is.
I hope it is true, but I don't think it is.
4
I'm glad the editorial side of NYT understood the significance of Obama's compelling speech. The news side certainly did not, according it scant space and dismissing it as "aggressive." The AP, WaPo, USA Today and even WSJ all recognized the news value of the speech and gave it its due.
8
There may be some merit to the Democrats' opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, but the Republicans long ago lost the right to be taken seriously. Republican opposition to the deal, announced almost simultaneously with the president's announcement of the agreement - even before they'd read the text of the agreement, is part and parcel of their persistent, knee-jerk opposition to anything this president proposes and their desperation to deny him an achievement that might be seen as an Obama"victory." It's tragic that such a critical issue is subject to the usual political theater, but that's been the Republican way since day one of the Obama administration.
234
Opposition to the deal in Congress, means that those against it, are working in the best interests of a foreign country, namely Israel.
Opponents are putting Israely foreign policy above the best interests of America.
To me this amounts to treason and should be dealt with the full force of the law.
The president should find out who in Congress is on the payroll of Israel and round them up quickly before they take us to war.
Opponents are putting Israely foreign policy above the best interests of America.
To me this amounts to treason and should be dealt with the full force of the law.
The president should find out who in Congress is on the payroll of Israel and round them up quickly before they take us to war.
Let me cut to the chase.
The negotiations are over. If Congress sabotages this deal, there will be no new negotiations, no new conditions, no strengthening of American leverage vis-a-vis Iran. There will just disarray.
If the Republicans win the Presidency in 2016, there will almost assuredly be an attack on Iran, an attack that will prove every bit as successful as Dubya's "Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq - which is to say not successful at all.
The sorry truth is that Republicans can blow stuff up, but are utterly incapable of winning hearts and minds, much less a war of ideas. And yet they appear addicted to blowing things up, to tales "told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
The negotiations are over. If Congress sabotages this deal, there will be no new negotiations, no new conditions, no strengthening of American leverage vis-a-vis Iran. There will just disarray.
If the Republicans win the Presidency in 2016, there will almost assuredly be an attack on Iran, an attack that will prove every bit as successful as Dubya's "Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq - which is to say not successful at all.
The sorry truth is that Republicans can blow stuff up, but are utterly incapable of winning hearts and minds, much less a war of ideas. And yet they appear addicted to blowing things up, to tales "told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
97
Anyone with half a brain knows that Iran is not going to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. To do so would mean its immediate destruction. Given what we have witnessed in the past few years, can we be as sure of the reverse? That's what scares me.
30
A nuclear attack on Israel would also result in the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs. The Iranians aren't stupid enough to think that only Jews would be slaughtered.
4
Wait. So, your argument is that Iran is more rational than Israel?!?
"So, your argument is that Iran is more rational than Israel?!?"
Almost everyone is more rational than Netanyahu. That is why he is so alone in this. And yes, Iran is more rational than Netanyahu too.
If you doubt it, ask the Israeli security professionals including Mossad who have come out against him, all of them.
Almost everyone is more rational than Netanyahu. That is why he is so alone in this. And yes, Iran is more rational than Netanyahu too.
If you doubt it, ask the Israeli security professionals including Mossad who have come out against him, all of them.
8
"didn’t doubt the sincerity of Mr. Netanyahu’s objections"
I do.
I think Obama does too, but it just isn't politic to say so.
I do.
I think Obama does too, but it just isn't politic to say so.
88
What is insincere about Mr. Netanyahu's objections? He sincerely believes that this deal will enable or accelerate Iran having nuclear weapons. Given Iran's actions and words, he believes that is a threat to Israel. Furthermore, Iran has caused Israel a lot of pain through its proxies, notably Hezbollah and Hamas.
I don't particularly like Mr. Netanyahu, but I not only consider his position valid, I agree with him. Whether you like Israel or not, we Jews have learned that when someone threatens to wipe us out, we should take it seriously. History supports the wisdom of that view. It is the height of folly and perhaps arrogance to question that perspective.
I don't particularly like Mr. Netanyahu, but I not only consider his position valid, I agree with him. Whether you like Israel or not, we Jews have learned that when someone threatens to wipe us out, we should take it seriously. History supports the wisdom of that view. It is the height of folly and perhaps arrogance to question that perspective.
3
The president's remarks in full can be viewed on C-Span at:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?327464-2/president-obama-remarks-iran-nucle...
If you have a hour to spare, it is well worth your time.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?327464-2/president-obama-remarks-iran-nucle...
If you have a hour to spare, it is well worth your time.
9
Nice to know that Netanyahu is directing our diplomatic policy.
Iran turned against the U.S. thanks to the great GOP god Ike and BP.
Iran sponsors no more terrorism than Saudi Arabia does. Remember bin Ladin was a Saudi as were most of his followers.
The Iranians do not want war, yes they sponsor groups we call terrorists, it is in their defense to do so. Israel has made military threats against them, they call for "Death to Israel" a common Islamic curse. They are the friends of the Palestinians.
So what if they get a nuke, how would they use it without inviting total destruction. The problem with arguing against these anti agreement forces, is, it is hard to make a point with smart people, but impossible to do so with idiots.
The Greedy Old Prevaricators are determined to see that Mr. Obama does not get any credit for anything that is good for the country. They said they were going to make him a failed president, and they are still at it.
They have continued to tell the big lies and you can see the true believers of the party nodding in agreement, while they wallow in a mental stupor, in front of their TV tuned to Faux Noise. Do you think maybe it is the super rich who finance this opposition? Is it possible they are the financial force behind all this hatred of Obama? If so, why, what do they have to gain by it.
I say, Death to the GOP.
Iran turned against the U.S. thanks to the great GOP god Ike and BP.
Iran sponsors no more terrorism than Saudi Arabia does. Remember bin Ladin was a Saudi as were most of his followers.
The Iranians do not want war, yes they sponsor groups we call terrorists, it is in their defense to do so. Israel has made military threats against them, they call for "Death to Israel" a common Islamic curse. They are the friends of the Palestinians.
So what if they get a nuke, how would they use it without inviting total destruction. The problem with arguing against these anti agreement forces, is, it is hard to make a point with smart people, but impossible to do so with idiots.
The Greedy Old Prevaricators are determined to see that Mr. Obama does not get any credit for anything that is good for the country. They said they were going to make him a failed president, and they are still at it.
They have continued to tell the big lies and you can see the true believers of the party nodding in agreement, while they wallow in a mental stupor, in front of their TV tuned to Faux Noise. Do you think maybe it is the super rich who finance this opposition? Is it possible they are the financial force behind all this hatred of Obama? If so, why, what do they have to gain by it.
I say, Death to the GOP.
74
On a side note - say we send troops into Iraq to help the Shiites fight ISIS. Remember, the Shiite miitias who would be fighting side-by-side with US forces in Iraq are great friends with Iran. What would they do to nearby US troops if we attacked Iran?
For that matter, what would China and the Russians do? If we attacvk Iran, would China seize the opportunity to attack Taiwan? Would Russia seize more land from former Warsaw Pact members?
Would the GOP seek to fund a 3-front war with top military opponents with more tax cuts? Plus, where would we get the resources to fight such a multi-front war?
For that matter, what would China and the Russians do? If we attacvk Iran, would China seize the opportunity to attack Taiwan? Would Russia seize more land from former Warsaw Pact members?
Would the GOP seek to fund a 3-front war with top military opponents with more tax cuts? Plus, where would we get the resources to fight such a multi-front war?
6
don't forget the shah david. we say that they are untrustworthy? HA!! we removed a democratically elected leader and installed our guy..... who are we to talk about being trustworthy?
1
"We created the time and space to win the Cold War without firing a shot at the Soviets." - Barack Obama
Of course we did. Somehow, Congressional Republicans have no memory or knowledge of how the US successfully negotiated through the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Even worse, they've already forgotten what a disaster they made of the Middle East with the invasion of Iraq, with its devastating consequences in blood and treasure to the US, with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed or displaced, their economy and infrastructure degraded or destroyed and with Iran a stronger regional power than before the war. And now, just 12 years later, they can't wait to make another disastrous foreign policy decision in the Middle East by rejecting a nuclear non-proliferation treaty with Iran that most of the world supports.
People with such short memories often make the same mistakes over and over again, always expecting a different outcome. We call this insanity in the real world but in the fantasy land of the new Republican Party, we call this their foreign policy agenda. They don't even realize that the "better deal" they all demand is the one now before them that they promise to sabotage.
Of course we did. Somehow, Congressional Republicans have no memory or knowledge of how the US successfully negotiated through the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Even worse, they've already forgotten what a disaster they made of the Middle East with the invasion of Iraq, with its devastating consequences in blood and treasure to the US, with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed or displaced, their economy and infrastructure degraded or destroyed and with Iran a stronger regional power than before the war. And now, just 12 years later, they can't wait to make another disastrous foreign policy decision in the Middle East by rejecting a nuclear non-proliferation treaty with Iran that most of the world supports.
People with such short memories often make the same mistakes over and over again, always expecting a different outcome. We call this insanity in the real world but in the fantasy land of the new Republican Party, we call this their foreign policy agenda. They don't even realize that the "better deal" they all demand is the one now before them that they promise to sabotage.
211
We only fired zillions of shots at the Soviet Union's proxies who, by the way, fired back, but then why quibble over inconvenient details?
1
@Mary Scott: Seems your memory is short. US was negotiating with a nuclear power already with bombs, aimed at us and deliverable, and we were able to prevent war only by threat of total mutual destruction. And later Reagan managed to outnegotiate Soviet Union without firing a shot.
In this case, it seems Iran outnegotiated us, and they don't have a deliverable nuclear weapon (yet).
In this case, it seems Iran outnegotiated us, and they don't have a deliverable nuclear weapon (yet).
1
@Win: Obzma was referring to the Cold War which involved only Soviet Union and established nuclear weapons. You are talking about conventional wars, like Vietnam, where nukes weren't involved. Please don't confuse the issue any more than Obama has done already.
1
It is good that President Obama is explaining to the public the foreign policy scheme advocated by the Netanyahu-controlled, United States Republican senators and representatives.
The Netanyahu-controlled Republican senators and representatives – some might even give these people a far more villainous appellation – continue to spew foreign policy derp. Derp, with a nod to Professor Krugman, being policy that has been disproved over-and-over but is continually advocated by its supporters for ideological reasons and/or for political and personal gain. Derp is catnip for many Netanyahu-controlled Republicans.
The Netanyahu-controlled Republicans can only see relations with Iran, as they did with Iraq, through semi-opaque lenses in which one sees war as the first and only answer to all foreign policy questions -- war derp.
The Netanyahu-controlled Republican senators and representatives – some might even give these people a far more villainous appellation – continue to spew foreign policy derp. Derp, with a nod to Professor Krugman, being policy that has been disproved over-and-over but is continually advocated by its supporters for ideological reasons and/or for political and personal gain. Derp is catnip for many Netanyahu-controlled Republicans.
The Netanyahu-controlled Republicans can only see relations with Iran, as they did with Iraq, through semi-opaque lenses in which one sees war as the first and only answer to all foreign policy questions -- war derp.
192
I wonder if Krugman should copyright DERP - it may well go viral.......
1
The flaw in your rendition of Middle Eastern history is your failure to recall that President G.H.W. Bush initially tried to accomodate the grievances of the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Husein, by employing peaceful diplomatic means. The reward -- the Iraqi invasion and takeover of Kuwait and the (MULTINATIONAL) first Gulf War, a war that led the entire world into the second Gulf War.
The current situation with Iran results exclusively from all those peaceful efforts at diplomacy previously pursued by presidents prior to President Obama, going at least as far back as President Nixon and the Shah, if not before.
Did I mention that during the first Gulf War Iraq fired substantial numbers of missiles at Israel, inflicting significant casualties and property damage, and that Israel honored the request of President G.H.W. Bush not to respond?
The current situation with Iran results exclusively from all those peaceful efforts at diplomacy previously pursued by presidents prior to President Obama, going at least as far back as President Nixon and the Shah, if not before.
Did I mention that during the first Gulf War Iraq fired substantial numbers of missiles at Israel, inflicting significant casualties and property damage, and that Israel honored the request of President G.H.W. Bush not to respond?
1
I ascribe far more credibility to the IAEA, whose competence has been more than adequately demonstrated in Iraq, than I do to Israel fanatics -- which is zero -- whose starting and ending point in every conversation, regardless of the issue or the facts, is that Israel is the victim of its own military occupation of the West Bank, blockade of Gaza, horrible brutality towards the Palestinians and can do no wrong.
Israel fanatics who take a position on any political issue in the Middle East are not taking a position on that issue. They are taking a position on Israel, which for them is always the one and only issue.
My issue is the United States. Israel, after 70 years, continues to believe that war is the solution to political conflict and therefore enjoy zero support from me.
Israel fanatics who take a position on any political issue in the Middle East are not taking a position on that issue. They are taking a position on Israel, which for them is always the one and only issue.
My issue is the United States. Israel, after 70 years, continues to believe that war is the solution to political conflict and therefore enjoy zero support from me.
310
It is the Persians and "Palestinians" that are officially committed to fighting a war of annihilation against Israel. Israel's policy is to make peace whenever, and wherever, available. This is the reason Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and the third largest political party in Israel is Arab!
4
"Israel's policy is to make peace whenever, and wherever, available."
If only that were true.
If only that were true.
8
The IAEA is a corrupt, incompetent and impotent joke. That's the record and it's history. What is your faith based on?
2
Netanyahu's opposition to the deal is unjustified and unfounded. First of all, if we could not get Israel whom we have supported for decades , to whom we give billions, sophisticated armaments and have promised to go to war for them in case of attack…if we couldn't force them to discontinue their illegal settlements, what makes him think that we could force Iran to do anything. What we can do, as always, is go to war by bombing Iran. What would happen next, we can only imagine. But what we do know, is that we would begin a conflict that would cost lives, not only theirs but ours and destruction would reign in the Middle East. And not only the Middle East: as it is Europe is being besieged by waves of refugees which would increase to tsunami proportions,if we start another war.
Granted that some leaders in Iran have threatened to destroy Israel, but talk is cheap and threatening to do away with the enemy is part of the cliches of enmity. Khrushchev threatened to bury us and they really had the means to do it, unlike the non-existing possibilities of Iran. I find it difficult to believe that our representatives should put the worry of a foreign leader above the interests of our country and that of an entire region, if not the world.
Granted that some leaders in Iran have threatened to destroy Israel, but talk is cheap and threatening to do away with the enemy is part of the cliches of enmity. Khrushchev threatened to bury us and they really had the means to do it, unlike the non-existing possibilities of Iran. I find it difficult to believe that our representatives should put the worry of a foreign leader above the interests of our country and that of an entire region, if not the world.
390
In your omnipotence what makes you think that the Iranians don't mean it? Khrushchev was no religious fanatic.
1
This is a cheap shot at Mr Netanyahu. If it wasn't for Israel the entire area would have been engulfed in war.
2
You so glibly say some leaders vow to destroy Israel as though you would say some leaders prefer onion bagels to sesame. Sorry, but to us, those words have meaning and we take people at their word.
Do you know where the "illegal settlements" were in May 1967 to provoke attack? Tel Aviv and Haifa.
Do you know where the "illegal settlements" were in May 1967 to provoke attack? Tel Aviv and Haifa.
2
The War Mongers have been wrong for 6 decades. We should never listen to them.
If Congress kills this deal we will get what we deserve. We either engage in peace, or die by War. It is pretty simple and history proves there is only one sustainable path forward. Peace.
If Congress kills this deal we will get what we deserve. We either engage in peace, or die by War. It is pretty simple and history proves there is only one sustainable path forward. Peace.
400
I'm relatively certain the only one proposing war as the only alternative is Barack Obama.
While the Times characterizes the speech as powerful, their synopsis essentially says Obama said anyone who disagrees with his point of view is wrong.
If any readers can point out where I've missed his more salient points, please enlighten me. He says Netanyahu is sincere but wrong. The gop doesn't augur the term sincere ..buy everyone who disagrees is either simply wrong . That's powerful? I believe it's been said frequently the alternative is not war, it's a better deal.
While the Times characterizes the speech as powerful, their synopsis essentially says Obama said anyone who disagrees with his point of view is wrong.
If any readers can point out where I've missed his more salient points, please enlighten me. He says Netanyahu is sincere but wrong. The gop doesn't augur the term sincere ..buy everyone who disagrees is either simply wrong . That's powerful? I believe it's been said frequently the alternative is not war, it's a better deal.
3
This depends on the era. In the 1920's-1930's the Isolationists almost succeeded in keeping the U.S. from aiding Britain in their fight with Germany. It took Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of was against the U.S. thereafter to bring the U.S into that fight. Were Hitler not to have impetuously declared war against the U.S., historians still wonder if we may not have fought Germany at all. A similar line of reasoning can be applied to WWI.
Of course you adroitly avoid these comparisons by limiting your timeframe to 60 years! However, a more expansive historical horizon would help to illustrate that both "war mongers" and isolationists can make poor decisions.
Of course you adroitly avoid these comparisons by limiting your timeframe to 60 years! However, a more expansive historical horizon would help to illustrate that both "war mongers" and isolationists can make poor decisions.
4
Why is everyone convinced that war is an inevitable outcome?
Those who lived through the cold war and that fateful May remember the deep fear that you'd said goodbye to your friends for the last time, each and every day. the USSR was an incredibly more fearful foe than Iraq, and there is nothing to hint, other than Kerry's words, that war is the only other possibility. If Khrushchev, with all he had at stake could negotiate just a little bit further (Turkey missile withdraw) maybe so can Iraq.
Those who lived through the cold war and that fateful May remember the deep fear that you'd said goodbye to your friends for the last time, each and every day. the USSR was an incredibly more fearful foe than Iraq, and there is nothing to hint, other than Kerry's words, that war is the only other possibility. If Khrushchev, with all he had at stake could negotiate just a little bit further (Turkey missile withdraw) maybe so can Iraq.
1
Any deal with Iran is very easy to demagogue, until the alternatives are considered. That is why no credible alternative is offered, other than the banal and mindless "we need a better deal", brought to you by the I'm not a scientist" crowd.
The opponents of the Iran deal appear to assume that sanctions are sustainable in the face of collapsed negotiations, forgetting perhaps that the Chinese would be in Tehran the next day with their checkbook. The Chinese have no demonstrated concern over the politics or conflicts of the Middle East. All they need is an excuse to ignore sanctions and spend their US dollars on Iran energy infrastructure and oil.
The opponents of the Iran deal appear to assume that sanctions are sustainable in the face of collapsed negotiations, forgetting perhaps that the Chinese would be in Tehran the next day with their checkbook. The Chinese have no demonstrated concern over the politics or conflicts of the Middle East. All they need is an excuse to ignore sanctions and spend their US dollars on Iran energy infrastructure and oil.
309
Undoubtedly, were they pressed to explain in detail what their "better deal" might be, and just how they'd get Iran's agreement, the opponents of the present deal would come back with, "I'm not a diplomat!"
7
How about verification in 4 days as opposed to 24. Ernie Monitz initially had the bar as " anytime anywhere". The pro scieapparently apparently doesn't incorporate definitions of time in their thought process? Or that condescending approaches don't require simple math with respect to what any time means?
2
That's why China is already negotiating with the Iranians to buy oil as soon as sanctions are lifted, because they aren't the least bit concerned.
3
President Obama decided to ignore the US Senate by declaring the accord was not a treaty. Now he doesn't seem to think he has to tell the public what is in the deal. On top of that, he says if you oppose the deal you want war. What does that tell you about Iran as a partner in an agreement? What happens when Iran gets the $100 Billion plus that is currently embargoed? My guess is continue sponsoring terrorism and killing Americans.
33
If Congress gets 2/3 plus one in both houses the deal is dead. So it does not matter what you call the deal. And the particulars of the deal not hidden from the public.
What Obama is implying is that most of his Republican opponents would love a war with Iran.
And given those same opponents track record from the last war, i would rather trust my president than the other side.
What Obama is implying is that most of his Republican opponents would love a war with Iran.
And given those same opponents track record from the last war, i would rather trust my president than the other side.
233
Actually, just 2/3.
10
To: Bill Des Moines
The agreement is not secret as you claim but certain annexes are classified because it is, duh, nuclear and military technology. Congress is briefed on everything.
Can I mark you down for the war option?
The agreement is not secret as you claim but certain annexes are classified because it is, duh, nuclear and military technology. Congress is briefed on everything.
Can I mark you down for the war option?
176
I completely support this remarkable move toward peace, a move that President Obama and Secretary Kerry along with the leaders of Iran and other directly participating countries as well as a majority of members of the United Nations support. We have had far, far too much tragic senseless hostility internationally these past years, not to welcome and applaud a procession to peace.
344
AIPAC is reportedly spending 25 million dollars on lobbying and media advertising to persuade members of Congress to vote against the agreement.
I am waiting for the senior Senator from New York to make his decision. As of this writing, Senator Schumer is undecided.
I trust our president is doing the right thing. No deal is perfect. War should be the last option, and those who feel otherwise have been wrong before, and if history is our guide, are wrong again.
I am waiting for the senior Senator from New York to make his decision. As of this writing, Senator Schumer is undecided.
I trust our president is doing the right thing. No deal is perfect. War should be the last option, and those who feel otherwise have been wrong before, and if history is our guide, are wrong again.
444
Yes, it will be interesting to see where Senator Schumer's loyalties lie.
15
I have a God and put my trust in him not lying, corrupt, arrogant and egotistical politicians. Facts, reality, history and a realistic view of human nature should inform our decisions not "trust" in any politician.
Who funds AIPAC? Does Israel send part of the billions we give them back to fund AIPAC? Harry Truman was not thinking of this I would guess.
3
There once was a man from Iran
Whom Obama took great pains to slam
But he slammed Israel too
And so Netanyahu
took his show on the road, what a ham!
RECOMMENDATIONS PLEASE!!!!!