So Iran has ignored its social welfare projects at the expense of spending billions building their nuclear infrastructure, while we spend billions on war and defense with crumbling infrastructures. And all we hear is the cry that we do not have the funds to support Americans with education, (you fill in the rest) to make this country even greater.
What happened to "shovel ready," and the trillions Obama already promised or pledged to fix the roads and bridges??!!
Once again with Obama, then ends justifies the means!! 5 innocent hostages for 7 hardened criminals. Plus the INTEREST on money held and agreement to not pursue other Iranian terrorists and supporters. Obama will be heralded as a hero by the ignorant and supporters as usual... Iran deal was bad, but he will be long gone when they develop a nuke and long range capabilities like North Korea, lest we forgot to repeat mistakes and ignore history!!
1
I think it was at the BBC webpage that I read, a few hours ago, a piece detailing the likely economic effects of Iran's reintegration into what some naively would call the "community of nations." Salient among these effects would by Iran's renewed output of crude oil, which, the article notes. would drive pump prices for gasoline even lower.
Some observations are in order. First, the motoring public should welcome further reductions in pump prices, as we have been robbed shamelessly by the petroleum industry since the turn of this Brave New Century. Of course Wall Street spins this narrative differently, blaming an "over-supply" of crude oil for a (hardly catastrophic) slump in the stock market. What the pickpockets of Wall Street fail to mention is that sell-offs are a conditioned reflex programmed to occur in response to any unexpected development in a major industry -- a knee-jerk response, really -- and that markets do learn to accommodate themselves to new realities.
Petroleum is the life-blood of advanced industrial societies, and that includes societies cutely described as "post-industrial" as well. What galls me, however, is that corporate interests (notably the beef industry) have been successful in their war against efforts to require that all consumer goods be accurately labeled as to their country of origin. I, for one, would boycott gasoline labelled as coming from Iran -- unless, of course, to do so would be prohibitively expensive.
Some observations are in order. First, the motoring public should welcome further reductions in pump prices, as we have been robbed shamelessly by the petroleum industry since the turn of this Brave New Century. Of course Wall Street spins this narrative differently, blaming an "over-supply" of crude oil for a (hardly catastrophic) slump in the stock market. What the pickpockets of Wall Street fail to mention is that sell-offs are a conditioned reflex programmed to occur in response to any unexpected development in a major industry -- a knee-jerk response, really -- and that markets do learn to accommodate themselves to new realities.
Petroleum is the life-blood of advanced industrial societies, and that includes societies cutely described as "post-industrial" as well. What galls me, however, is that corporate interests (notably the beef industry) have been successful in their war against efforts to require that all consumer goods be accurately labeled as to their country of origin. I, for one, would boycott gasoline labelled as coming from Iran -- unless, of course, to do so would be prohibitively expensive.
2
Three cheers for Secretary State John Kerry.
6
Wow. We gave in to hostage demands of Iran, which will set a president. Iran won back 7 convicted criminals, pursuit of 14 more on the run, plus over a billion dollars. We actually paid interest to them on money we were holding! Iran still supports terrorism and will get a nuke one day soon. Yeah, great job Kerry.
1
Too many politicians have not studied Iran and the Middle East countries and their comments show how little they know. We remember the overcome of America's embassy in Iran and making prisoners of the staff. Prior to that America and the CIA placed the Shah in charge of Iran in place of Prime Minister elected. The Shah ruled with iron hand putting many in prison and killing many others.
Iran is divided by the conservatives and educated including many women. Many like the west countries and if they can improve their economy they will buy goods from west.
Iran is divided by the conservatives and educated including many women. Many like the west countries and if they can improve their economy they will buy goods from west.
1
Fred, let me respond to each of those two paragraphs, one at a time.
As to your first paragraph -- yes, Fred, we are aware of this. You and others have paraded the 1953 ouster of Mosaddegh so many times, in so many different threads, that I think I can safely say that we have all been advised of the matter. To which I am inclined to quote the famous line of Rhett Butler to Scarlett O'Hara, but I won't. Suffice it to say that the election of Mosaddegh, typically photographed reclining on a chaise longue in his pajamas, should be ample proof that the "Iranian People" were no more competent in 1953 than they were in 1979. I do emphatically consider the countries of the Middle East, with the sole exception of Israel, unfit for self-determination.
Now, as to your second paragraph. If the Shah ruled with an iron fist, so do the ayatollahs. The only way for the younger generation of Iranians to liberate their country would be to do it in the street, and it will be bloody. They would have about as much of a chance of doing it peacefully, as did the White Rose Society which sought regime change by handing out leaflets in Germany during the period of the Third Reich. As you may not have heard of them, here is a link --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose
As to your first paragraph -- yes, Fred, we are aware of this. You and others have paraded the 1953 ouster of Mosaddegh so many times, in so many different threads, that I think I can safely say that we have all been advised of the matter. To which I am inclined to quote the famous line of Rhett Butler to Scarlett O'Hara, but I won't. Suffice it to say that the election of Mosaddegh, typically photographed reclining on a chaise longue in his pajamas, should be ample proof that the "Iranian People" were no more competent in 1953 than they were in 1979. I do emphatically consider the countries of the Middle East, with the sole exception of Israel, unfit for self-determination.
Now, as to your second paragraph. If the Shah ruled with an iron fist, so do the ayatollahs. The only way for the younger generation of Iranians to liberate their country would be to do it in the street, and it will be bloody. They would have about as much of a chance of doing it peacefully, as did the White Rose Society which sought regime change by handing out leaflets in Germany during the period of the Third Reich. As you may not have heard of them, here is a link --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose
And republican candidates complain.
So... We got back innocent hostages... Awesome! Is that the whole story? Wise up. Either you don't know what happened in the deal, don't care, or like the deal. Iran whooped Obama and Kerry badly. They get back tons of their dudes, who were CONVICTED of terroristic activites or crimes. PLUS INTERSST on money we held from past deals. Neah, nothing to see hear or complain about.
While I have no real use for the country of Iran and their thirst for nuclear weapons I have to wonder about the two gunboat fiasco mentioned in the article. I was surprised how quickly this story died; was dropped by the NYT once the silly video taping of the sailors and soldiers issue began. It was becoming obvious that this was a bone headed mission whose back story could not survive the facts. Why it was allowed to be carried out around such a sensitive time is puzzling. Was President Obama eve aware of a mission? CNN attempted to whip up some outrage when Iran only did what the US would have done if the shoe was on the other foot. Supposedly one boat was having engine trouble and "drifted" into Iranian waters. Did neither boat have a piece of rope or chain to tow the boat with the engine trouble and keep it in international waters?
Scenario number 2; both boats lost their way? The US invented GPS but apparently nether boat crew had the technology aboard, or the skills to stay out of Iranian waters. So to deflect the world attention away from the real reasons for the two boats being there, the video taping of American sailors/soldiers was made an issue.
Today's current Iran problem is the legacy of US friendship with the Shaw of Iran and the brutality of his secret police, the Savak. The fact that the US was cozy with the Shaw for that country's oil reserves is what lead to the Iranian mess in the first place.
Scenario number 2; both boats lost their way? The US invented GPS but apparently nether boat crew had the technology aboard, or the skills to stay out of Iranian waters. So to deflect the world attention away from the real reasons for the two boats being there, the video taping of American sailors/soldiers was made an issue.
Today's current Iran problem is the legacy of US friendship with the Shaw of Iran and the brutality of his secret police, the Savak. The fact that the US was cozy with the Shaw for that country's oil reserves is what lead to the Iranian mess in the first place.
2
The difference is we would not have paraded the humiliating pics our their sailors in surrender postures! Against the Geneva Convention and other standard for such circumstances. We dont even know what happened. Iran could have made up that our boats were in their waters. They took the gps devices!
Like the US Iran is torn by elements of radical politics with hardliners doing their best to disrupt the attempt at congenial relations between the two countries. The will to go forth with an air of positivity eventually settles in here with both sides balancing the pros and cons of agreement with the pros winning out we hope .
1
If this is good foreign policy then what does bad foreign policy look like?
We freed up around $100 Billion in frozen money which is a huge amount of money for Iran. We open up international trade for them including access to ports. We released 7 Iranians out of prison.
In return we get 4 or 5 hostages released, which is an accurate description of these individuals, and we look weak and Iran looks stronger. In essence being a rouge nation engaged in hostage taking is a lucrative business and can bring the US to its knees.
Iran won a victory and we can look forward to them breaking every promise they ever made. Promises are only kept between people/countries that care about each other. We are the evil West.
We freed up around $100 Billion in frozen money which is a huge amount of money for Iran. We open up international trade for them including access to ports. We released 7 Iranians out of prison.
In return we get 4 or 5 hostages released, which is an accurate description of these individuals, and we look weak and Iran looks stronger. In essence being a rouge nation engaged in hostage taking is a lucrative business and can bring the US to its knees.
Iran won a victory and we can look forward to them breaking every promise they ever made. Promises are only kept between people/countries that care about each other. We are the evil West.
4
I guess it's only good news for their families.
President Obama has to be lauded for taking giant steps to de freeze the relations with Cuba and Iran. Decisions are to be made with reason and not raw emotions. He will be rated a great President only after the current bilious bitterness of his opponents subsides.
6
Cuba, si -- Iran, no.
ISIS, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, the taliban, the terrorist, the militant muslims, Sunni militants, Sadam Hussein, Osama Bin Ladin, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Fidel Castro, and others.....are merely small time homicidal street thugs. These street thugs are small time potatoes who will make noise and name call. The big nuke boys to worry about are the U.S., Russia and China. On Oct. 16, 1964, China detonated its first atomic bomb. Hopefully everyone is also convinced that after the October 1962 missile crisis between U.S. Pres Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union over Cuba's small time street thug fidel castro, that the real power was not fidel, but rather the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Kennedy and Khrushchev came within a hair from pushing the button on a world nuclear war. North Vietnam was nothing without the military backing of Russia.
The real threat is a nuclear holocaust. The main players are the U.S., Russia, and China. Please don't believe the nonsensical Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. If you do then you probably believe in the tooth fairy as well. As long as all countries of the world continue with their quest for power and control.....the threat of a nuclear holocaust is real...the only question is when.
In a war there has to be an undisputed winner and a loser....otherwise the war continues. Any time an outside arbitrator or mediator steps in and declares peace...it merely fuels the flames of war.
The real threat is a nuclear holocaust. The main players are the U.S., Russia, and China. Please don't believe the nonsensical Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. If you do then you probably believe in the tooth fairy as well. As long as all countries of the world continue with their quest for power and control.....the threat of a nuclear holocaust is real...the only question is when.
In a war there has to be an undisputed winner and a loser....otherwise the war continues. Any time an outside arbitrator or mediator steps in and declares peace...it merely fuels the flames of war.
An accomplishment the Republicans would have spent buckets of young peoples' blood trying, without success, to achieve.
10
Reimposing sanctions is a dicey thing to do at this stage. JG-
1
It seems strange to discuss Iran's comparatively small violation of UN resolutions without also mentioning America's own blatant disregard for Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, especially in light of Obama's recent announcement to spend up to 1 trillion over the next 30 years revitalizing their own nuclear program. I can't help but think I would feel safer in a world where Iran was a nuclear power and providing a deterrent against more nuclear aggression from the US.
2
It wasn't US diplomacy, it was the facts on the ground that led to this US defeat, one that the US president is now trying in vain to sell as a victory.
But in fact it was clear right from the start that Iran has not had a nuclear arms program since 2003 and that the US sanctions were all about power politics in a region the US has destabilized by it's meaningless and illegal attacks.
In this case, the US was pressed into accepting facts by the Europeans, by Russia and last but not least, by Iran itself to accept the defeat of the US in this matter.
Let's hope that this will start closure for the aftermath of the illegal 1953 coup against Iran led by the US and organized by the CIA.
Time for the US to pay damages and get out of the region.
Additional sanctions against Iran are simply unjustified and will not help at all.
What the region needs now is the containment of Saudi Arabia and it's terrorism against other countries around the world.
And to stop Saudi Arabia's nuclear arms program.
Contrary to the alleged Iranian nuclear arms program, the Saudi nuclear arms program is real and an imminent danger to not just the region but also to Europe.
The same goes for Israel and it's "Samson Option".
But of course, Saudi Arabia and Israel are defined by the US as the "good ones" who can do whatever they want.
Or to use a figure of speech from Rumsfeld about Saddam Hussein "He is a bastard, but he is our bastard".
And that seems to make all the difference in US "diplomacy".
But in fact it was clear right from the start that Iran has not had a nuclear arms program since 2003 and that the US sanctions were all about power politics in a region the US has destabilized by it's meaningless and illegal attacks.
In this case, the US was pressed into accepting facts by the Europeans, by Russia and last but not least, by Iran itself to accept the defeat of the US in this matter.
Let's hope that this will start closure for the aftermath of the illegal 1953 coup against Iran led by the US and organized by the CIA.
Time for the US to pay damages and get out of the region.
Additional sanctions against Iran are simply unjustified and will not help at all.
What the region needs now is the containment of Saudi Arabia and it's terrorism against other countries around the world.
And to stop Saudi Arabia's nuclear arms program.
Contrary to the alleged Iranian nuclear arms program, the Saudi nuclear arms program is real and an imminent danger to not just the region but also to Europe.
The same goes for Israel and it's "Samson Option".
But of course, Saudi Arabia and Israel are defined by the US as the "good ones" who can do whatever they want.
Or to use a figure of speech from Rumsfeld about Saddam Hussein "He is a bastard, but he is our bastard".
And that seems to make all the difference in US "diplomacy".
2
Don't forget, world (you could easily, since it's never reported), Israel still has The Bomb
3
It's never reported that the US, Russia, Britain, France, and China also have the Bomb either. Why bring up Israel? Israel has never threatened Iran with its nuclear weapons, nor has it forecast its eventual destruction before the United Nations.
2
It never threatens. It just does and then calls it self defence because there are no repercussions for it to fear.
Time will tell. It is clear that if Iran behaves as it usually does and the West suffers consequential results from this capitulation, it will still always be the West's fault, the Republican's fault, The US's fault and undoubtedly George W Bush's fault. I hope you are right - all of you who are so sure that diplomacy will win in the long run. Based on what experience, I've no idea, but the theory is.... What rankles me, on top of all the rest of the hot air, wishful thinking and starry-eyed parallel universe philosophy, is that we rewarded Iran for holding American hostages during Carter's similar approach to conflict and crisis. We shall see how that works out, too.
Can you imagine how these freed Americans feel today after months/years in captivity? All I know is I play golf with an Iranian American every week, a helluva nice guy, in business for himself, and I'm Jewish. We get along just fine. Neither one of us is a rabid extremist bent on annihilating the other guy, except on the golf course! (lol). Governments are one thing; individual relationships something else. The nut jobs that appear to run Iran, and are determined to exterminate Israel, have to be restrained, and eventually steered toward a saner, more cooperative mindset in the World Order, and especially in the Middle East. Hopefully, the nuclear deal is the beginning of something constructive, but I wouldn't trust these guys any farther than I can throw an H-Bomb.
2
The 'sanctions' levied for ballistic missal launches are not clear here - they were levied against individuals? Individuals that sold parts that enabled the missals? What does that mean? Isn't it Iran that bought, sanctioned, built and fired the missals? Can we really say or even believe that this was individuals?
Iran claims that it is 'zionists' and some warmongers in Congress that have caused the sectarian violence in the middle east?! Really?
Iran claims that it is 'zionists' and some warmongers in Congress that have caused the sectarian violence in the middle east?! Really?
1
Well, not as much Congress as the Bush Whitehouse.
1
Surprise -- Iran has not changed its tune! It's the only tune they know. And our media keep referring to "Moderates" in Iran, whose ascendancy might be helped by this rapprochement. In truth, the popularly elected functionaries of the Iranian government can operate and pursue their policies solely under the thumb of the non-elected ayatollah who thinks (or claims to think) he is in direct communication with Islam's appropriated divinity. Of course all divinities are human fabrications, so the historic appropriation from their betters is irrelevant.
And don't forget the shell game which the Iranian government plays whenever it wishes to exonerate itself. Since the regime of the ayatollahs has required the thuggery of the Revolutionary Guards, the "Morality Police," and who knows what other similar political organs, that regime has at times found it convenient to claim that those political organs are beyond its control. If that is true, then the regime is admitting to a state of ongoing anarchy which ebbs and flows, but which always seems to ebb and flow at the government's convenience.
And don't forget the shell game which the Iranian government plays whenever it wishes to exonerate itself. Since the regime of the ayatollahs has required the thuggery of the Revolutionary Guards, the "Morality Police," and who knows what other similar political organs, that regime has at times found it convenient to claim that those political organs are beyond its control. If that is true, then the regime is admitting to a state of ongoing anarchy which ebbs and flows, but which always seems to ebb and flow at the government's convenience.
1
You an no more trust a cobra from sticking you than expected iran to change its hate. If one is in a pit with a cobra and the Iranian leader, kill the Iranian first.
America must apply equal standards to Saudi Arabia and sanctions should be used to end Wahhabi terrorist missionary work. Sanctions should end export of weapons and equipment until all support for Wahhabi ISIS-Al Qaeda entities are terminated. Our credibility in the world and especially in the Middle East is jeopardized by our alliance with Saudi Arabia.
7
It takes more strength to thoughtfully negotiate than it does to attack.
11
Iranian objections to these latest sanctions concerning missiles are totally justified. They are right to assert that the US arms horrible governments that slaughter civilians with impunity in the Middle East and elsewhere. What kind of horrible people do we allow to lead us??!!
1
I don't understand all the negativity in the comments section. The new sanctions, which are much more narrow and specific in who they target, are the direct result of disregarding part of the deal that was agreed to by both parties. That makes sense to me. This whole "USA - good, Iran - bad" nonsense has got to stop.
6
John Grant - "I don't understand all the negativity in the comments section... This whole "USA - good, Iran - bad" nonsense has got to stop."
You don't understand the negativity because you have your last sentence reversed. In the NYT it is always USA - bad, Iran - good. See now it's easy to understand.
You don't understand the negativity because you have your last sentence reversed. In the NYT it is always USA - bad, Iran - good. See now it's easy to understand.
1
What President Obama and Secretary Kerry have done is wonderful. With 60 percent of Iranians being under the age of 30, we have a chance to create a decent relationship with the upcoming generation. We cannot be naive -- we must remain on guard -- but things could improve. We are never as blameless as the right wingers claim; read about Iranian flight 655.
7
Imposing new sanctions in the name of missile programme within 48hours of lifting the sanctions of about two decades old nuclear programme against Iran by Mr.Obama, made me to think of the possibile pressure of the power house in politics cautioned him about the impact of lifting sanctions against in Iran in the US presidential election against Ms.Hilary Clinton and also Mr.Obama's benign nature wants him to leave the office as the best president of the decade by keeping all in good humour.
We hope the period of Ms.Hilary Clinton will evolve a new phase of terror free global atmosphere in the near future.
We hope the period of Ms.Hilary Clinton will evolve a new phase of terror free global atmosphere in the near future.
1
Western mass media don't report on the Iranians released from US prisons. It shows the biased nature of these media. They are not westerners so they have no interest for them. As if they are not human.
The new sanctions against Iran, however modest, smacks of hypocrisy at the highest level. Is there no shame in Congress or the White House?
I am surprised to see that Robert Levinson, who has been a hostage in Iran for the last 8 years, is not included in this swap. Moreover, while ABC and CBS reported this fact, the NYT has not found this fact as news worthy.
1
Some good news, finally. A small point--the freed hostages are at Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center, not "an American air base."
4
The Republican right wing in Congress and its field of presidential wannabes are traitors. There is no other word for it. Their insane loathing of President Obama knows no bounds. They are ideological fanatics mirroring the absurd zealotry of Iran's revolutionary guards. Both are hell-bent on fomenting war, of perpetuating hatred of those who do not fit their narrow and vicious definition of cultural and religious purity. They are repugnant. Evil. Existentially dangerous to humanity.
5
Chip Steiner - "They are repugnant. Evil. Existentially dangerous to humanity."
In his State of the Union speech, President Obama implored the two political parties to "fix our politics" through compromise and cooperation and civility. Keep hating, it will certainly help.
In his State of the Union speech, President Obama implored the two political parties to "fix our politics" through compromise and cooperation and civility. Keep hating, it will certainly help.
NO! If we can speak with the Iranians we can speak with Republicans. Did the letter writer totally miss what both President Obama and Governor Nicki Haley said last week? Maybe all of us should try to see those we oppose as human beings.
1
With regard to the editorial on home births, a different title could have been "Home birth more than doubles infant mortality compared to hospital birth"
For those of you who think Iran is upset about these new sanctions, think again. Do you think Iran didn't know about them when they signed the treaty and released the prisoners? So much of diplomacy is about face-saving. The timing allowed the moderates in Iran to release the prisoners. As the Times article points out, these are relatively minor sanctions. Let's not get in a tizzy. Besides, if President Obama hadn't instated these sanctions the Republicans would have been all over him.
4
President Obama stabbed all Iranian Americans in the back on December 18, 2015, when he signed into law a massive government-spending bill known as the omnibus appropriations act. The legislation included provisions reforming the visa waiver program, which is the program that enables citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without a visa. Despite numerous objections, Congress included discriminatory provisions from a bill that passed the House of Representatives (H.R. 158) to bar dual nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Sudan as well as foreigners who have traveled to those countries since March 2011 from eligibility in the visa waiver program. These measures are now being implemented.
This isn't going to get much play on the air in an election year, but basically we now have two classes of US citizens; normal citizens, and those who were born in Iran and Syria, and Iraq, and Sudan. If you are an Iranian American who travels extensively to Europe and is used to just walking in with his/her US passport, your world is about to change massively. Unlike other US citizens, you are going to need to get visas to travel to the majority of European countries. Note the legislation does not include Saudi Arabia, the nation that gave us almost all the 9/11 terrorists, but it does include Iran, none of whose citizens have ever taken any sort of action against the United States. Just never thought Obama would do something like that.
This isn't going to get much play on the air in an election year, but basically we now have two classes of US citizens; normal citizens, and those who were born in Iran and Syria, and Iraq, and Sudan. If you are an Iranian American who travels extensively to Europe and is used to just walking in with his/her US passport, your world is about to change massively. Unlike other US citizens, you are going to need to get visas to travel to the majority of European countries. Note the legislation does not include Saudi Arabia, the nation that gave us almost all the 9/11 terrorists, but it does include Iran, none of whose citizens have ever taken any sort of action against the United States. Just never thought Obama would do something like that.
1
Just wait for Iranian oil to get to market .. Gas is under $2.00 gallon here in NJ, and it is estimated it will keep going down for at least two more years. As far as new sanctions, it is very sneaky and we here in the West have such a double standard when it comes to Iran. We can have all the weapons we want, and sell them in boat loads to the Saudi's and Israeli's and all over, But Iran is not even allowed to defend itself.
1
r - "But Iran is not even allowed to defend itself."
Who is attacking Iran? From whom would they have to defend themselves?
Who is attacking Iran? From whom would they have to defend themselves?
No one said they are being attacked .. but they have been constantly threatened. Other countries in the region have ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons. modern armies. You would think considering your moniker, you who see the total hypocrisy of the way the United States has acted towards Iran. Maybe you should do a little study of history.
1
What a farce our leader has presented to the world!!!!
Can you explain? Can you give historic examples or precedents? Did you read the article and can you tell us which aspects specifically, with context, will negatively impact you?
1
Apparently the Iranian powers that be have seen the advantages of being part of the wider world. The new sanctions are not a surprise nor do they have to do with the nuclear deal. Relations with Iran, thanks to Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry et al, are better than they have been in 30+ years. That does not mean that Iran (the gov't) is our friend or even a frienemy, but lines of communication exist. What happened with the 10 sailors last week is an excellent example of how things have changed for the better.
Ronald Regan (I'm not a fan) used to quote the old Russian saying, "trust, but verify." Some version of that, holding the 'trust' lightly and leaning heavily on the 'verify' part, is where we have come with Iran. Let's hope we can move forward from here.
Ronald Regan (I'm not a fan) used to quote the old Russian saying, "trust, but verify." Some version of that, holding the 'trust' lightly and leaning heavily on the 'verify' part, is where we have come with Iran. Let's hope we can move forward from here.
5
In the lead up to the signing of the agreement with Iran over ending sanctions, many politicians in the opposition expressed the weakness of the President in not insisting on the release of these wrongfully imprisoned citizens before even entering into negotiations. On the eve of the recent State of the Union Address, several criticized the President for not ending relations with Iran over the detention of 10 sailors who had errantly entered Iranian waters on route to Bahrain. In both cases, the smart and measured response of the President were rewarded. (1) We now have an internationally supported agreement in place with Iran over the monitoring of their nuclear program to make the development of nuclear weapons impossible. (2) The sailors who were detained were released within 24 hours after it was made clear to the Iranians by their testimony that they had simply made a navigation error.
When will one of the several Republicans who expressed outrage and horror at the President's negotiation tactics apologize for the stupidity of their rhetoric that this President is a "weak" President. In fact this President is a very smart President who won't get so easily sucked into a dumb and winless war like his predecessors. Kudos to you Mr. President!
When will one of the several Republicans who expressed outrage and horror at the President's negotiation tactics apologize for the stupidity of their rhetoric that this President is a "weak" President. In fact this President is a very smart President who won't get so easily sucked into a dumb and winless war like his predecessors. Kudos to you Mr. President!
19
Whatever past mistakes lead to it, the present relationship between the United States and Iran is going to be adversarial in the foreseeable future. Americans tend to think of the world with the US only as the protagonist. But the Great Game of the Middle East has a lot players, and Washington needs to take all of them into account.
As the article mentions, the sanctions are limited, and aimed and individuals who sold technologies to Iran that can be potentially weaponized. With Iran's Cold War on the verge of going hot with its neighbors, maintaining this status quo may be the smartest move Obama can make to preserve peace.
If the Saudis and Israelis think the US will allow weapons technology to flow to Iran, it might precipitate the first strike both regional powers have been threatening since the announcement of the nuclear accord.
What will the US do then? Send aircraft carriers to defend Iran against Saudis and Israelis?
As the article mentions, the sanctions are limited, and aimed and individuals who sold technologies to Iran that can be potentially weaponized. With Iran's Cold War on the verge of going hot with its neighbors, maintaining this status quo may be the smartest move Obama can make to preserve peace.
If the Saudis and Israelis think the US will allow weapons technology to flow to Iran, it might precipitate the first strike both regional powers have been threatening since the announcement of the nuclear accord.
What will the US do then? Send aircraft carriers to defend Iran against Saudis and Israelis?
3
The new sanctions consist of not allowing 10 guys into the US who were never coming here anyway
2
The president's mumbo jumbo, carefully crafted now by his digital staff after every little event, does little for him, our interests or, in the future, when the next poor innocent American citizen is suffering Iranian incarceration.
Ah, yes, the when-if-might argument again as opposed to what-is.
5
If you, as a poor American citizen, keep Iran off your travel itinerary, you are guaranteed - 100% - that you will never suffer Iranian incarceration.
2
Does this mean that Iran is going to give us back the Billions of Dollars that we gave to them this week? New sanctions, after we dropped the original sanctions? I don't think that I understand this, do You?
1
It's Iran's money.
12
It is not US money.It is Iran money from selling oil which was blocked bu US
10
We didn't give them anything. It was already theirs. As a result of the nuclear treaty, these funds are now available to them. But, they never belonged to us, Martin.
6
For Republicans, PEACE is the greatest enemy of all.
After all, it requires equality and compassion.
The reason is simple: in a peaceful world, there's no need, and therefore no use, for Republicans.
After all, it requires equality and compassion.
The reason is simple: in a peaceful world, there's no need, and therefore no use, for Republicans.
19
You must be too young to remember the Cold War.
Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum.
Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum.
2
You must be too young to remember the Iraq War.
And "preparing for war" is not the same as "going to war for the hell of it".
As far as Reagan and the end of the Cold War -
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
And "preparing for war" is not the same as "going to war for the hell of it".
As far as Reagan and the end of the Cold War -
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
1
Iran released these prisoners and the sailors because of the impending election of a Republican to the White House. They see the handwriting on the wall, it reads: The Republicans are coming! The Republicans are coming!
1
This seems to be the general feeling of those who oppose the Iran deal:
"the Adminstrstion kicked a can down the road."
In 15 years, when all these doom-predicters predict doom, most Americans will long since have forgotten that we used to be mortal enemies of Iran (or at least that our government was). There will still be those politicians and journalists who insist that an Iranian bomb is "just around the corner" (as has been predicted ever since the late 1980's), but their numbers will have shrunken and their voices will seem much shriller than they do now.
The Iran nuclear deal was a big step in the right direction.
"the Adminstrstion kicked a can down the road."
In 15 years, when all these doom-predicters predict doom, most Americans will long since have forgotten that we used to be mortal enemies of Iran (or at least that our government was). There will still be those politicians and journalists who insist that an Iranian bomb is "just around the corner" (as has been predicted ever since the late 1980's), but their numbers will have shrunken and their voices will seem much shriller than they do now.
The Iran nuclear deal was a big step in the right direction.
14
Let's recall something vivid when Republicans start talking about more military action either in Syria or eventually against Iran. That something is the body bags arriving at Dover Air Force Base during the height of the Iraq War. And if that isn't enough, let's not forget the thousands of our troops with horrible injuries as a result of that war. What did the Iraq War achieve? Nothing really. We were not greeted with open arms. In fact, when we occupied Iraq, everyone there turned against us. As Colin Powell warned: If you occupy it, you own it. So when Republican candidates flex their military muscles, please observe that they themselves won't be doing the fighting, nor will their sons, daughters, wives or husbands. It will be other people's sons, daughters, wives and husbands. This is what they propose instead of diplomacy.
29
A small percentage of Americans did profit mightily, including Vice President Cheney. That's a good thing, no?
How odd that Obama wants young Iranians to pursue a new path while he pursues an old Cold War with Russia. Hypocrisy is ever-present in politics.
3
It seems to me that it is Putin who has reignited the cold war. He fooled a lot of people, including his own, into thinking Russia was now ready to join the side of democracy. Instead, he has managed to impose a dictatorship but with a thin veneer of freedom. Putin's conduct has indicated that he is untrustworthy.
1
NYT really needs to re-evaluate the grammar of its headline and how it portrays these diplomatic arrangements. This headline "U.S. Imposes New Sanctions on Iran After Prisoners Freed" about the release of Americans held in their prison appears to come with an international penalty. What message is this? Submit to our terms THEN we stick it to them?
I am sure this error lays more with NYT then USA or Iran. Clear and concise journalism is far more important than a "News Shock' attraction whose ratings are hollow.
I am sure this error lays more with NYT then USA or Iran. Clear and concise journalism is far more important than a "News Shock' attraction whose ratings are hollow.
7
I didn't read it that way. If anything, the headline makes the US look whimpy. It was upset over the missle work but wouldn't dare say anything until the prisoners were released. So it wasn't a punishment at all.
But, no matter what, it has nothing to do with grammar. The headline is grammatically correct. You don't like the possible connotation because it might make Iran mad at us. Wouldn't want to do that now.
But, no matter what, it has nothing to do with grammar. The headline is grammatically correct. You don't like the possible connotation because it might make Iran mad at us. Wouldn't want to do that now.
1
I prefer to be optimistic about future relations with Iran. I think the announcement by Hillary Clinton today that she will "distrust and verify" Iran's actions in the future reflects the kind of deception the American people can expect from her should she become the next President. And then she wonders why people, in the majority, find her untrustworthy and calculating. The statement provides ill timing for the positive impact it can potentially have with Iran-- isn't that the point i.e., to negotiate in good faith and come to agreements with other nations when there are differences (?) and her "distrust" is to contradict President Obama's role as hype for tonight's last political debate. I thought earlier today of all that John Kerry has accomplished in his role as Sec. of State in the last three years compared with nothing I could think of during Clinton's four year tenure except to protect Israel. I hope these new sanctions are not misrepresented here and may do some harm to the Iranian people. What if they think the US can't be trusted? Like Americans have been harmed, at times, by decisions that US leaders make that are not always in the best interests of its people- I think the same has been the case in Iran. I prefer to be hopeful and hope that many more Americans will be as well about Iran. It seems the US is quick to sanction others but has not learned some of the lessons that might deter us from having to seemingly police others all the time. It starts with trust.
7
Somehow this article has managed to muddy the waters of what this bi-lateral agreement means. I can't even discern if it is a bi-lateral agreement. Are we the sole enforcers of de minimus violations of UN resolutions? How many UN resolutions has the US ignored? Were the Iranians aware that these new sanctions would follow immediately upon the release of the American prisoners? And what's up with the mysterious throw away paragraph about the Iranian prisoners we held? The Times can do better than that. "That" being almost nothing: that's not reporting, that's a fax from the State Department.
What would the reaction be to Iranian enforcement of our UN violations as a stipulation of signing off on this overarching and important agreement? As a former negotiator I always found it wise not to quibble over meaningless 'small change' that was left on the table, unresolved. It actually could be a sold as a win for both sides; and that is precisely what these UN resolutions are--small change. This is a poorly written article or perhaps I'm missing something. In either event, the author should remedy the glaring lacunae.
What would the reaction be to Iranian enforcement of our UN violations as a stipulation of signing off on this overarching and important agreement? As a former negotiator I always found it wise not to quibble over meaningless 'small change' that was left on the table, unresolved. It actually could be a sold as a win for both sides; and that is precisely what these UN resolutions are--small change. This is a poorly written article or perhaps I'm missing something. In either event, the author should remedy the glaring lacunae.
6
Obama is still bound by needing to act strong. We could use more dialog with both Iran and Russia, notwithstanding efforts to the contrary by this newspaper.
6
I don't think Netanyahu ever has succeeded in this effort or ever will:
"Any attempts by Mr. Netanyahu to drag our young service men and women into a war with Iran will not succeed."
Netanyahu certainly tried -- no one can deny that. But he failed, and the Iran deal probably dooms any future efforts he may make.
That will not be true if Iran violates the deal, of course. In that case, the US probably will have little or no trouble lining up supporters to whack Iran upside the head. But most or all would-be supporters will require an honest-to-goodness violation by Iran -- not just some US allegation that Iran is violating the US' interpretation of some clause that nobody else appears to interpret in the same way. That's the case with this "missile test" allegation. The US is out there all by itself on this one.
"Any attempts by Mr. Netanyahu to drag our young service men and women into a war with Iran will not succeed."
Netanyahu certainly tried -- no one can deny that. But he failed, and the Iran deal probably dooms any future efforts he may make.
That will not be true if Iran violates the deal, of course. In that case, the US probably will have little or no trouble lining up supporters to whack Iran upside the head. But most or all would-be supporters will require an honest-to-goodness violation by Iran -- not just some US allegation that Iran is violating the US' interpretation of some clause that nobody else appears to interpret in the same way. That's the case with this "missile test" allegation. The US is out there all by itself on this one.
4
It's an presidential election year with the Republicans using any excuse to undermine the Democrats. So Obama imposes new sanctions to quiet the rhetoric. That's all.
2
I read Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's negative comments about the Iran deal in today's Israel Hayom newspaper. How many times over the past several years has he tried to scuttle President Obama's efforts to succeed in securing a peace deal? Remember his doomsday lecture to a joint session of the U.S. Congress in 2015? What a disgraceful exhibition. Mr. Netanyahu would be wise to cease trying to influence American public opinion, especially in the current Republican and Democrat race for the White House. Angry American voters are becoming much more aware of what is really taking place in the Middle East. Any attempts by Mr. Netanyahu to drag our young service men and women into a war with Iran will not succeed. Let's give peace a chance.
17
Here's the language from UNSC Resolution 2231 that the US claims Iran is violating:
"Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons...until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day..."
Setting aside that "called upon" doesn't mean the "called-upon" country is actually required to do (or not do) anything, even if Iran were "required" to do something (or were prohibited from doing something) by this language, Iran disagrees that it's doing anything wrong. The US government argues, in essence, that ANY missile capable of carrying a nuclear payload must be deemed to have been "designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons," and, accordingly, all ballistic missile tests are prohibited unless the missile in question can't possibly "deliver nuclear weapons" (for example, missiles that are really, really small).
Needless to say, Iran doesn't interpret this language to prohibit it from testing missiles designed to deliver non-nuclear weapons, even if those missiles also could deliver nuclear weapons. The US' interpretation isn't absurd -- frankly, it has a reasonable basis -- but Iran's interpretation is consistent with how all participants in those negotiations -- excluding the US -- claimed to understand that language. It wasn't meant to prohibit Iran from continuing tests of conventional missiles.
That's probably why no other country backs the US on this claim.
"Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons...until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day..."
Setting aside that "called upon" doesn't mean the "called-upon" country is actually required to do (or not do) anything, even if Iran were "required" to do something (or were prohibited from doing something) by this language, Iran disagrees that it's doing anything wrong. The US government argues, in essence, that ANY missile capable of carrying a nuclear payload must be deemed to have been "designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons," and, accordingly, all ballistic missile tests are prohibited unless the missile in question can't possibly "deliver nuclear weapons" (for example, missiles that are really, really small).
Needless to say, Iran doesn't interpret this language to prohibit it from testing missiles designed to deliver non-nuclear weapons, even if those missiles also could deliver nuclear weapons. The US' interpretation isn't absurd -- frankly, it has a reasonable basis -- but Iran's interpretation is consistent with how all participants in those negotiations -- excluding the US -- claimed to understand that language. It wasn't meant to prohibit Iran from continuing tests of conventional missiles.
That's probably why no other country backs the US on this claim.
4
"Called upon". For goodness sakes. Why even put the requirement in in the first place?
And the NYTEB today is lauding Kerry, Obama et al for the Iran Deal? A deal which the Iranians must comply with for 15 years; but which lifted most sanctions only after five months?
We may have peace this minute. But, as indicated by this namby pamby toothless language, the Adminstrstion kicked a can down the road. And it's not made of tin or aluminum. It's made of another metal. Guess which one?
And the NYTEB today is lauding Kerry, Obama et al for the Iran Deal? A deal which the Iranians must comply with for 15 years; but which lifted most sanctions only after five months?
We may have peace this minute. But, as indicated by this namby pamby toothless language, the Adminstrstion kicked a can down the road. And it's not made of tin or aluminum. It's made of another metal. Guess which one?
2
Well Robert Dana, predictions like yours are cheap and easy to make. Seeing as the right has been proven wrong consistently over the past 8 years, we should all feel good about our chances for lasting peace.
7
The encomium and credit earned by lifting the sanctions against
Iran yesterday has been drained by imposing new sanctions again on Iran in the name of missile test. Iran, Iraq , Syria and all middle east countries have their own culture, faith, tradition ,inventions and contributions in science since the age beyond our memory.
Imposing sanctions and suppressing a country's economy doesn't appear an intelligent way to turn a foe as a friend. Phobia against Iran has been created by misgivings and negative mindset in the past and not by missile and nuclear prorgramme. The misgivings between nations created in one century has not been tried to erase by their successors but intensified. Three days ago, Mr.Kerry said, "treatment to the role diplomacy plays in keeping our country safe, secure and strong ". The revival of the economy of Iran will be an added strength to the world economy and help to offset the China's domination in the long run. There is a room for second thought in white house to lift the new sanctions and start business with Iran.
Iran yesterday has been drained by imposing new sanctions again on Iran in the name of missile test. Iran, Iraq , Syria and all middle east countries have their own culture, faith, tradition ,inventions and contributions in science since the age beyond our memory.
Imposing sanctions and suppressing a country's economy doesn't appear an intelligent way to turn a foe as a friend. Phobia against Iran has been created by misgivings and negative mindset in the past and not by missile and nuclear prorgramme. The misgivings between nations created in one century has not been tried to erase by their successors but intensified. Three days ago, Mr.Kerry said, "treatment to the role diplomacy plays in keeping our country safe, secure and strong ". The revival of the economy of Iran will be an added strength to the world economy and help to offset the China's domination in the long run. There is a room for second thought in white house to lift the new sanctions and start business with Iran.
2
This is one of the most egregious examples of NY Times front page bias in years.
The US imposes new sanctions on Iran and you bury the reason, sort of, on paragraph six... after lauding the praiseworthy "This is a good day..." language from Obama in paragraph four.
The headline doesn't match the story. Based on the headline one would expect something in maybe, the lead, or paragraph one to explain what it was Iran did to merit new "sanctions." The story leads with freed Americans (not all Americans, only the ones released). As it is, there is nothing about what missiles the Iranians we "procuring" who the eleven entities and individuals were, and what exactly it was they did or tried to do.
But you're very careful to let the reader know that while they "might seem to suggest that Washington was imposing new measures to make up for those that were lifted Saturday, they are actually nowhere near comparable...."
You give us a paragraph extolling more praise on the Obama administration then let us know that the new sanctions are aimed at individuals and small companies. Then you go on to fluff up the big "win" accomplished by "the deal" and you remind readers of the families of the Americans being freed.
Governments don't sanction entire nations for minor activities of "individuals and small companies."
This reporting is atrocious.
The US imposes new sanctions on Iran and you bury the reason, sort of, on paragraph six... after lauding the praiseworthy "This is a good day..." language from Obama in paragraph four.
The headline doesn't match the story. Based on the headline one would expect something in maybe, the lead, or paragraph one to explain what it was Iran did to merit new "sanctions." The story leads with freed Americans (not all Americans, only the ones released). As it is, there is nothing about what missiles the Iranians we "procuring" who the eleven entities and individuals were, and what exactly it was they did or tried to do.
But you're very careful to let the reader know that while they "might seem to suggest that Washington was imposing new measures to make up for those that were lifted Saturday, they are actually nowhere near comparable...."
You give us a paragraph extolling more praise on the Obama administration then let us know that the new sanctions are aimed at individuals and small companies. Then you go on to fluff up the big "win" accomplished by "the deal" and you remind readers of the families of the Americans being freed.
Governments don't sanction entire nations for minor activities of "individuals and small companies."
This reporting is atrocious.
8
Peace in our time.
Clapity...Clap.
Iran just won the Powerball. One hundred times over.
"That's a lot of money" – as the bank robber salivates to the Joker at the beginning of The Dark Knight.
A dark shadow falls over the Middle East tonight. Do we fully understand these men? We ignore the publicly stated intent of the ayatollahs at our own peril. We project our western sensibilities and political calculations on an extremist cabal that clearly has a very different set of life priorities. We ignore their apocalyptic prophecies. M.A.D. won't work with fanatics.
"Some men just want to watch the world burn." - Alfred
The funding is now in. Time will tell.
Clapity...Clap.
Iran just won the Powerball. One hundred times over.
"That's a lot of money" – as the bank robber salivates to the Joker at the beginning of The Dark Knight.
A dark shadow falls over the Middle East tonight. Do we fully understand these men? We ignore the publicly stated intent of the ayatollahs at our own peril. We project our western sensibilities and political calculations on an extremist cabal that clearly has a very different set of life priorities. We ignore their apocalyptic prophecies. M.A.D. won't work with fanatics.
"Some men just want to watch the world burn." - Alfred
The funding is now in. Time will tell.
2
You don't 'win' anything when something that was stolen from you is returned, and not all of it was returned.
5
The Republicans must be writhing in pain.
4
Thank God we have Obama instead of McCain.
13
"How many other countries, including the U.S. and especially Israel, have ignored countless U.N. resolutions and not been penalized?"
Even more important, if Iran really has 'ignored' some UN resolution, why isn't the US doing what it usually does when it claims Iran is violating some UN resolution: demanding that the UN do something about it? And why aren't any other countries backing us on that claim?
Could it be that the US government is the only one that believes Iran is violating some UN resolution?
Even more important, if Iran really has 'ignored' some UN resolution, why isn't the US doing what it usually does when it claims Iran is violating some UN resolution: demanding that the UN do something about it? And why aren't any other countries backing us on that claim?
Could it be that the US government is the only one that believes Iran is violating some UN resolution?
7
The United States put severe sanctions on Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, but hasn't publicly criticized Israel for its program. Since hardliners in Israel, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, have threatened Iran, isn't it time we officially asked Israel to mothball its nuclear arsenal and missiles?
10
Israel hasn't threatened to wipe another country (or countries) off the face of the Earth. That's why.
2
Israel threatened to bomb Iran's nuclear reactors. Indeed, had the U.S. told them not to in no uncertain terms, their right-wing government would have. And then what? An escalating war in the middle east?
4
Diogenes,
There's a difference between (1) a country defending itself against another one that threatens to wipe it off the face of the Earth and (2) a country, as an offensive move, threatening to wipe another off the face of the Earth.
False equivalence and faulty logic abound, sadly.
There's a difference between (1) a country defending itself against another one that threatens to wipe it off the face of the Earth and (2) a country, as an offensive move, threatening to wipe another off the face of the Earth.
False equivalence and faulty logic abound, sadly.
1
"Iran’s recent ballistic missile tests conducted in violation of United Nations restrictions..."
If Iran's recent ballistic missile test violate UN restrictions, why isn't the US insisting that the Security Council take action? And why aren't our "allies" also imposing new sanctions on Iran for this?
Could it be that our "allies" don't agree with us on this?
If Iran's recent ballistic missile test violate UN restrictions, why isn't the US insisting that the Security Council take action? And why aren't our "allies" also imposing new sanctions on Iran for this?
Could it be that our "allies" don't agree with us on this?
3
These new "sanctions" sound like we're putting a few people on the SDN or entities lists (bad guy lists), which amounts to nothing. A cynical ploy by a feckless President and administration who know next to nothing about foreign affairs in the Mideast. Our best hope is that low oil prices keep these Mideast Islamic countries from having any wealth or influence in the world or the ability to but weapons. These countries and regimes need to be returned to an era where their vile ideologies are kept inside their borders.
1
The story overlooks the most important point. President Obama cannot make Europe create new sanctions. He already warned that if he played hardball as Republicans wanted, the EU would end its sanctions.
2
FB writes:
"Let us pray that the next occupant of the White House doesn't betray that trust."
I couldn't agree more that the Iran nuclear deal was a great achievement by Obama. Despite several (all?) Republican candidates' vows to renege on that deal on their first day in office, I doubt that will happen. By then, some adviser to the new president will get across to the president that the US has a great deal less power than the new president may think. If Iran is then in compliance with the deal (as it is so far, and probably will be then), either the US won't renege or it will renege but none of the other signatories to that deal will follow suit. Life will go on, despite whatever bluff, bluster and sanctions the US may then choose to impose.
"Let us pray that the next occupant of the White House doesn't betray that trust."
I couldn't agree more that the Iran nuclear deal was a great achievement by Obama. Despite several (all?) Republican candidates' vows to renege on that deal on their first day in office, I doubt that will happen. By then, some adviser to the new president will get across to the president that the US has a great deal less power than the new president may think. If Iran is then in compliance with the deal (as it is so far, and probably will be then), either the US won't renege or it will renege but none of the other signatories to that deal will follow suit. Life will go on, despite whatever bluff, bluster and sanctions the US may then choose to impose.
3
These latest sanctions by the Obama administration make us look silly, if not down right dishonest. No wonder some clerics in Iran call the USA the Great Satan.
1
Silly or dishonest translates to the Great Satan? Quite a leap.
You've just made the case for us to worry a little bit about Iran.
You've just made the case for us to worry a little bit about Iran.
1
Barack Obama is right about one thing--it's been a great week. For Iran that is. For starters Iran got another golden opportunity to stick it to the Great Satan by humiliating the crew of a crippled vessel for all the world to see. It was just heartbreaking seeing American sailors down on their knees by heavily armed Iranians. Before their release the ranking officer was forced apologize for American carelessness by their vessel's accidentally straying into Iranian waters. Now Iranian gets to play the hero by agreeing to release prisoners in exchange for some cold hard cash. Remember ever since ancient times two things have always interested the Persians--money and weapons. Yes, that was the week that was.
2
So, the Iranians should have been shaking the American sailor's hands for bringing a warship into their territory? When you capture someone you make them kneel with their hands up -- I refer you to Ferguson. The Iranians got a little propaganda out of it them then let them go unharmed. I know, I know, we should have bombed them into glowing sand for such an offense.
1
I find it remarkable that absolutely no one seems to note the inherent contradiction embedded in these pretend-diplomatic 'events'.
One celebrates the furtherance of a so-called "deal" which hinges on the promise that Iran is ceasing to pursue nuclear weapons.
The other is the imposition of new sanctions, required whenever Iran proves that it is continuing to attempt to develop nuclear weapons.
(*no one seems to grasp that these missiles Iran is testing? and the reason they are banned from testing them? have no purpose other than to serve as the delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. they have absolutely no value as conventional arms)
Apparently NYT readers are blessed with the ability to hold two completely different ideas in their heads without conflict. One = Iran is ceasing its pursuit of nuclear weapons! Two = Iran needs to be sanctioned for its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons. Great day for international diplomacy indeed.
One celebrates the furtherance of a so-called "deal" which hinges on the promise that Iran is ceasing to pursue nuclear weapons.
The other is the imposition of new sanctions, required whenever Iran proves that it is continuing to attempt to develop nuclear weapons.
(*no one seems to grasp that these missiles Iran is testing? and the reason they are banned from testing them? have no purpose other than to serve as the delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. they have absolutely no value as conventional arms)
Apparently NYT readers are blessed with the ability to hold two completely different ideas in their heads without conflict. One = Iran is ceasing its pursuit of nuclear weapons! Two = Iran needs to be sanctioned for its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons. Great day for international diplomacy indeed.
1
Are there "United Nations resolutions against ballistic missile tests?"
The Iran nuclear deal prohibits Iran from testing ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The US chooses to interpret that to mean ANY missile that's capable of carrying a nuclear payload may not be tested, even if that missile is also capable of carrying non-nuclear payloads. That interpretation, of course, means pretty much ALL missile tests are prohibited. Needless to say, Iran interprets that provision not to prohibit tests of missiles intended for use with non-nuclear payloads.
Who's correct?
It's worth noting that no US "allies" is rushing out to support the US government on this one, and that Iran has given no indication that it intends to curtail -- much less stop -- tests of conventional missiles.
The Iran nuclear deal prohibits Iran from testing ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The US chooses to interpret that to mean ANY missile that's capable of carrying a nuclear payload may not be tested, even if that missile is also capable of carrying non-nuclear payloads. That interpretation, of course, means pretty much ALL missile tests are prohibited. Needless to say, Iran interprets that provision not to prohibit tests of missiles intended for use with non-nuclear payloads.
Who's correct?
It's worth noting that no US "allies" is rushing out to support the US government on this one, and that Iran has given no indication that it intends to curtail -- much less stop -- tests of conventional missiles.
2
"""The US chooses to interpret that to mean ANY missile that's capable of carrying a nuclear payload may not be tested, even if that missile is also capable of carrying non-nuclear payloads. That interpretation, of course, means pretty much ALL missile tests are prohibited"""
Incorrect.
The missiles in question - intermediate and long-range ballistic missiles - have no conventional-warfare application whatsoever.
No one builds multi-million-dollar, hi-tech, hugely complex delivery vehicles which fly over 1000 miles to deliver less than 2000lbs of "conventional" explosives.
These missiles lack the accuracy and guidance capability of, say, Cruise Missiles, which can hit point targets at long-distance. They have absolutely zero utility as a conventional weapons platform, and any claims that they have "some other purpose" are transparent lies meant to influence only the willfully-ignorant.
Iran is the only non-nuclear nation on earth that stockpiles and continues to develop long-range ballistic missiles.
http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/irans-ballistic-missile-program
The fact that Iran claims to be ceasing its pursuit of nuclear weapons...while continuing to develop missile-systems whose sole purpose requires nuclear weapons... is a contradiction that this paper and its readers make great efforts to obfuscate.
Incorrect.
The missiles in question - intermediate and long-range ballistic missiles - have no conventional-warfare application whatsoever.
No one builds multi-million-dollar, hi-tech, hugely complex delivery vehicles which fly over 1000 miles to deliver less than 2000lbs of "conventional" explosives.
These missiles lack the accuracy and guidance capability of, say, Cruise Missiles, which can hit point targets at long-distance. They have absolutely zero utility as a conventional weapons platform, and any claims that they have "some other purpose" are transparent lies meant to influence only the willfully-ignorant.
Iran is the only non-nuclear nation on earth that stockpiles and continues to develop long-range ballistic missiles.
http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/irans-ballistic-missile-program
The fact that Iran claims to be ceasing its pursuit of nuclear weapons...while continuing to develop missile-systems whose sole purpose requires nuclear weapons... is a contradiction that this paper and its readers make great efforts to obfuscate.
2
""It's worth noting that no US "allies" is rushing out to support the US government on this one,""
Hillary certainly is.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/266173-clinton-calls-for-new...
Hillary certainly is.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/266173-clinton-calls-for-new...
Sometimes you just know as an ordinary citizen that an issue is way over your head or above your pay grade or whatever. This and the "swift release" of the sailors from the two wandering patrol boats all seems like some elaborately staged give-and-take. Have I just watched too many diplomatic thrillers and episodes of "Madam Secretary"?
What I hope it means is that we're on a path to recognize Iran as a natural ally in the region, while making mutual gestures to distract/appease the chest-thumpers on both sides.
What I hope it means is that we're on a path to recognize Iran as a natural ally in the region, while making mutual gestures to distract/appease the chest-thumpers on both sides.
3
Iran, an ancient civilization surrounded by invented countries armed to the tilt, has every right to develop any technology they need to defend themselves.
These new sanctions are silly.
These new sanctions are silly.
4
While this new headline and revised article is a much improved version of the first one published, it still begs the question why the first one was so far off base. It has solicited a comment thread that is almost incoherent.
I have no problem with dissenting opinions, but when those opinions are being formed around information that is presented to them in a leading manner, one might even say provocative manner, they do not serve to further the kind of discussion the New York Times claims it wishes to foster in its comment threads.
I have no problem with dissenting opinions, but when those opinions are being formed around information that is presented to them in a leading manner, one might even say provocative manner, they do not serve to further the kind of discussion the New York Times claims it wishes to foster in its comment threads.
8
We should be thankful for the sop we have been thrown, namely the new sanctions imposed for the ballistic missile development. And we should be thankful to Israel, as Netanyahu assures us that Israel will continue to Monitor Iran.
I would be more thankful, however, if my party (the Democrats) would dump its head-in-the-sand, feel-good fringe -- and go back to being the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman.
I could never vote Republican because I despise corporate political power, the business classes in general, the Evangelicals, the evolution-deniers, the anti-abortion crowd, the Confederate flag wavers and especially the worshippers of laissez-faire capitalism. On that note, I was not amused by the insipid item I found on the NBC News webpage which claimed to decode my "political DNA" by having me take a multiple-choice test. Journalists, of course, are required to be clueless -- if they actually knew anything or were able figure anything out by themselves, that would be contrary to their "ethics."
I would be more thankful, however, if my party (the Democrats) would dump its head-in-the-sand, feel-good fringe -- and go back to being the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman.
I could never vote Republican because I despise corporate political power, the business classes in general, the Evangelicals, the evolution-deniers, the anti-abortion crowd, the Confederate flag wavers and especially the worshippers of laissez-faire capitalism. On that note, I was not amused by the insipid item I found on the NBC News webpage which claimed to decode my "political DNA" by having me take a multiple-choice test. Journalists, of course, are required to be clueless -- if they actually knew anything or were able figure anything out by themselves, that would be contrary to their "ethics."
Now Iran has stopped their nuclear program. Are we going to tell Israel to stop their nuclear program as well?
11
This is pretty greasy, even for the USA which has a history of negotiating in bad faith.
It is clear that the USA cannot be trusted and the lesson here to other national leaders is clear: don't give up your nuclear option for the empty promises of "Uncle Sam."
It is clear that the USA cannot be trusted and the lesson here to other national leaders is clear: don't give up your nuclear option for the empty promises of "Uncle Sam."
4
I can not believe how a president can betray his country very sad days ahead for america
.
.
2
Why would you have a problem in not believing in something that didn't happen?
What a stupid thing to do to simply appease right wing and Israeli backers and impose sanctions which will hurt us more than Iran.
6
By my count, the Republican candidates for president would have had us at war with Iran three times in the past year.
Paraphrasing their complaints against President Obama, you get: "Our feckless President has failed to start another international conflagration in the Middle East. President Obama utterly failed to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities at the risk of broad nuclear contamination for the entire region. Instead, he has let the Iranians dismantle those facilities themselves under international observation. His failure to create the chaos of war in Iran has likewise recklessly kept fissile materials in the hands of the Iranians rather than making them unguardable and therefore poachable by terrorists groups. Furthermore, President Obama, against the advice of every Republican in Congress, has steadfastly refused to start a direct proxy war with Russia in Syria, thereby depriving the world of World War III, and callously keeping many young American soldiers alive."
Paraphrasing their complaints against President Obama, you get: "Our feckless President has failed to start another international conflagration in the Middle East. President Obama utterly failed to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities at the risk of broad nuclear contamination for the entire region. Instead, he has let the Iranians dismantle those facilities themselves under international observation. His failure to create the chaos of war in Iran has likewise recklessly kept fissile materials in the hands of the Iranians rather than making them unguardable and therefore poachable by terrorists groups. Furthermore, President Obama, against the advice of every Republican in Congress, has steadfastly refused to start a direct proxy war with Russia in Syria, thereby depriving the world of World War III, and callously keeping many young American soldiers alive."
10
We have been at war with Iran since 1979, but only the Iranians have acknowledged it. Moreover, all this display of false rapprochement changes nothing. Did you see the picture of Khamenei smiling like the Cheshire Cat?
As well as the Iranians may deserve this new set of limited sanctions, their placement in force and effect just as the airplane with our returned hostages leaves the ground in Tehran looks vindictive and childish. We have been very stupid in our actions here. Its no wonder that so few countries trust us.
3
This insanely hypocritical action of the Obama regime in imposing "sanctions" on Iran, the day after Iran freed five Americans as a show of good will and just days after the No-Nukes agreement with Iran took effect. The world continues to view the ugly old USA as the global bully, creating increasing numbers of enemies for the U.S. and its so-called "allies". The world also knows that the USA's partner in crime, Zionist Israel, not only has stockpiled hydrogen, neutron and atomic warheads over the past 30 years, but it also has the ballistic missiles to deliver them, and refuses to join the responsible world nuclear powers and sign on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This speaks volumes to the "integrity" of both the Obama regime and its partner in crime, the Netanyahu "government".
4
President Obama does not head a "regime." He has a democratic mandate to serve as president for the rest of his 2nd term, after which a newly elected president will serve in the position.
5
Call it what you will, Scott, one of the few "democratic" choices left in the now ugly old USA. I choose to label the current "government" a "regime", bought and paid for by the global corporate cabal. So do come along with me and enjoy one of our last "freedoms": call it what you will!
2
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France. A report stated that Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi chemical weapons factories. Declassified CIA documents show that the United States was providing reconnaissance intelligence to Iraq around 1987–88 which was then used to launch chemical weapon attacks on Iranian troops and that CIA fully knew that chemical weapons would be deployed and sarin attacks followed...... In a declassified 1991 report, the CIA estimated that Iran had suffered more than 50,000 casualties from Iraq's use of several chemical weapons, though current estimates are more than 100,000 as the long-term effects continue to cause casualties.
The Great Satan seems suitable
According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France. A report stated that Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi chemical weapons factories. Declassified CIA documents show that the United States was providing reconnaissance intelligence to Iraq around 1987–88 which was then used to launch chemical weapon attacks on Iranian troops and that CIA fully knew that chemical weapons would be deployed and sarin attacks followed...... In a declassified 1991 report, the CIA estimated that Iran had suffered more than 50,000 casualties from Iraq's use of several chemical weapons, though current estimates are more than 100,000 as the long-term effects continue to cause casualties.
The Great Satan seems suitable
3
This could be a good thing- a step long overdue. We have a GOP and Fox News responsible for the mass brainwashing of the American public. It's time to take down the mirrors and unplug the smoke machines- I'm willing to give peace and diplomacy a chance.
6
The most remarkable aspect of this deal is that Iran's rulers relinquished the capacity to develop nuclear weapons in short order as a deterrent to Israel's potent nuclear arsenal. Netanyahu now declares that Israel will be the watchdog of this deal, without ever admitting Israel's own nuclear arsenal. And the New York Times, as the rest of the Western press, colludes with him in veiling his government's double standard by neglecting to mention Israel's undeclared nuclear weaponry while discussing the merits of a deal devoted to preventing Iran from doing likewise.
5
You ignore the critical difference, wherein Iran endlessly threatens to wipe Israel off the map while Israel makes no such threat against Iran.
2
I think it is not fair for NYT to publish this eye-grabbing headline that US imposed fresh sanctions in Iran, when those sanctions apply to just a few and are far narrower in scope.
It diminishes the overall success of this Nuclear deal, which has happened despite so many roadblocks, including from our own Congress.
Please, we should say many thanks to Sec. Kerry and Pres. Obama for their single mindedness in making this happen, when it would have been far easier to walk away from the table.
So please don't muddy the water by highlighting these wrinkles, and look at the bigger picture of Iran joining the community of Nations, when, just a few years ago it was designated to be part of the "Axis of Evil" by George W. "Mission Accomplished" Bush.
Pres Obama and Sec Kerry, take a bow, and thanks.
It diminishes the overall success of this Nuclear deal, which has happened despite so many roadblocks, including from our own Congress.
Please, we should say many thanks to Sec. Kerry and Pres. Obama for their single mindedness in making this happen, when it would have been far easier to walk away from the table.
So please don't muddy the water by highlighting these wrinkles, and look at the bigger picture of Iran joining the community of Nations, when, just a few years ago it was designated to be part of the "Axis of Evil" by George W. "Mission Accomplished" Bush.
Pres Obama and Sec Kerry, take a bow, and thanks.
11
Does this not seem like a bait and switch, imposing new sanctions the moment the Americans are released and safely on their way?
4
Iran is scared stiff of a GOP President. That may be the reason why Iran gave up the hostages and will publicly ignore protesting the new sanctions. Even Iran's hard liners don't want Iran to be devastated by an American attack instigated by AIPAC and Netanyahu and launched by Trump, Cruz or Rubio with McCain and Graham gloating in the shadows.
2
No one is scared of Obama except some very smart Americans.
1
A few years ago we travelled all over Iran and were well received by the people. It seems that we should try to make peace with them by more peaceful means. JG-
7
Perhaps I've missed it, but I haven't read, heard or seen anywhere any expressions of gratitude to Pres. Obama, Secretary of State, John Kerry, or to the U.S. In general by any of the families of those who gave been rescued.
The feelings I have now, are certainly different different to how I'd feel if soldiers were preparing to go to war. I'm not sure if Pres. Obama is the greatest American president ever, but I'm sure he's in the conversation. This only shows how mediocre those who endeavour to fill his shoes are, and I include those from both parties, even though I'm aware that the republicans don't rise to the standard of the democrats.
The feelings I have now, are certainly different different to how I'd feel if soldiers were preparing to go to war. I'm not sure if Pres. Obama is the greatest American president ever, but I'm sure he's in the conversation. This only shows how mediocre those who endeavour to fill his shoes are, and I include those from both parties, even though I'm aware that the republicans don't rise to the standard of the democrats.
20
For those of you who despise the military industrial complex, recognize that the President has sown the seeds of the next nuclear arms race and virtually assured that the military industrial complex will be heavily funded for decades. The philosophy of nuclear deterrance and mutually assured destruction, which was the predicate of the arms race with the USSR and led to arms reduction, does not work with a power that sees nuclear destruction not as an extential threat but, instead, views it as an existential triumph, cashed in and redeemed in the afterlife. What folly.
7
Having read a number of these comments, I think it's pretty clear that if you want there to be peace in the world, it is necessary to take some chances. Otherwise you can just keep on hating "the enemy," and plan for eternal war. When you take a chance, then of course, that means that there is some possibility that what you do may backfire. It also requires continual care and attention to make sure that that eventuality does not materialize. This is why it is so important that a Democrat be elected, someone who is willing and able, like Hillary, to take the reins from Obama and continue steadfastly on this course. It is up to each one of us to listen to both sides of the story and then decide for ourselves: war, and war, and more war, or, as we said in the '60's, "give Peace a Chance." All we are saying is give Peace a Chance.
7
Why are people not in favor of this? What is wrong about it? We lifted very broad sanctions against Iran after they held up their end on the nuclear deal and then afterwards we brought new sanctions because they violated a UN resolution on ballistic missiles. We gave them what was agreed and then punished them for a separate violation.
13
Many well informed people are not in favor of these new sanctions (and there remains old sanctions on Iran that have not been lifted with the nuclear agreement) because it clearly shows our hypocrisy on which country gets targeted. For example, Israel has violated many UN resolutions and we turn a blind eye to this and yet veto any UN proposal that is not to Israel's benefit. Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen, reports in the news about targeting hospitals, civilians and using U.S. made cluster bombs. Yet we are supplying Saudi Arabia with billions of dollars of weapons. If we are supposed to be the leader of the world then we must at least make an effort to appear to be fair and just.
7
So, will Obama be imposing sanctions on Israel for violating umpteen UN resolutions stretching back decades? Or for refusing even to acknowledge its nuclear weapons, let alone allowing international monitoring of them?
I won't hold my breath.
I won't hold my breath.
7
Do you understand what intercontinental ballistic missiles are, and the implications of the ayatollahs having them? Have you ever listened to Iran's Supreme Leader?
1
I see the Right's working hard to 'splain why this is a Bad Thing, and why the President's (he is, you know) getting the people released that they've been screaming about for months and sanctioning Iran for the missile tests they've been scaming about for months proves that the man's feckless or bleck or something.
5
It must be election time. Obama's suddenly gotten tougher on illegal immigrants and Iran. (Or so it appears)
The only problem is that Obama is never more deceptive than when election time rolls around.
The only problem is that Obama is never more deceptive than when election time rolls around.
2
He has been tough the whole time, where is evidence to the otherwise?
We live in a complicated world. Real solutions take careful strategy and implementation. That is what Obama knows. The problem is that about half the country has a split second attention span and respond strongly to false simplifications. Let's just hope there are enough Americans that understand these things and vote appropriately so we don't end up with a Republican in the White House.
We live in a complicated world. Real solutions take careful strategy and implementation. That is what Obama knows. The problem is that about half the country has a split second attention span and respond strongly to false simplifications. Let's just hope there are enough Americans that understand these things and vote appropriately so we don't end up with a Republican in the White House.
5
Every GOP candidate that tells their supporters that they will "rip up" the Iran deal the day they take office are either naive or just plain lying. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) a.k.a. "Iran Deal" is not between Iran and the US but between Iran, the P5+1. You can be sure that P4+1 would not be ripping up the agreement. So, it would mean that the US would be alone and it would isolate itself while the other members would start trading with Iran. The US could use unilateral sanctions but they would be ineffective. Additionally it will play into the hands of the Iran Supreme Leader who has said all along that the US is not to be trusted and that the US would be first to renege on the deal.
11
Wait a minute, The Iranians fire Ballistic Missile tests in violation of UN resolution and its the US that is being disingenuous.
7
A shame and a sham. How can we expect anyone to trust us after this.
3
The US sanctions Iran because of ballistic missile development.
Meanwhile the US and Russia continue to spend extravagant sums of money on modernizing their nuclear weapons systems. Of course, this in contravention of the NPT which both countries are signatories to. Perhaps the rest of the world should use the UN to put in place sanctions on the US and Russia for not abiding by their NPT commitments.
Meanwhile the US and Russia continue to spend extravagant sums of money on modernizing their nuclear weapons systems. Of course, this in contravention of the NPT which both countries are signatories to. Perhaps the rest of the world should use the UN to put in place sanctions on the US and Russia for not abiding by their NPT commitments.
3
Iran is a state sponsor or terrorism. Iran by proxy, has killed numerous US soldiers.
Obama is blinded by what he hopes his legacy will be.
Obama will be right up there with Chamberlain. A complete fool.
Obama is blinded by what he hopes his legacy will be.
Obama will be right up there with Chamberlain. A complete fool.
5
When will Obama push for sanctions against a certain other nation, that has been in continuous violations of UN Resolutions and international law since its creation? That nation is precious Israel, or the driver of our foreign policy.
7
The new sanctions do not target Iran as a whole but very specific Iranians and industrial entities , so we can safely can all the hot air comments that the US has "broken good faith" with Iran as a whole, which the nuclear sanctions did target , because it has not happened by any measure.
24
The longstanding American hatred and duplicity toward Iran is so tired and unnecessary. The real radical regime of the region is the house of Saud. They are medieval in their orientation and receive billions in arms every year. The West will regret their reliance on these folks at some point. Meanwhile, we continue to alienate yet another generation of Iranians. No wonder they don't trust us.
7
It's a Democratic election trade off. The Democrats can now defend themselves on the Iran deal by pointing out that the US still retains control of Iran and the new sanctions are proof. Winning the next election is the priority; world opinion, trust and fear don't even compare. When you spend 600 billion a year on the military (multiple times more than any other country) it hardly registers what the world thinks
2
Bunch of Idiots in the White House - Iran rescued two of our boats and gave 'em back. Fearing (accurately) that he would be seen as weak in the exchange, your favorite President announces sanctions instead.
We're still in Afghanistan, we're bombing Syria and Libya. Obama has us back in Iraq.
Thanks, socialist Democrats. You've handed us the White House in 2016.
We're still in Afghanistan, we're bombing Syria and Libya. Obama has us back in Iraq.
Thanks, socialist Democrats. You've handed us the White House in 2016.
3
That Trump hair-whatever is hallucinogenic, yes? Or is there some other mind altering substance at play here, California Man?
1
This article is very disingenuous. A casual reader will feel that all U.S. sanctions (prior to these new sanctions on missiles) were lifted.
"For other companies, those in financial services in particular, the deal only lifts sanctions imposed to punish Iran on its nuclear program and doesn’t touch a sweeping ban on U.S. trade and investment put in place by the Clinton administration in 1995."
and
"“A sanctions regime very much remains in place with respect to Iran, making it very complicated and risky to do business” there, said Juan Zarate, chairman of the Financial Integrity Network, an advisory firm, and a senior White House and Treasury Department official during the George W. Bush administration."
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-16/benefits-of-iran-s...
"For other companies, those in financial services in particular, the deal only lifts sanctions imposed to punish Iran on its nuclear program and doesn’t touch a sweeping ban on U.S. trade and investment put in place by the Clinton administration in 1995."
and
"“A sanctions regime very much remains in place with respect to Iran, making it very complicated and risky to do business” there, said Juan Zarate, chairman of the Financial Integrity Network, an advisory firm, and a senior White House and Treasury Department official during the George W. Bush administration."
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-16/benefits-of-iran-s...
1
The new sanctions against Iran apply to mostly companies or individuals, who had acted as a go-between. The Mabrooka Trading Co., based in the United Arab Emirates and its networks based in the region and in China are said to have enabled Iran and North Korea to cooperate on missile development, helping Iran to buy components from Pyongyang’s state-owned Korea Mining Development Trading Corp., which is sanctioned by both the US and EU.
Iran is said to have sent technicians to North Korea over the past two years to jointly work with its defence industries on ballistic-missile development.
Perhaps Iran wouldn't have to approach a pariah like North Korea, now that it can do business openly with the international community???
Iran is said to have sent technicians to North Korea over the past two years to jointly work with its defence industries on ballistic-missile development.
Perhaps Iran wouldn't have to approach a pariah like North Korea, now that it can do business openly with the international community???
3
An excellent indication that, while it may take Barack Obama time to learn something, he CAN eventually learn. Or is it that he fears a loss by Hillary in November based on documentation by then that the Iranians have made a mockery of the deal they cut with him?
He's chosen a tough slog in any event. He gets to de-emphasize the U.S. military in order to better afford to subsidize ObamaCare while showing deficit improvement, but we have to dedicate an immense amount of attention to any indications that those Iranian scamps persist in their desire to grow mushroom clouds over Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. Could get dicey as well as Russia sets up a nuke supply chain with Egypt and Pakistan does the same with the Saudis.
But, heck, it doesn't SEEM to threaten a mushroom cloud over Chicago, so ... who really cares?
He's chosen a tough slog in any event. He gets to de-emphasize the U.S. military in order to better afford to subsidize ObamaCare while showing deficit improvement, but we have to dedicate an immense amount of attention to any indications that those Iranian scamps persist in their desire to grow mushroom clouds over Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. Could get dicey as well as Russia sets up a nuke supply chain with Egypt and Pakistan does the same with the Saudis.
But, heck, it doesn't SEEM to threaten a mushroom cloud over Chicago, so ... who really cares?
5
I understand, it must be disappointing to the War Chorus that three days ago they were getting ready to begin bloviating about how Obama had totally blown it ... the Iranians were holding our sailors after they entered Iranian territory.
But then, deus ex machina, there's the immediate release, FOLLOWED the next day by the release of the journalists, ALL MADE POSSIBLE because of the Iran deal. And providing empirical evidence of Obama’s wisdom in having ignored the baying of the War Chorus.
As to the new sanctions, if you've read the article and don't think the NYT reporters are lying, these sanctions are completely unrelated to the nuclear deal. Thus, in no way do they undermine the value of the Iran deal or suggest that Obama was duped.
Of course, they may undermine the bottom line of the military industrial complex, but most civilized nations (and peoples) choose to spend the national treasure on human needs than waste it on imagined threats and manufactured wars.
But then, deus ex machina, there's the immediate release, FOLLOWED the next day by the release of the journalists, ALL MADE POSSIBLE because of the Iran deal. And providing empirical evidence of Obama’s wisdom in having ignored the baying of the War Chorus.
As to the new sanctions, if you've read the article and don't think the NYT reporters are lying, these sanctions are completely unrelated to the nuclear deal. Thus, in no way do they undermine the value of the Iran deal or suggest that Obama was duped.
Of course, they may undermine the bottom line of the military industrial complex, but most civilized nations (and peoples) choose to spend the national treasure on human needs than waste it on imagined threats and manufactured wars.
46
Deus ex machina means "God by machine". Try again.
1
Mick:
You're the one with the hair-trigger. Mr. Obama has now announced new sanctions, microseconds after the released Americans left Iran. If those sanctions mean something to Iran and aren't merely an agreed-to back-and-forth between the administration and Iran for purposes of domestic consumption, we'll see how many Americans Iran finds a way to capture on some hokey pretext as new leverage for new caves by us.
But anybody who honestly believes that we can afford to spend all our fortune on "human needs" and not effectively defend ourselves and our strategic interests hasn't been paying much attention to Somali pirates, or Vladimir Putin, or escalating nuclear talk in the Greater Middle East, or Chinese rambunctiousness in the South China Sea. In other words, he's likely a Western European who has been subsidized by America's military strength for decades as he's built his social welfare networks and realizes, all of a sudden, that he needs to buy a few guns, as well -- and can't figure out how to do that without incurring blood in his own streets.
You're the one with the hair-trigger. Mr. Obama has now announced new sanctions, microseconds after the released Americans left Iran. If those sanctions mean something to Iran and aren't merely an agreed-to back-and-forth between the administration and Iran for purposes of domestic consumption, we'll see how many Americans Iran finds a way to capture on some hokey pretext as new leverage for new caves by us.
But anybody who honestly believes that we can afford to spend all our fortune on "human needs" and not effectively defend ourselves and our strategic interests hasn't been paying much attention to Somali pirates, or Vladimir Putin, or escalating nuclear talk in the Greater Middle East, or Chinese rambunctiousness in the South China Sea. In other words, he's likely a Western European who has been subsidized by America's military strength for decades as he's built his social welfare networks and realizes, all of a sudden, that he needs to buy a few guns, as well -- and can't figure out how to do that without incurring blood in his own streets.
Bizarre, simply bizarre. The idea of trying to harm the Iranian people after the Iranian government has complied with every condition in the nuclear fuel pact and when Iran is constantly being threatened by Saudi Arabia is beyond all sense for the United States.
President Obama has been poor guided and made a poor diplomatic decision.
President Obama has been poor guided and made a poor diplomatic decision.
4
The article specifically states that the new sanctions target a handful of individuals and small companies and will not hurt the Iranian people or economy as a whole.
11
Nancy, you should watch this speech by Obama, he explains the situation quite well. Of course, you better make sure there are no Republicans around when you do or you might be caught in the line of fire as they machine-gun your computer or TV. Just saying....
5
In yet another sign of U.S. weakness and foreign policy incompetence, President Obama demonstrates a significant disconnect from reality and cause and effect. Without comprehensible explanation for the capture and wayward behavior of American Naval personnel, initial rehearsed high-fives in the Oval Office following release are compounded by phantom sanction levied at Iran that fool no one. Thankfully Swiss Air provided the transport for the released U.S. personnel; otherwise, they would remain in captivity.
4
Talk about a disconnect! So you'd rather start a shooting fight over what has every appearance of being a genuine mistake on the part of the sailors? And even if they were in Iranian territorial waters under orders and got caught, you think it's a sign of weakness that they were repatriated within 24 hrs via diplomacy? Your perspective baffles me.
11
Repatriation was a guarantee. Sailor incompetence remains a mystery without explanation. Does not that matter, or at least cause concern?
1
Now I'm truly confused. Didn't we finally patch things up with Iran? I thought all the past nastiness between the West and Iran was forgiven and forgotten. Iran and the Great Satan are supposed to be good friends once again, right?? Why I was absolutely convinced that John Kerry was going to fly to Tehran and reopen the old American embassy before his term expires next year. The only reason Iran is being so cooperative for now is they want to make sure the check is in the mail.
3
"The only reason Iran is being so cooperative for now is they want to make sure the check is in the mail."
Well, sure. So what? Isn't that the point of diplomacy?
Well, sure. So what? Isn't that the point of diplomacy?
5
I would be curious to know which financial institutions have had control of Iran's money for 35 years and what happens to their liquidity when Iran withdraws the money
1
I read that the money is held in several different banks.
This all a farce. Obama is doing this as a lame duck president only so liberals will like him. But he knows the deal isn't worth the the paper it is written on. And now Iran is publicly laughing and shooting off missiles and capturing Americans.
Can't wait for Trump to replace Obama.
Can't wait for Trump to replace Obama.
7
Huh?
7
Have you noticed how the Obama Administration is starting to resemble the Iranians with daily events and announcements of "successes"? A lot of show for what, exactly?
2
Well, you may have to wait for Trump to replace Hillary. Are you up for that?
7
Yes, great diplomatic achievement - Iran has shipped 98% of enriched uranium out of the country, dismantled 12,000 centrifuges and filled its nuclear reactor with cement.
But nothing in this article holds Republican congressional representatives and presidential candidates to account for their irresponsible and savage criticisms of the Iran deal. We had to read their blatant fabrications, live through their undermining of our foreign policy by inviting Netanyahu to speak before Congress and hear months of reporting quoting Republicans saying the Iran deal would be a disaster.
Remember what Ted Cruz said only 4 months ago? "Signing a deal that sends millions of dollars to jihadists that want to murder us, that facilitates and accelerates Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons to murder us, and that abandons four American hostages in Iran is profoundly dangerous," Cruz said Thursday, speaking at a rally organized by conservative groups that oppose the nuclear deal.
Cruz went on to compare President Barack Obama with former President Jimmy Carter, who was president in 1979 when Iran took a number of U.S. hostages following a raid on the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
"There is nothing more pressing right now than that Americans all across this country come together to stop this catastrophic Iran nuclear deal," the Texas senator said.
And he is a Republican presidential candidate who purports to be able to lead this country, conduct diplomacy, be Commander in Chief! Very scary.
But nothing in this article holds Republican congressional representatives and presidential candidates to account for their irresponsible and savage criticisms of the Iran deal. We had to read their blatant fabrications, live through their undermining of our foreign policy by inviting Netanyahu to speak before Congress and hear months of reporting quoting Republicans saying the Iran deal would be a disaster.
Remember what Ted Cruz said only 4 months ago? "Signing a deal that sends millions of dollars to jihadists that want to murder us, that facilitates and accelerates Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons to murder us, and that abandons four American hostages in Iran is profoundly dangerous," Cruz said Thursday, speaking at a rally organized by conservative groups that oppose the nuclear deal.
Cruz went on to compare President Barack Obama with former President Jimmy Carter, who was president in 1979 when Iran took a number of U.S. hostages following a raid on the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
"There is nothing more pressing right now than that Americans all across this country come together to stop this catastrophic Iran nuclear deal," the Texas senator said.
And he is a Republican presidential candidate who purports to be able to lead this country, conduct diplomacy, be Commander in Chief! Very scary.
78
It is very early...Cruz will be proven right!
Unfortunately just as we've seen over the years of what Carters massive failures in the Mideast produced....there are many more American deaths in our future because of this major disaster that some are foolishly thinking its a good deal.
Iran has not had to dismantle any if its dangerous reactors under the deal. Fordow - its hidden underground nuclear facility - sits completely intact. They are allowed to preform self-inspections. So spare me if Im not jumping for joy because they poured a little concrete in one reactor and shipped uranium to one of their allies (Russia). The terms of the deal are incredibly weak.
To the casual reader, removing sanctions, handing over billions of dollars, and simultaneously imposing new sanctions makes no sense.
3
Makes plenty of sense because it got the prisoners freed. Makes the right wing screamers seem pretty lame now, they were apoplectic about it before, not realizing the President had a trump card (pun intended) up his sleeve in the form of more sanctions as soon as the prisoners were released. Once again, the President out-foxed (another pun) everyone, including the "lamestream press".
4
Wow. Just for starters, "we" did not remove the sanctions. The sanctions were imposed by the world community (unilateral sanctions would not have worked). The world community which, which overwhelmingly endorses the agreement, removed sanctions. And the money Iran is getting happens to be their money which had been frozen. And people who want claim that up is down, black is white, and Obama never does anything right - they don't make sense.
8
To the careful reader who reads past the misleading headline, to the end of the article it makes a bit more sense, but people can be forgiven because the authors were targeting the casual reader on this one.
5
To continue to slap sanctions on Iran while supplying Iran's rivals with some of the most powerful conventional weaponry on the face of the Earth is hypocritical. The US is fueling an arms race and denying responsibility. It has to end.
Peace isn't made with sanctions. Look at North Korea. It is time we really embraced a strategy of diplomacy.
Peace isn't made with sanctions. Look at North Korea. It is time we really embraced a strategy of diplomacy.
8
What a terrible price to pay for the release of these prisoners.
Obama’s legacy will be the facilitation and funding of terrorism in a nuclear armed Iran resulting in the death of thousands of Americans.
Obama’s legacy will be the facilitation and funding of terrorism in a nuclear armed Iran resulting in the death of thousands of Americans.
7
But still no complaint about the deaths of thousands of Americans under the watch of GWB, both on 9/11 - he was warned bin Laden was determined to attack, remember? - and during the Iraq debacle.
What stunning hypocrisy on the part of the right wing, where deaths of Americans matter only when Obama is president.
Better to get along with Iran than not to. Not that hard to figure that out.
What stunning hypocrisy on the part of the right wing, where deaths of Americans matter only when Obama is president.
Better to get along with Iran than not to. Not that hard to figure that out.
53
Snarkles - Glad to see you agree with me about Obama.
Iran is a modern society, they produce automobiles, have subways and ski areas. They had a bit of a bad time there after 1979. They engaged in a war in which we all watched and cheered on with Iraq. I think they have had enough. Instead of making enemies, President Obama has reached out to Cuba and Iran and has had great success. Iran has a lot to lose, unlike others in the area, we too have had enough. And I am shamed to say it, but I am a Republican.
8
Ever notice this dichotomy?
Wack-right zealots are more American than thou (and me). Yet they find it American to oppose their country when the majority vote doesn't go their way.
Wack-right zealots are more American than thou (and me). Yet they find it American to oppose their country when the majority vote doesn't go their way.
12
I really can't give an opinion on the substance of our action; may be it is necessary. But the timing bothers me.
I find it kind of sleazy waiting until the plane with prisoners in out of Iran and imposing these sanctions immediately. Could it not (Washington) wait a few days or a week?
I find it kind of sleazy waiting until the plane with prisoners in out of Iran and imposing these sanctions immediately. Could it not (Washington) wait a few days or a week?
1
We get 4 prisoners and they get 7 plus plus plus. Have you ever seen a deal where the USA got more prisoners? Never. With Bergdahl we got 1 and they got 4 hard core killers.
We are terrible negotiators. The Iran nuke deal took years. Years! Why? Why didn't we START with the release of the prisoners? The USA is Mr. Nice Guy in the world. Great when everything in our country is going fine....not so smart when we have big problems at home.
We are terrible negotiators. The Iran nuke deal took years. Years! Why? Why didn't we START with the release of the prisoners? The USA is Mr. Nice Guy in the world. Great when everything in our country is going fine....not so smart when we have big problems at home.
6
Until it is your loved one being held hostage or prisoner of war.
1
The Ayatollah required our female sailor to wear a burqa.
Will President Obama and Secretary Kerry be required to wear one when they meet the Ayatollah?
Will President Obama and Secretary Kerry be required to wear one when they meet the Ayatollah?
6
Will they comply?
3
Lets just come out with it, the Israeli lobby, their money men, the Saudis and the neo cons in our defense industry (think Halliburton) are dictating foreign policy in America. We have created an immigration nightmare for Europe and instability throughout the world. Our President has been undermined at every turn, enough is enough.
17
Umm, Obama signed off on the Iranian deal. Are you telling us he is in fact a hostage in the White House and doing the bidding of Haliburtion, the Israel lobby, their money men....? Your comment is bizarre.
4
""the neo cons in our defense industry (think Halliburton)""
Halliburton is an oil-services firm.
You're not really helping your cause.
Halliburton is an oil-services firm.
You're not really helping your cause.
1
Actually Master of the obvious Halliburton was a company led by Dick Cheney until he became Vice President at which time he was given a severance package worth forty million and over the next decade KBR a division of Hallibuurton until it's spin off in 2007 was awarded forty BILLiON in contracts related to the war in Iraq, there was also the suggestion of a great deal of corruption during Brown Roots (KBR)involvement with the Cheney Bush war of choice, so perhaps these facts have slipped your mind , I realize it has been many years.
3
Obama now leaves two great legacies to my grandchildren: a 20 trillion dollar deficit and a nuclear Iran. Fifteen years is nothing to a country to measures its cultural identity in millennia, or one that hated its enemies for as long. As this President, who opposes gallivanting around the world and meddling in the affairs of others, now thinks we will change the political landscape, tastes and preferences of this oppressive regime in a mere 15 years, less than the time it takes to pay down half your mortgage. This is the crown jewel of his failed leadership, the millstone he just placed around the neck of western civilization.
5
What tripe. The deficit is one fifth of what it was in 2008 and headed down. It ballooned for awhile because of two wars Bush put on the national credit card. The vitriol of your comment reeks of the Big Lie and a twisted, dangerous perspective on the world.
6
The Debt. The DEbt. The Debt. take an economics course. The deficit is the annual amount from the current budget. The DEBT is now 20 trillion. There is a reason that the left is economically ignorant; were they not, they would move right.
1
Tks to this dumb - president for giving away our money. NOT and our security. Dumb move obama. All respect has been lost for you.
2
And it sure sounds like before this you were Obama's most respectful constituent.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
6
We will do anything to starve Iran into submission. Why? Makes Isreal , Saudi Arabia feel safer ? Like Israel, Iran wanted atomic weapons so other countries won't attack it. The missiles serve the same purpose. For years we demonized Lybia and encouraged them to get rid of their nuclear weapons. Once they did that we stepped in and overthrew the khadafy government. Knowing that your opponent is going to nuke you is a smart way to maintain the peace in the Middle East. It served well in the US - USSR nuclear standoff. The current US policy towards Iran seems more like regime change- as we see, that only creates massive death and world chaos.
1
Nethanyaou is one more time in charge of American Foreign Policy. Poor Obama.
3
This is the Munich Agreement of 1938 all over again: a capitulation to the obscene demands of state terror. Neville Obama Chamberlain will be out of office when the destructive results of his folly make themselves fully felt, but his folly most surely will be paid for by all the world.
3
History clearly shows that Neville Chamberlain did what he did because Britain was not anywhere near prepared for war with Germany at that time. What Chamberlain did gave his nation time to arm themselves and fight - which is what they did.
Had Chamberlain done otherwise, Germany would have routed the Brits and today's Tea Time would include strudel.
Your comparison is off base.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
Had Chamberlain done otherwise, Germany would have routed the Brits and today's Tea Time would include strudel.
Your comparison is off base.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
5
@Rev. E.M. Camarena, Ph.D., what is your PhD in, mythology.
3
The Reverend Camarena is completely correct. If it hadn't been for Chamberlain's "appeasement" the network that enabled Fighter Command--not to neglect mentioning the production of Hurricanes, Spitfires, and pilots--would not have been up and running in time to win the Battle of Britain and stave off invasion. It's time to give Chamberlain's accomplishment its due rather than leaning on it mindlessly as an example of weakness and short-sighted diplomacy. Obama plays a similarly long game, and we have benefitted greatly from his foresight.
5
I was listening to a discussion on CNN about the Iran Nuclear Deal and the release of our American hostages by Iran. A Foreign Policy expert from the Wall Street Journal was criticizing President Obama because he said that President Obama threatened sanctions on Iran for the missile tests but then 'backed down' because he didn't want to offend the Iranians. A spokesperson for the Administration said that she was certain that sanctions would be imposed because President Obama said they would, that it takes time to formulate policy like this but it would be forthcoming. To quote her, "You don't write these things on the back of an envelope." Now I see that there are in fact sanctions.
I find it infuriating that no matter what President Obama does, the right wing in this country opposes it in exaggerated knee jerk fashion. Maybe they are not racists in the way Governor George Wallace was but there is something about this where a black President cannot be successful.
I find it infuriating that no matter what President Obama does, the right wing in this country opposes it in exaggerated knee jerk fashion. Maybe they are not racists in the way Governor George Wallace was but there is something about this where a black President cannot be successful.
11
Very disappointed in this move.
An objective observer would surely conclude that America is being untrustworthy.
This is not in America's interest.
Hmmm...I wonder which country it was really done for.
An objective observer would surely conclude that America is being untrustworthy.
This is not in America's interest.
Hmmm...I wonder which country it was really done for.
4
Who was it the illegally fired the Ballistic Missile test?
3
Well, at least it wasn't arms for hostages à la Reagan.
7
It looks a little goofy and potentially disingenuous to so immediately put sanctions back on. Maybe we could have waited a few days?
2
Note to the Chicken Little GOP POTUS wannabes: Your stupid rhetoric about how weak we are is no help to the delicate diplomatic negotiations that we are engaged in with our allies and not-so allies. Knock it off!
11
the Repubs never stop to amaze me. they complained non stop about the hostages and now that they are released they are complaining that they were released. they complained about the stimulus but it was full of Repub loving tax cuts, they complain about Obamacare but Romney was the creator and the Romneycare advisors helped create Obamacare. They complained about an American born in Hawaii not being an American but they have a candidate that was born in Canada and just gave us his Canadian citizenship in 2013 running for president.
8
"The sanctions are so focused on those individuals and firms that most Iranians will never feel them, and the amounts are comparatively tiny."
This statement is in addition to the fact that Obama "did not dwell or elaborate on that dispute" and there are no indications in the news report of anything making this a big deal. Any yet, the NYTimes thinks it's appropriate to place the front page headline "U.S. Imposes new Sanctions on Iran After Prisoners Freed." Such a tiny story gets such an alarmist head line.
The NYTimes needs to get back to newsworthiness and objectivity rather than having revenues and public manipulation dominate news reporting. But then perhaps survival as an organization is at stake while ownership insists on a universal slant beyond the editorial page. Thankfully, we all have excellent, alternate, web-based news sources.
This statement is in addition to the fact that Obama "did not dwell or elaborate on that dispute" and there are no indications in the news report of anything making this a big deal. Any yet, the NYTimes thinks it's appropriate to place the front page headline "U.S. Imposes new Sanctions on Iran After Prisoners Freed." Such a tiny story gets such an alarmist head line.
The NYTimes needs to get back to newsworthiness and objectivity rather than having revenues and public manipulation dominate news reporting. But then perhaps survival as an organization is at stake while ownership insists on a universal slant beyond the editorial page. Thankfully, we all have excellent, alternate, web-based news sources.
5
New sanctions? Great way to assist the extremists with recruiting new terrorists.
2
When they get their money and some of ours which we shouldn't t be giving them at all after 100 billion is released - they will invariably return to their classic behavior.
1
What a bleeping disappointment! We had a perfectly good chance to have another glorious war, and Obama blew it. Can't wait till one of our Republican brothers is elected. We need to get the price of oil back to $150 a barrel.
13
If all Iran wanted was a nuke, they could have BOUGHT one years ago. Wolf Blitzer recently asked a guest whether the Saudis would just buy a bomb, but it apparently never cross Wolf's mind that Iran could have bought one long ago. No, this whole Iranian nuke development was a more complicated game and I wish we had journalists and analysts who knew enough to think it through instead of just repeating jingoistic reactions.
4
Blitzer? "Mind" as in vehicle for thought? Hahahahah.
Here's to Murrow, Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, Rather, Jennings, et. al
Here's to Murrow, Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, Rather, Jennings, et. al
3
I believe that G-d’s promise of Israel to the Jewish people is just that, a promise that
supporters of Israel must work hard for every day to keep and make real.
The Iran nuclear deal is the single biggest threat to the survival of Israel since its
establishment in 1948, and still needs to be fought and opposed at every turn,
beginning with the November election.
supporters of Israel must work hard for every day to keep and make real.
The Iran nuclear deal is the single biggest threat to the survival of Israel since its
establishment in 1948, and still needs to be fought and opposed at every turn,
beginning with the November election.
4
Thanks for illustrating the biggest part of the problem. Bronze Age fairy tales can have no place in modern diplomacy.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
4
The truth is that Iran has no interest in Israel one way or the other. Their interest is dominating the Islamic world and Israel is a convenient foil.
3
The truth is that Iran has no interest in Israel one way or the other. Their interest is dominating the Islamic world and Israel is a convenient foil.'
You clearly have no understanding whatsoever of orthodox Islamic theology regarding Jews and the nation of Israel.
You clearly have no understanding whatsoever of orthodox Islamic theology regarding Jews and the nation of Israel.
1
I am a democrat. I voted for Obama, donated in his campaign, and went door to door campaigning for Obama. However, I am disappointed with Obama because he appears to be always trying to please right wing Republicans. Obama's this latest sanction on Iran is nothing but his foolish attempt to please the right wing Republicans.
Although this latest sanction is tiny compared to the sanction that was lifted, this latest sanction creates a bad image for USA in overseas. The bad image--the USA cannot trusted.
Although this latest sanction is tiny compared to the sanction that was lifted, this latest sanction creates a bad image for USA in overseas. The bad image--the USA cannot trusted.
3
We already knew this, but this event should make it happen. Congress to pass a law to allow this president to run for a third term. (Roosevelt even ran for a fourth term!) We the people, the voters, cannot live with the choices otherwise available in the coming presidential election. Polarizing forces, all of them.
Obama for president!
Obama for president!
2
Israel states it will be the watchdog for Iran. Who will be the watchdog for Israel. Doesn't Israel they have as many nuclear weapons as they wants? Don't they have weapons of mass destruction? Israel has inserted itself into the negotiations. Let me suggest, Iran be the watchdog for Israel. They can watch each other. Israel has no more right than Iran to be a watchdog over another country and to report what the other is doing. Why don't these Arab countries insist that Israel be held accountable or suffer sanctions before they comply. Why don't the Arab countries work together instead of letting themselves be picked off one by one. China would never allow this. Russia would never allow these insults.
3
What a deceitful destructive move by Obama after securing an agreement with Iran. This is a startling and disturbing development. Wy would any country trust us again?
2
How will this double cross play in Tehran and the rest of the world?
Low life move US.
Low life move US.
2
There seems to be a flagrant similarity between the new American Hero Donald Trump and the United States itself.
That is, the way both Trump and the U.S. wield sufficient power and wealth to fire, insult, or abuse anyone or in the case of the U.S., sanction any other sovereign nation – while no one or no other nation has sufficient power to sanction them.
To assert that Mr. Trump has not offended – and more importantly damaged – many Americans would be a lie. Likewise, to assert that the U.S. has not damaged many other sovereign nations would also be a lie.
When the U.S. and Great Britain jointly engineered and executed the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in order to steal their oil, WHO sanctioned them? When the U.S. and Great Britain jointly fabricated the war in Iraq to steal their oil and no WMDs were found, WHO sanctioned them?
While many Americans may glory in both the abuses of Mr. Trump and the never-ending sanctions of the U.S., they should also be fully aware of the immense ill-will which these abuses and sanctions generate and for how many, many generations that ill-will will persist.
That is, the way both Trump and the U.S. wield sufficient power and wealth to fire, insult, or abuse anyone or in the case of the U.S., sanction any other sovereign nation – while no one or no other nation has sufficient power to sanction them.
To assert that Mr. Trump has not offended – and more importantly damaged – many Americans would be a lie. Likewise, to assert that the U.S. has not damaged many other sovereign nations would also be a lie.
When the U.S. and Great Britain jointly engineered and executed the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in order to steal their oil, WHO sanctioned them? When the U.S. and Great Britain jointly fabricated the war in Iraq to steal their oil and no WMDs were found, WHO sanctioned them?
While many Americans may glory in both the abuses of Mr. Trump and the never-ending sanctions of the U.S., they should also be fully aware of the immense ill-will which these abuses and sanctions generate and for how many, many generations that ill-will will persist.
4
All in all, the world moves forward a bit with the newly signed nuclear agreement, painstakingly worked out between Iran and a consortium of the U.S. and five other countries (EU, i.e. Britain, France, Germany) Russia and China. Churchill was right: "Jaw, Jaw, Jaw is better than War, War, War."
During the coming years there will, of course, need to be necessary monitoring to ensure that the terms of the agreement are upheld. There also will be opportunity for Iran to become more involved in positive ways in the world, as its very young population (more than half of Iranians are under the age of 35) becomes less isolated from people in other countries Iran's young people have often been described as the most western learning of all the middle eastern countries. This opportunity opens up a whole new world to them. It also opens up a new market for business interests world wide. Isolation, whether on the part of an an individual or country , is not healthy in the long run.
The sanctions worked, diplomacy worked, and Secretary Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, deserve immense credit for their hard work. In spite of the over the top negativity and just plain resistance to progress from the usual suspects on the right, the world is better off today than it was yesterday because of this nuclear agreement.
During the coming years there will, of course, need to be necessary monitoring to ensure that the terms of the agreement are upheld. There also will be opportunity for Iran to become more involved in positive ways in the world, as its very young population (more than half of Iranians are under the age of 35) becomes less isolated from people in other countries Iran's young people have often been described as the most western learning of all the middle eastern countries. This opportunity opens up a whole new world to them. It also opens up a new market for business interests world wide. Isolation, whether on the part of an an individual or country , is not healthy in the long run.
The sanctions worked, diplomacy worked, and Secretary Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, deserve immense credit for their hard work. In spite of the over the top negativity and just plain resistance to progress from the usual suspects on the right, the world is better off today than it was yesterday because of this nuclear agreement.
56
Fake sanctions to distract from a fake deal. Illusions on top of illusions.
3
The headline is completely misleading. Cmon, NYT!
5
The Republican presidential contenders have vilified Obama for the Iran deal, promising to repeal it. Being men of their word, I hope they will follow through and send the released prisoners back to Iran.
2
A move that will weaken, perhaps mortally, the political future of Hassan Rohani and strengthen the hand of Iranian hardliners and the IRGC
Is that what we want ?
Is that what we want ?
In all likelihood, yes. If you look at the history of our foreign policy our government has usually undermined moderates and either directly or inadvertently supported hardliners. It all comes down to not wanting actual independence for countries that are not following our wishes.
1
Didn't Iran and "American business leaders" hear OUR President Obama? He said we will be watching and impose sanctions if conditions aren't met and he meant it. Any questions?
3
He does not have the power now. He has released the Europeans, who are now all hungry to sell to Iran. He will never get them back to the table. Go watch Shindler's list and observe how good the Nazi party was for business.
1
I's sure this is just being done for the sake of political posturing - in anticipation for the scorn from critics of this administration and democratic candidates - now that the other nuclear sanctions are eased.
To say the least, this latest action certainly almost makes a mockery out of the purpose that sanctions are meant to induce - reducing them to nothing more than a tawdry and cheap political gimmick that has nothing to do with safety and stability, just electioneering and PR.
To say the least, this latest action certainly almost makes a mockery out of the purpose that sanctions are meant to induce - reducing them to nothing more than a tawdry and cheap political gimmick that has nothing to do with safety and stability, just electioneering and PR.
2
But then again, isn't that what everything politically related is about now anymore? Ever since politics became such a big business, it's sales and distribution departments have exceeded all the others combined - which explains why our military is so big and getting bigger.
A deal is deal. When it comes to the nuclear sanctions they have been lifted, that was part of the deal. When it comes to the missile sanctions, that too is part of the deal. Why do the writers want to make America look weak? Iran has made it clear, Death to the Great Satin, Death to the Little Satin. Why would anybody not believe that Iran had knowledge of what would happen if they tested the missile? They did. So why the boo-hooing when the USA imposed the sanctions that Iran knew it would?
5
And what about the new Visa Waiver Program that was just passed by our Congress with the objective of discouraging other countries from visiting Iran if the other countries still want to continue to do business with the U.S. if they have been to Iran in the past 5 years and of course continuing forward in time?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/15/iranian-americans-visa-re...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/15/iranian-americans-visa-re...
The negative comments are beyond the absurd. Negotiations have pushed back an Iranian nuclear weapon from 6 months to at least 15 years. American sailors and their boats who violated Iranian waters were released in 16 hours, and now through diplomacy, American prisoners have been returned. Anybody who suggests those results are negative or that they signify an administration failure, have to be regarded as mentally handicapped by their partisanship.
37
The new sanctions are immaterial, the bigger deal is by allowing Iran to export oil to the world markets, we have created more competition for Saudi Arabia and reduced our dependence on them
10
Given that economic sanctions are an act of war, Iran should declare a state of war with the US, and break off the nuclear agreement. They would be completely hustified.
1
No they aren't. Only Ron Paul thinks they are.
2
Two steps forward, one step back! Who is our government trying to appease?
4
This announcement of new " sanctions " is counterproductive. It just makes it more difficult for President Rouhani who has worked hard to get the Iranian Deal and sell it to the extremely reluctant, skeptical Ayatollahs. Especially now, when Iran released the Americans who had strayed into their territory. I cannot understand the double standard where Iran is concerned. If we can arm dangerous insurgents in the Middle East, why can't Iran take measures to protect their own borders? I just wish, it was just limited to restriction of the involved individuals instead of just announcing it as sanctions. Now Rouhani will be under fire and that is certainly not good for us.
5
It's politics, both here in the U.S. and abroad. The Ayatollahs will be rapidly eclipsed as liberal secular Iran outpaces everything else in their country, including Rouhani, now that they have all this freedom.
2
Another brilliant international accomplishment for this amazing president -- which will be viciously attacked, of course, by all the Republican candidates, who have learned nothing from history or from the deaths of thousands of Americans in unnecessary and useless wars. Congratulations, Mr. President (and Mr. Kerry)!
25
We have Americans who visit Iran are immediately arrested and we, the great satin, pay tribute to get them free. The article fails to mention that on a $400 million dollar claim dating back to the Shah we are also paying interest in tax money of $1.7 billion in interest. We don't look like but are the laughing stock to the rest of the world. next we will be paying war damages to North Korea for the damage we inflicted on them during the Korean War.
7
We didn't give them the interest rate they wanted, so no, jokes not on us. You think we had that money in a piggy bank?
5
greatest president of our lifetime. You rock president O!
14
The president has done an outstanding job in opening up to Iran. This is in stark contrast to the chicken hawk, war mongering fools on the right, such as "carpet bomb" Ted Cruz - the most dangerous politician in America.
34
We all know Ted Cruz wants to see sand glow. That means US nuclear weapons does it not? Does Cruz not think when the air circulates around the globe we too will be walking glow bodies?
4
There's much to celebrate in this new deal. And, much to fear if any of the current Republican presidential hopefuls get their way and dismantle it. To these folks, "leadership" is sitting in Washington while our sons and daughters are used as cannon fodder.
23
The ultimate impact of the deal with Iran will not be known for many years. I believe the Obama Administration has bet the ranch that the Iran of the future will be more secular, more open, and less truculent, while the influence of the ruling religious leaders will wane as future generations of Iranians insist that they not live under the constant threat of war,
Not many Americans likely see or believe this outcome. It is hugely aspirational and fraught with challenges. The Mideast narrative we've grown accustomed to is, understandably, is of a dystopian nightmare that will never end well. Politically, the President's opponents will continue to lambast the agreement, long after Obama is gone from office, without offering a workable alternative.
Too soon to see the conclusion. Too early to judge the eventual outcome. Except to say that this Administration had the guts to walk back from what was inevitable and create a different path forward, and that certainly is worthwhile
Not many Americans likely see or believe this outcome. It is hugely aspirational and fraught with challenges. The Mideast narrative we've grown accustomed to is, understandably, is of a dystopian nightmare that will never end well. Politically, the President's opponents will continue to lambast the agreement, long after Obama is gone from office, without offering a workable alternative.
Too soon to see the conclusion. Too early to judge the eventual outcome. Except to say that this Administration had the guts to walk back from what was inevitable and create a different path forward, and that certainly is worthwhile
20
You got it right. It took vision. It's the platform for bright possibilities for a growing liberalization and secularization in Iran.
4
Thoughtful and thought-provoking comment.
2
Wow! So many comments by people who haven't even read the news story! The US is sanctioning Iran for ballistic missile tests that were launched many weeks AFTER the nuclear deal was signed. Those same ballistic missile tests were done by Iran in clear and blatant violation of UN resolutions.
Iran and only Iran are to blame for these small new sanctions on a handful of individuals and organizations. These are NOT sanctions against the entire nation or people of Iran. Obama's administration did the right, proper and legal thing here. For heaven's sake, people, read the story next time before you start calling folks "hypocrites." No hypocrisy here.
Iran and only Iran are to blame for these small new sanctions on a handful of individuals and organizations. These are NOT sanctions against the entire nation or people of Iran. Obama's administration did the right, proper and legal thing here. For heaven's sake, people, read the story next time before you start calling folks "hypocrites." No hypocrisy here.
17
It's pretty much business as expected. Iran has elements that make trouble for the country. They will continue to try to do so. But Iranians are ready to rocket into the future economically and in every other way as they firmly join the rest of the world.
1
This is what happens when people just read the headlines and shoot from the hip and I have a sneaking suspicion the authors knew exactly what they were doing when they worded it like that. They are trolling their own newspaper to get lazy readers all worked up to comment more than they might have if they written a proper headline.
5
Wow. The nuclear deal is implemented. Our sailors are released. The prisoners are released and on their way home. Now new sanctions as a strong response to the missile tests.
The president's adversaries are reeling as evidenced by their noise on the campaign trail. Meanwhile the Iranians won't be happy with the new sanctions either.
The president's adversaries are reeling as evidenced by their noise on the campaign trail. Meanwhile the Iranians won't be happy with the new sanctions either.
8
Iran/U.S. are working together to out-flank their right wing elements. Imposing less-stringent sanctions on ballistic missile testing allows the gov.t to say it is reacting strongly, and puts to rest right-wing claims (from a certain debate dais of tea partiers) that appeasement has carried the day.
This is pure politics.
And when I see Obama using politics smartly (the art of the argument), it reminds me of Clinton, triangulating his right-wing enemies and securing a second term, much to their consternation.
The results of this move shows itself in the comments, some reacting with some mild shock that sanctions would again be instituted, fearing the loss of the peace initiative.
Peace has nothing to fear here.
Peace is threatened by what you hear on the Trump-Rubio-Bush-et.al. dais.
Well-done, Mr. President.
This is pure politics.
And when I see Obama using politics smartly (the art of the argument), it reminds me of Clinton, triangulating his right-wing enemies and securing a second term, much to their consternation.
The results of this move shows itself in the comments, some reacting with some mild shock that sanctions would again be instituted, fearing the loss of the peace initiative.
Peace has nothing to fear here.
Peace is threatened by what you hear on the Trump-Rubio-Bush-et.al. dais.
Well-done, Mr. President.
24
Yep. Obama got it right.
5
Seems we supply Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. with some of the latest weapons and Iran is surrounded by Sunni led countries and Israel's nuclear weapons. It appears that Iran is not allowed to be able to defend itself?
And what this article doesn't tell you is that there were more sanctions still in place by us.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-16/benefits-of-iran-s...
And what this article doesn't tell you is that there were more sanctions still in place by us.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-16/benefits-of-iran-s...
6
Is it possible that Iran could exhibit any friendly diplomatic gesture. Releasing the harmless 2 small US Navy vessels immediately would have looked very friendly. They weren't on a spy mission or about to attack.
4
In foreign policy speak the realease WAS immediate.
4
Ronald Reagan initiated the collapse of the mighty Soviet Union without firing a single shot. Did he do it with concessions? Did he do it with appeasement? No. He strangled their economy by encouraging allies (Saudi Arabia) to lower the price of oil to the point where the Soviets could not make a profit selling their oil and depleting their hard currency reserves. The collapse of the Soviet Empire soon followed.
In complete contrast to Reagan's success in the USSR, Obama has willfully strenghtened (not weakened) the repressive Iranian regime by literally giving them hundreds of billions of dollars. The Iranian people, who deserve so much more, are further away from regime change -and a humane democracy - than ever.
In complete contrast to Reagan's success in the USSR, Obama has willfully strenghtened (not weakened) the repressive Iranian regime by literally giving them hundreds of billions of dollars. The Iranian people, who deserve so much more, are further away from regime change -and a humane democracy - than ever.
2
President Carter froze billions in Iranian assets which are now being released back to that country. The money is theirs, not ours.
20
The Soviet collapse was a function of the perpetually moribund Soviet economy.
The claim regarding Reagan and the Saudis was designated "Mostly False" by PolitiFact. The Saudis let prices drop as a message to other OPEC members that were pumping in excess of agreed quotas.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/13/michael-reag...
The claim regarding Reagan and the Saudis was designated "Mostly False" by PolitiFact. The Saudis let prices drop as a message to other OPEC members that were pumping in excess of agreed quotas.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/13/michael-reag...
2
Those here who blame Obama for making a bad deal with Iran forget that China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, plus Germany and the European Union were partners to this deal along with the United States. Were they all wrong, then? Now that the sanctions have been lifted Iran today made an agreement with Spain to build a large oil refinery there. Let's see how long the Republican Congress clings to the continuing sanction that no US corporation can do business in Iran when the rest of the EU jumps in to do business there.
10
China, France, Russia, UK, Germany and the entire EU are not particularly well-known for having ANY ethics when it comes to making money -
4
DEF MD: Neither are we.
6
And Wall Street does??
5
Hmm. Iran vs Saudi Arabia. Radical Salafi Arab state exporting jihad world wide vs a much more cosmopolitan Persian state with purely locoregionaI ambitions and a natural affinity for the U.S once the regime (inevitably) moderates. Both anti-Israel, but neither a significant threat outside of meaningless rhetoric.
I know who I'd rather side with in the Middle East. And for that matter I know which country would frighten me more if they had a nuclear bomb.
I know who I'd rather side with in the Middle East. And for that matter I know which country would frighten me more if they had a nuclear bomb.
10
bobw,
And yet whenever our government talks about state sponsored terrorism they only bring up one name, Iran! Why is that? Do they know something you don't, or is it the other way around?
And yet whenever our government talks about state sponsored terrorism they only bring up one name, Iran! Why is that? Do they know something you don't, or is it the other way around?
3
Some have read that Pakistani nuclear weapons are in Will Call for Saudi Arabia
1
This is why politicians can not be trusted: remove sanctions, then impose new sanctions that supposedly are "tiny".
If they are "tiny", what exactly is the purpose of the measure?
Give a false impression to the general public? Give some meat to the warmongers even if that meat is at least one gram less than the tail of a rat? Satisfy the pacifiers?
I would not categorize our Government foreign policy as hypocritical, but as lacking in purpose, maturity and vision and even clownish.
I would n
If they are "tiny", what exactly is the purpose of the measure?
Give a false impression to the general public? Give some meat to the warmongers even if that meat is at least one gram less than the tail of a rat? Satisfy the pacifiers?
I would not categorize our Government foreign policy as hypocritical, but as lacking in purpose, maturity and vision and even clownish.
I would n
3
I'm baffled by the NYT's emphasis on the negative with its headline of "new sanctions" on Iran, when we should all be applauding, celebrating, and cheering President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry for proving that the patience to pursue peace is worth the effort. Mr. Obama has clearly now delivered on the promise of his premature Nobel Peace Prize, and Secretary Kerry may well be on his way to earning one of his own. Once again, against united Republican opposition, including former Speaker John Boehner's misguided and irresponsible invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress to lobby against the nuclear deal, Mr. Obama has prevailed in taking a major step toward peace in a region on the very brink of a sectarian civil war. President Obama has shown the wisdom of President Kennedy's famous quote, "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." Moreover, the U.S. now has firmly established its credibility with Iran that bodes well for the peace talks underway to end the Syrian civil war and the global humanitarian crisis it has spawned.
16
Over the years, some of the Times' writers, most notably Peter Baker, have framed their articles in a half empty point of view. They write of the Administration's achievements, but alway with a "but" or a "however." It's as if the writers are intent upon diminishing any sign of progress or milestone, under the cover of being "objective."
Follow Baker's dispatches, or watch him on the talk shows, and you'll see what I mean,
Follow Baker's dispatches, or watch him on the talk shows, and you'll see what I mean,
2
Let nobody ever claim the US negotiates ing good faiith ...
5
i also have to ask President Obama, haven't you heard of "saving face." I'm sure you have and i'm sure you know this is very important in many cultures.
1
Hubris. We got that one from the Greek culture, and it is a much better one to know.
3
Iranians dismantle their nuclear program, ship out >95% fissile uranium material, shut down and destroy their plutonium reactor, and agree to the most intrusive inspection eve. They do all this despite the fact that they're surrounded by Saudi Arabia and Gulf Arab countries whose number one desire is to destroy them. US sells the enemies of Iran billions and billions of dollars worth of the most sophisticated weapons. (By the way, we're not the only ones who have supplied the Saudis and other gulf countries in the region. French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese are also competing with us in this market.) Yet, we expect Iran to abandon their missile program and defend themselves with bow and arrows and rifles and stones. By slapping Iran with new sanctions one day after this historic nuclear agreement implementation, we're telling the Iranians and the world that US can't be trusted. US can NEVER justify new sanctions on Iran based on their human rights violation and for their support of terrorism if we support and supply Saudi Arabia, a country which has no regard for women rights or human rights, enslaves and imports young under age girls from other countries for the pleasure of their sheikhs, has killed 1000s of people in Yemen, and other places, and it is the number financier of terrorism and Wahhabi ideology around the world. These new sanctions on Iran, will strengthen the hardliners in Iran and lose US credibility in the eyes of international communities.
5
I hope that the new sanctions were discussed in advance as part of the deal. Otherwise the Iranians (and maybe the EU) would probably feel that the US didn’t negotiate in good faith. That would make future deals much harder.
3
The USA is demonstrating its amazing capacity for deception and appalling hypocrisy. Why exactly, should Iran not be allowed to own and deploy conventional non-nuclear, missles? America and Russia have literally thousands of these weapons, some pointing at Iranian sites from warships in the straits of Hormuz, right now. The manifest dishonesty of US foreign policy has never been more blatant than in this theatrical fraud - remove sanctions, do a prisoner-swap, and then - whoops - sanctions are restored because of a missle test. A non-US observer can only conclude that America is a fundamentally dishonest and untrustworthy counter-party, and that the person in the White House is a black-hearted liar.
8
The missiles in question were intercontinental ballistic missiles intended to carry nuclear warheads.
4
You can argue anything you want, but the launching of a ballistic missile by Iran was a violation of a UN mandate. If you don't like it, your argument is with the UN. The new sanctions imposed were rather mild in nature and stand more as a warning.
8
If a country clams it has no intentions of developing nuclear weapons--indeed, that the mere suggestion is ridiculous--it's a mistake of enormous proportions to conduct ballistic missile tests in violation of a UN mandate. These very limited US sanctions help deliver that message.
5
Thank you, President Obama and Secretary Kerry, for showing us how well diplomacy works. This week, we saw our sailors released in less than a day from Iran, a prisoner exchange, crippling sanctions lifted as UN inspectors confirmed serious nuclear dismantlement in Iran, and minor sanctions put in place for lesser violations. Sure beats warfare and lack of dialogue.
118
Secretary of State, John Kerry and Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, will be top candidates for this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
1
The real reason 'smart' people are for Trump is because the incompetence and stupidity of Obama and company was crystalized with the Iran 'deal'. The Iranians have had the biggest smiles on their faces ever since. Moral of the story....when dealing with experienced negotiators who are weaned on the art of the deal it is best to have on your side someone who actually wrote the book on 'The Art of the Deal.' And better yet to have him elected in 2016. What a refreshing breath of fresh air Trump will bring to the office after 8 years of the Obama disaster!
5
Why are you comparing business with international diplomacy, when the two abide by opposing variables? Trumps tactics would plunge the US into perpetual in-fighting even with our allies, and wars you would not fight in, but would gladly send my kids to fight in on your behalf.
Not gonna happen.
The disconnectedness from reality that has propelled Trump to such a high status is nothing short of chilling.
Not gonna happen.
The disconnectedness from reality that has propelled Trump to such a high status is nothing short of chilling.
14
" What a refreshing breath of fresh air Trump will bring to the office after 8 years of the Obama disaster!"
Exactly! With any luck, we'll be carpet-bombing the entire Middle East - except for the oil fields and Saudi Arabia - as soon as election night, before we even get the returns from the Left Coast.
Exactly! With any luck, we'll be carpet-bombing the entire Middle East - except for the oil fields and Saudi Arabia - as soon as election night, before we even get the returns from the Left Coast.
3
"The real reason 'smart' people are for Trump is because the incompetence and stupidity of Obama and company was crystalized with the Iran 'deal'.".....The reason smart people will not vote for Trump, is that they know that the negotiations with Iran were not carried out insolation. Germany, France, and Britain, our most important European allies, were also at the table and their Parliaments voted overwhelmingly to support the agreement. In fact, world wide, the only objections to the agreement come from Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Republican Party. Further, a smart person would realize that whenever Trump bad mouths the agreement as a really terrible deal, he is insulting all those countries that support it; meaning that he would find it very difficult if not impossible to engage in foreign diplomacy with those countries in the future. Knowing when to keep your mouth shut is an important test of Presidential temperament, and Trump has flunked the test big time.
14
Seriously if any country in the Middle East had a right to a defensive nuclear weapon, it is Iran. Its democratically elected government was overthrown in a coup engineered by foreign governments, and the conflict initiated by Iraq and supported with U.S. and European WMDs inflicted almost a million casualties on its citizens.
The U.S. and the West justified sanctions on Iran because of its support for Hezbollah. How many Westerners have been murdered by Hezbollah compared to the numbers killed by AQ and ISIS fueled by Sunni Wahhabism and Saudi theocracy? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iran?
The hawks in Washington could not get over the humiliation of the hostage crisis and were beholden to the Israel lobby, so this issue remained deadlocked for years. Certainly Ahmadinejad did not make rapprochement easy. But to justify the sanctions on the crazy rhetoric of a few Iranian hardliners and mobs chanting "Death to America" was simply insane.
The U.S. and the West justified sanctions on Iran because of its support for Hezbollah. How many Westerners have been murdered by Hezbollah compared to the numbers killed by AQ and ISIS fueled by Sunni Wahhabism and Saudi theocracy? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iran?
The hawks in Washington could not get over the humiliation of the hostage crisis and were beholden to the Israel lobby, so this issue remained deadlocked for years. Certainly Ahmadinejad did not make rapprochement easy. But to justify the sanctions on the crazy rhetoric of a few Iranian hardliners and mobs chanting "Death to America" was simply insane.
42
Too bad Iran wasn't next door to Canada....its amazing just how dumb so many Canadians have become....as your economy tanks and you have to ask the US to bail you out....I hope President Trump tells every single one of you go live in Iran if you want help...lol
Well done, Reverend!! Nice understanding of history. Oh, and that orchestrated coup of Iran's democratically elected govt., back in 1953, was engineered by John Foster-Dulles and the CIA!! Got America's (and Britain's) fingers all over it. Regime change has consequences.
1
The "moderate" Rouhani held a Muslim unity conference a few weeks ago. It was attended by over 300 Muslim leaders from different countries, not just by "a few Iranian hardliners." Their main conclusion was that Islam should improve its image by having Muslims unite to destroy Israel.
You notably have pinned the blame for the sanctions against Iran on "the Israel lobby." Your comment evidences antisemitism (hatred of Jews). Different Americans who in general support Israel have different views of the way to handle the U.S. relationship with Israel and thus there is no single "Israel lobby." You describe "the hawks in Washington" being "beholden" to the Israel lobby -- that is classic antisemitism. The U.S. military budget this year is about $600 billion. Israel gets about $3 billion of that only in credits to make purchases from U.S. companies.
So Israel is allotted one-half of one percent of the U.S.'s military budget, but you think that "the hawks in Washington" are "beholden to the Israel lobby."
You notably have pinned the blame for the sanctions against Iran on "the Israel lobby." Your comment evidences antisemitism (hatred of Jews). Different Americans who in general support Israel have different views of the way to handle the U.S. relationship with Israel and thus there is no single "Israel lobby." You describe "the hawks in Washington" being "beholden" to the Israel lobby -- that is classic antisemitism. The U.S. military budget this year is about $600 billion. Israel gets about $3 billion of that only in credits to make purchases from U.S. companies.
So Israel is allotted one-half of one percent of the U.S.'s military budget, but you think that "the hawks in Washington" are "beholden to the Israel lobby."
Not sure what NYT had in mind with the lede to this story, but, judging from many of the comments, it did not entice readers to read the entire article. The limited sanctions are a legitimate response to Iran's violations and do not negate the achievements of the nuclear deal. Wish people would stop looking for any and every reason to bash Obama. He is the Jackie Robinson of Presidential politics and, therefore, suffers the same kind of indignities that the baseball great had to endure for the sake, hopefully, of progress.
82
Nobody is looking for reasons to bash Obama. Obama just released billions of dollars to Iran, just hinted that Iran has purchased ballistic technology and swapped Iranian bad guys for US citizens who should have been released
as part of the nuclear deal. Plus, Iran did not return or correct the violations, they kept the stuff and payed what in effect is a small tax for violating fresh nuclear deal within just a few months of it's signing.
as part of the nuclear deal. Plus, Iran did not return or correct the violations, they kept the stuff and payed what in effect is a small tax for violating fresh nuclear deal within just a few months of it's signing.
1
When will Israel be sanctioned for ITS violations of international law?
1
"He is the Jackie Robinson of Presidential politics" You said it! And that is all he was. Otherwise he would not have beat Hillary in 2008. American liberals--Sheesh!
The end game, as I see it, is increasing prosperity for Iran's middle class. Along with increased education opportunities abroad for the children, the Iranian people should rapidly outpace Iran's religious conservatives.
Along with their increasing wealth and influence world-wide, secular Iran will also increase in power in their own country.
The danger is that with the conservatives growing loss of power, as tyrannies have always done, they will foment trouble abroad, possibly violence and try to rally the people around them.
Eventually this new and growing secular power will promote a new liberal president and other liberal politicians that the conservatives will be constrained to let be, and another religious / conservative police-state crack-down will not be possible for the conservatives without mounting a civil confrontation, an internal re-revolution if you will, that will necessarily fail in light of Iran's liberal-secular world-wide connections of all kinds.
That's the future for Iran that I see with the lifting of sanction. One problem: lowering the price of oil even more with a flood of Iranian crude will likely have world-wide negative economic consequences as economists (NYTime's Krugman) are foreseeing.
Along with their increasing wealth and influence world-wide, secular Iran will also increase in power in their own country.
The danger is that with the conservatives growing loss of power, as tyrannies have always done, they will foment trouble abroad, possibly violence and try to rally the people around them.
Eventually this new and growing secular power will promote a new liberal president and other liberal politicians that the conservatives will be constrained to let be, and another religious / conservative police-state crack-down will not be possible for the conservatives without mounting a civil confrontation, an internal re-revolution if you will, that will necessarily fail in light of Iran's liberal-secular world-wide connections of all kinds.
That's the future for Iran that I see with the lifting of sanction. One problem: lowering the price of oil even more with a flood of Iranian crude will likely have world-wide negative economic consequences as economists (NYTime's Krugman) are foreseeing.
9
"The fourth American freed in the exchange, Nosratollah Khosrav...was not on the plane, American officials said. It was not immediately clear why." -So much mystery around this man. Who is he?
5
It's all part of a Communist plot, Mickey. Relax!
1
I'm sure those nuclear-capable missiles they keep testing are intended for purely peaceful purposes.. and irans continued belligerent rhetoric and posture in the region is much-ameliorated by our handing them $100bn.
This isn't diplomacy, this is Obama buying himself a PR-moment
This isn't diplomacy, this is Obama buying himself a PR-moment
5
Preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon in the next 6 months, having the sailors and the boats that violated Iranian territory released in 16 hours, and getting the prisoners returned...If that isn't a legitimate good PR-moment, then there never was one.
1
Can you tell me - how is a nuclear-capable missile different from a missile designed to carry a large conventional warhead?
The US has missiles capable of carrying 10 nuclear warheads. The money is to be found in miniaturizing warheads, not building larger missiles.
I believe the term "nuclear-capable missile" has little meaning. Better would be to specify the payload size.
The US has missiles capable of carrying 10 nuclear warheads. The money is to be found in miniaturizing warheads, not building larger missiles.
I believe the term "nuclear-capable missile" has little meaning. Better would be to specify the payload size.
1
""Preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon in the next 6 months""
...
lol. you're actually serious.
and re: the prisoners? If they didn't release them in under 24 hours it would have triggered requirements under the geneva conventions to be provided access to US diplomatic council. They weren't released because of some super-brilliant diplomatic moves, they were released because it was a slap in the face that had achieved its purpose.
I never fail to be amazed by the scale of hubris and ignorance of the average NYT reader.
...
lol. you're actually serious.
and re: the prisoners? If they didn't release them in under 24 hours it would have triggered requirements under the geneva conventions to be provided access to US diplomatic council. They weren't released because of some super-brilliant diplomatic moves, they were released because it was a slap in the face that had achieved its purpose.
I never fail to be amazed by the scale of hubris and ignorance of the average NYT reader.
Too bad there's no one to slap sanctions on us for those tactical nuclear devices that we ourselves our currently developing, that were reported on just last week in this newspaper. The hypocrisy of it all is sickening - all supposedly in the name of "making the world safe". That sounds great except for the fact that it's coming from something whose definition of "world" is spelled USA.
These new sanctions speak volumes about the kind of "friend" we're going to be. I hope we don't mind being alone . . . but why should we, we all have our iphones now to be our only friend and don't really need anything or anyone else.
These new sanctions speak volumes about the kind of "friend" we're going to be. I hope we don't mind being alone . . . but why should we, we all have our iphones now to be our only friend and don't really need anything or anyone else.
12
Okay, now is the time to come clean about what Iran has done and is still doing to destroy Iraq. There have been indications all along that they were major suppliers of explosives and weapons during the G.W. Bush war in there. Indeed, I have long believed that the so called military surge was timed to take advantage of a secret agreement with Iran to stop supplying materials for IEDs. I want to know the truth, the whole truth.
There's more. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, what country was then surrounded? Iran. Darth Cheney made many statements indicating that Iran was next, which could have been a bluff backed up by the strategic fact that troops were already there, near its borders and ready for action.
We have been at war with Iran on a de facto basis. Have we truly reached a position of peace? If so, are they still free to act as a state sponsor of terrorism and to work assiduously to destablize the middle-east? The U.S. just gave them more than 100 billion in frozen funds. I can only hope they have agreed to more than a nuclear deal.
There's more. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, what country was then surrounded? Iran. Darth Cheney made many statements indicating that Iran was next, which could have been a bluff backed up by the strategic fact that troops were already there, near its borders and ready for action.
We have been at war with Iran on a de facto basis. Have we truly reached a position of peace? If so, are they still free to act as a state sponsor of terrorism and to work assiduously to destablize the middle-east? The U.S. just gave them more than 100 billion in frozen funds. I can only hope they have agreed to more than a nuclear deal.
6
I doubt that sanctions will deter Iran's risky missile threats. Shooting a missile near American Navy vessels clearly was intended as a push back of some sort. A significant and pertinent response would be needed. Not really knowing the Iranian situation well, one would have to be careful to calculate a response that they would understand. Putting limits on 11 persons will likely be viewed as ridiculous, weak willed, and be quite ineffective.
What if the response were to tell Iran that another missile response would result in destruction of a missile launching facility? Then, when they try it again, follow through. First time, tell them the cruise missiles will be there at a specific hour, barely enough time to get people out of the way. Then, tell them that the next time, there will be no forewarning.
What if the response were to tell Iran that another missile response would result in destruction of a missile launching facility? Then, when they try it again, follow through. First time, tell them the cruise missiles will be there at a specific hour, barely enough time to get people out of the way. Then, tell them that the next time, there will be no forewarning.
3
Why would anyone believe for one minute that these narrowly targeted sanctions over ballistic missile testing were not fully explained, well in advance to Iran's leadership? Ignoring the testing violation was not an option. Setting new, pointed sanctions now is part of the necessary process of defining, in practice, boundaries to the new understanding between Iran and the U.S. so that it might better proceed and expand. Far from a misstep, these new sanctions are an essential step forward; all the more to the diplomatic credit of President Obama and Secretary Kerry.
77
So, preserving American values such as leaving no one behind is a failure. Please, sir, pray tell.
4
The headline seeks to provide political cover for Obama as most Americans were outraged at watching our sailors humiliated by Iran just days before we allowed 100 billion dollars..yes..100 billion dollars to flow to a country that has sworn to eliminate Israel from the face of the universe. God help us all.
5
I wish you knew how many republicans are secretly toasting to this right now. You have no idea how much money is about to be made by many wealthy republicans. It's all been a show for the simpletons.
1
Wait. The money was Iran's in the first place. The money was frozen long ago. They get their money back! And, if Israel drives our foreign policy then God help us all.
10
"most Americans were outraged at watching our sailors humiliated by Iran"......Yeah right, and up is really down, black is white, and Obama is always wrong. We get it.
8
The headline is very misleading and sensationalist. One has to read way into the article to come to "The new sanctions are mostly aimed at individuals and some small companies accused of shipping crucial technologies to Iran, including carbon fiber and missile parts that can survive re-entry forces. The sanctions are so focused on those individuals and firms that most Iranians will never feel them, and the amounts are comparatively tiny." This is nothing like the sanctions just lifted.
14
Feels like something very creepy is happening behind the scenes. Shame on those who put political pressure on the President to do this. More Wag the Dog.
4
But what of Robert Levinson, imprisoned by Iran? Why has he been left out of this deal? Is he even alive? I don't understand why we don't seem, as powerful a country as we are, to operate from a position of strength and not weakness.
4
Nobody knows where he is. We may be a superpower, but we aren't a psychic superpower.
2
A bad deal. We are releasing 100 billion of their money. They will use it against us our allies and the region. They are liars. Then of course there are our payments as incentives to comply with deal on nuclear development. Meanwhile back here, the middle class is evaporating and those facing social security will face worse peril every year ahead.
4
So ... we should steal their money and use it on domestic programs?
12
What does a billion dollars of THEIR money have to do with the middle class and social security of Americans?
5
In a rare joint statement, released to Fox News for official announcement on Monday’s O’Reilly Factor, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz said:
“We totally agree with Neilk, whom we have been assured is not a member of the Iranian exilic community in Los Angeles.
“The Amerians who got released?
“They never would have been there in the first place. We would have made Teheran ‘glow’ a day after their captures. The Fox News research department reports they were being held outside Teheran, and so would not have been affected by our carpet bombing campaign.
“Their prisoners we released?
Sean Hannity has it from Rush Limbaugh, who has it from Mark Levin, who has it from Erick Erickson, who has it from Sean Hannity that they are on their way to Syria from where they will join the flow of terrorists up through Turkey and into Germany, where a North Koran freighter flying a Panamanian flag is waiting to stow them away in on their way back to infiltrate the US and set up ISIS sleeper cells in Topeka and Muncie.
“And Neilk couldn’t be more right in spotting the connection between the lifting of the sanctions and the dissolution of the middle class – a problem either of us, if elected POTUS, would solve by providing deeper tax cuts to the top 0.01 percent, thus creating myriad jobs in the private plane and yacht building industries, and adding 2 points to GDP.
“The $100bn? It was just what was needed to add back to Social Security so it doesn’t go bankrupt, as Neilk astutely sussed out."
“We totally agree with Neilk, whom we have been assured is not a member of the Iranian exilic community in Los Angeles.
“The Amerians who got released?
“They never would have been there in the first place. We would have made Teheran ‘glow’ a day after their captures. The Fox News research department reports they were being held outside Teheran, and so would not have been affected by our carpet bombing campaign.
“Their prisoners we released?
Sean Hannity has it from Rush Limbaugh, who has it from Mark Levin, who has it from Erick Erickson, who has it from Sean Hannity that they are on their way to Syria from where they will join the flow of terrorists up through Turkey and into Germany, where a North Koran freighter flying a Panamanian flag is waiting to stow them away in on their way back to infiltrate the US and set up ISIS sleeper cells in Topeka and Muncie.
“And Neilk couldn’t be more right in spotting the connection between the lifting of the sanctions and the dissolution of the middle class – a problem either of us, if elected POTUS, would solve by providing deeper tax cuts to the top 0.01 percent, thus creating myriad jobs in the private plane and yacht building industries, and adding 2 points to GDP.
“The $100bn? It was just what was needed to add back to Social Security so it doesn’t go bankrupt, as Neilk astutely sussed out."
2
The administration has handled the Iran situation very well. I know that there are many (military industrial complex) who are disappointed we are not at war with Iran right now.
Our society needs to start choosing people over weapons and this is a good step in that direction.
Our society needs to start choosing people over weapons and this is a good step in that direction.
82
The US has just affirmed how small it is, by announcing new sanctions today. Who do we think we are? Well, we are not. Shameful describes us best. We are low and base.
9
Did you make it past the headline? Some people and businesses did what they were not supposed to do according to the deal; therefore, those 12 people get in trouble. That's the way the deal works.
2
Please read the article.
2
It seems that very few Countries on Earth are able or inclined to live up to our lofty standards, as our criticisms of others are relentless and endless, ad nauseum.
1
If Iran has violated UN restrictions on ballistic missile testing, then it is the UN which should deal with the issue, not the US. This move by the US is bound to create the impression that the US is reneging, albeit in a small way, on it's part of the nuclear deal. That impression, though not accurate, is also created by the unfortunate choice of wording for this article's headline.
121
That's not how the UN works. When the UN puts sanctions in place, it actually delegates to its member states, requiring them to prevent certain classes of goods or technology from reaching Iran.
The original UN sanctions on Iran required states to keep ballistic missile technology out of Iranian hands by means of sanctions; the later UN resolution approving this deal immediately listed the general economic sanctions, but keeps the ballistic missile sanctions in place for another 8 years.
In applying these particular sanctions, the Obama administration is complying with UN resolutions (which it helped write, but which were also approved by a majority of the UNSC and by every single permanent member). This is the system working as it is supposed to.
The original UN sanctions on Iran required states to keep ballistic missile technology out of Iranian hands by means of sanctions; the later UN resolution approving this deal immediately listed the general economic sanctions, but keeps the ballistic missile sanctions in place for another 8 years.
In applying these particular sanctions, the Obama administration is complying with UN resolutions (which it helped write, but which were also approved by a majority of the UNSC and by every single permanent member). This is the system working as it is supposed to.
4
The last time I checked, the US was a sovereign nation, not a federalist sub-component of the UN.
Your argument seems to be based on concern about faulty impressions drawn by other by a principled act based on formal and long standing policy.
There are only two ways to discourage Iran from its expressed policy of exporting sectarian Islam abroad and gaining the military means to threat its neighbors so they, in turn, must also escalate the militarization of that violent region: War or sanction. Abstaining from use of the latter makes the former more likely.
Your argument seems to be based on concern about faulty impressions drawn by other by a principled act based on formal and long standing policy.
There are only two ways to discourage Iran from its expressed policy of exporting sectarian Islam abroad and gaining the military means to threat its neighbors so they, in turn, must also escalate the militarization of that violent region: War or sanction. Abstaining from use of the latter makes the former more likely.
3
Ha!!!! The UN's response would be, "pretty please, can we humbly ask you not to bother folks this way, again?---while bowing face to the ground." Worthless for things like this.
Goodness, the threat was directed at the US ships and the recurring promise is to build missiles that reach Europe and the USA.
Wake up!
Goodness, the threat was directed at the US ships and the recurring promise is to build missiles that reach Europe and the USA.
Wake up!
1
January 17, 2016
Madness must not go un-watched. The world truly understands diplomatic arrangements requires heroic vigilance and transparency for all players.
Failure to adjust and correct to the reality of agreed events will not be tolerated and we celebrate for the main arena and yet the side shows as reported are given corrective accounting.
Madness must not go un-watched. The world truly understands diplomatic arrangements requires heroic vigilance and transparency for all players.
Failure to adjust and correct to the reality of agreed events will not be tolerated and we celebrate for the main arena and yet the side shows as reported are given corrective accounting.
3
Why the inflammatory headline? You have to read almost to the end of the article before it is put in context.
"The new sanctions are mostly aimed at individuals and some small companies accused of shipping crucial technologies to Iran, including carbon fiber and missile parts that can survive re-entry forces. The sanctions are so focused on those individuals and firms that most Iranians will never feel them, and the amounts are comparatively tiny."
The headline of any article should be a distillation of the thrust of the article. Here, with this headline, the authors are inferring the new sanctions are as comprehensive as the ones that were just lifted. To what end? Click bait? This reader is not amused.
"The new sanctions are mostly aimed at individuals and some small companies accused of shipping crucial technologies to Iran, including carbon fiber and missile parts that can survive re-entry forces. The sanctions are so focused on those individuals and firms that most Iranians will never feel them, and the amounts are comparatively tiny."
The headline of any article should be a distillation of the thrust of the article. Here, with this headline, the authors are inferring the new sanctions are as comprehensive as the ones that were just lifted. To what end? Click bait? This reader is not amused.
236
well said, it's getting very hard to find a decent Old "J" School article in the grey lady these days
7
I agree. Not the first time a Times has a misleading, provocative headline. They should leave that to the Daily News.
1
Admittedly, it inverts the "inverted pyramid" and could have been organized better. But the information is here, even though many are not reading to the end before commenting.
Definitely the whole world thinks USA tricking, not straight forward. If you know we were going to impose new measures, should have acted immediate!
7
Even though President Obama did what had to be done, and with his usual level-headedness, I get a little tired of Americans purposely going into known dangerous territory and then making taxpayers foot the bill for their release.
Grow up and stay out already.
Grow up and stay out already.
17
Why not talk to our new acquaintance (that seems a safe word) and try to settle this the old-fashioned way? Jumping straight back to sanctions makes it feel as though we haven't learned anything from the experience. And the timing is at very least unfortunate.
23
If you'd read further, you'd have seen that these particular sanctions are so very narrowly focused on so very few and insignificant "entities" that the announcement is more a hollow bone tossed to American neocons.
2
@ Jerome Barry
And why, pray tell, is it necessary to throw a bone - hollow or otherwise - to American neocons? Considering whose interests they represent.
And why, pray tell, is it necessary to throw a bone - hollow or otherwise - to American neocons? Considering whose interests they represent.
2
I read the story and I'm aware that the sanctions are tightly focused. I'd still favor talk over reflexive punishment -- building on what the administration has achieved.
2
Dumb move. Regardless of the content, the timing will simply enhance anti-American feeling on the Iranian domestic scene and add to the headaches of those Iranians wanted the country to be more open to the rest of the world.
28
I don't think Iran can dislike us anymore than they do. The promise of lifting sanctions was not seen by the Iranians as a gesture of goodwill, but as a defeat over the Great Satin...justified or not.
6
Sure they can. There are various factions within Iran, some seeking more openness, some less; some against a curtailment of the nuclear program, some for faster development; the idea that Iran is monolithic is ... to be polite, naive.
2
Too bad for Iran, then. We've threatened them with sanctions on this program for a long time. It's about time we came through.
Constantly having to read about dual citizens with obvious Iranian names put in some Iranian prison gets boring. You can't play it from both ends but when in trouble expect America to come to the rescue. Decide first what side of the penny you are on and then plan your life.
9
The only rational option is to pursue a course built with diplomacy and trust, however modest initially. The default position of aggression advocated by the right leads nowhere we should go. Of course any nation has the option to use their military, but a reading of recent history alone should give anyone pause enough to evaluate their objectives with the highest reason available. We have already gone down this path with poor reasoning and the results to prove it.
33
Your theory is exactly what countries that dealt with Germany thought....and we all know how that ended.
If Iran is able to develop the bomb despite Israel destroying their facilities there is no doubt they will use it.....first up would be Israel.
If Iran is able to develop the bomb despite Israel destroying their facilities there is no doubt they will use it.....first up would be Israel.
Very disappointed in Obama Administration. These new sanctions are in bad faith. Things like these lead to the young population of Iran hate the United States all over again and it will take at least a generation to fix this. I hope the administration will take into consideration what it has achieved so far and not succumb to the Jewish and Sunni factions who do not want Iran to be in the mainstream international community.
38
How can you say it's Obama who's at fault? Remember, it was Iran that TWICE violated (sanction-requiring) agreements by launching medium-range missiles, capable of hitting Israel, Russia, Turkey and Europe) even before the nuclear deal was effective. Iran's foreign minister and the architect of its international terror and imperialist military program Gen. Suleimani were in Moscow conferring with Putin -- who then began bombing Syria on their behalf -- immediately after the deal was signed. Iran's Supreme Leader wasted no time after the nuclear deal was announced to say, that after its restrictions on the nuclear program expire in 15 years, it would resume its genocidal intentions against the Israelis. And, despite Obama's continued claims that the fate of the American hostages was not contingent on the nuclear deal, Iran's wrap-up of 14 months of negotiations over their fate immediately upon implementation of the nuclear agreement shows the Iranians' ongoing bad faith and continued manipulation of the U.S. administration.
2
Obama is a tactical genius. I understand the criticisms a deal with Iran may face, but one cannot ignore the fact this deal got American hostages released. Wasn't there once a President (Carter) who lost to another president (Raegan) over a failure to do so? The Democratic machine seems quite united, and from afar, it looks the Republicans are unspooling at the exact same moment.
102
Obama is a failure in every aspect of his infamous presidency.
7
Paid for by the committee to elect a Republican President.
2
They are confusing assertions with arguments.
Simply saying something, without evidence, is merely an assertion. To develop an argument, you need evidence, which is then marshaled toward some conclusion or other, hopefully in a logical way.
But then, effective propaganda, as its most virulent and repugnant practitioners know, is dependent on the repetition, the endless repetition of falsehoods. Which we have seen a tremendous many lately.
Simply saying something, without evidence, is merely an assertion. To develop an argument, you need evidence, which is then marshaled toward some conclusion or other, hopefully in a logical way.
But then, effective propaganda, as its most virulent and repugnant practitioners know, is dependent on the repetition, the endless repetition of falsehoods. Which we have seen a tremendous many lately.
1
What an extraordinarily positive day for U.S.-Iran relations! The significance of the IAEA report, and the lifting of sanctions, was in some measure
outweighed by Iran’s release of the U.S.-Iranian dual nationality prisoners.
Why? Because the release proves Iran’s hardliners are firmly on board the ship of rapprochement.
Naturally, Neocons, Zionists, Israel and Saudi Arabia will continue, with self-serving hyperbole, to describe these epochal events as the most foreboding development since Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany, so in view of the approaching Oscars it is only fitting that the Bronze Raspberries for the world’s worst actors be awarded to:
-- Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, who failed to keep a straight face while describing Iran as “the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism”;
-- Netanyahu, whose ‘red lines’ have left him red-faced;
-- Ted Cruz, for failing to rock the boat sufficiently to capsize it;
-- GOP presidential hopefuls, who give new meaning to the term ‘type-cast’, and whose poor acting skills guarantee the Democrats will win the presidency.
To quote Donald Trump: “You’re all losers!”
And, on a more positive note, the genuine Golden Oscars for Best Performances on the World Stage go to:
-- President Obama, for his wisdom;
-- John Kerry, for his persistence;
-- President Rouhani, for keeping his election promise to the Iranian people;
-- Javad Zarif, for his charm;
-- Iran’s spiritual leader Ali Khamenei, for not rocking the boat.
outweighed by Iran’s release of the U.S.-Iranian dual nationality prisoners.
Why? Because the release proves Iran’s hardliners are firmly on board the ship of rapprochement.
Naturally, Neocons, Zionists, Israel and Saudi Arabia will continue, with self-serving hyperbole, to describe these epochal events as the most foreboding development since Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany, so in view of the approaching Oscars it is only fitting that the Bronze Raspberries for the world’s worst actors be awarded to:
-- Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, who failed to keep a straight face while describing Iran as “the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism”;
-- Netanyahu, whose ‘red lines’ have left him red-faced;
-- Ted Cruz, for failing to rock the boat sufficiently to capsize it;
-- GOP presidential hopefuls, who give new meaning to the term ‘type-cast’, and whose poor acting skills guarantee the Democrats will win the presidency.
To quote Donald Trump: “You’re all losers!”
And, on a more positive note, the genuine Golden Oscars for Best Performances on the World Stage go to:
-- President Obama, for his wisdom;
-- John Kerry, for his persistence;
-- President Rouhani, for keeping his election promise to the Iranian people;
-- Javad Zarif, for his charm;
-- Iran’s spiritual leader Ali Khamenei, for not rocking the boat.
97
Indeed, this agreement with Iran is a major step forward but it is not a time to believe Iran has abandoned its nefarious passion for terrorism. Nor has the Middle East's penchant for murderous sectarian conflict abated. Sadly, most expect the billions flowing back to Iran to fuel more regional distress. Surely, if the Saudi-oil glut is anything, it is an effort to restrict Iran's ability to fund terrorism.
So, congratulations on a step but also understand that it was a pretty severe sanctions regime that brought Iran to the point of badly needing relief, not a sudden maturation to being humanitarian.
So, congratulations on a step but also understand that it was a pretty severe sanctions regime that brought Iran to the point of badly needing relief, not a sudden maturation to being humanitarian.
4
The Raspberry awards, indeed...could these characters, and I mean that pejoratively, on the dais of the RNC debates possibly be any worse as candidates for the President of the United States?
"Carpet bomb...until the sand glows."
That's their solution to Iran and Isis.
The "whacko-birds", John McCain's adroit adjective for Ted Cruz, and for the entire Tea Party, has only war in its repertoire. An empty quiver, otherwise.
That we have peace in the region between Iran and the U.S. is nothing short of miraculous, and a testament to the determination of Kerry, President Obama and the Iranians: our countries have had to contend with jingoistic, militaristic right wing elements trying to capsize the deal.
They will write about this President one day in terms of greatness, getting the ACA started, finding Peace with Iran, against ALL odds, both domestic and foreign, and slowly bringing back the vestiges of a massive economy, all the while keeping us safe from the worst enemy facing the US in years: the Sarah Palins, and lately, Ted Cruz and co.
And though the economy returns albeit with inadequate wages...the single thorniest problem facing new Americans...we face a much better chance of figuring out income inequality with a Barack Obama, then the tea party/RNC types.
With the RNC, it's more tax-cutting for the rich, and more regulation cutting for the corporations, that is the only "program" the tea party/RNC has...America firmly, as with the gun lobby, in its sites.
"Carpet bomb...until the sand glows."
That's their solution to Iran and Isis.
The "whacko-birds", John McCain's adroit adjective for Ted Cruz, and for the entire Tea Party, has only war in its repertoire. An empty quiver, otherwise.
That we have peace in the region between Iran and the U.S. is nothing short of miraculous, and a testament to the determination of Kerry, President Obama and the Iranians: our countries have had to contend with jingoistic, militaristic right wing elements trying to capsize the deal.
They will write about this President one day in terms of greatness, getting the ACA started, finding Peace with Iran, against ALL odds, both domestic and foreign, and slowly bringing back the vestiges of a massive economy, all the while keeping us safe from the worst enemy facing the US in years: the Sarah Palins, and lately, Ted Cruz and co.
And though the economy returns albeit with inadequate wages...the single thorniest problem facing new Americans...we face a much better chance of figuring out income inequality with a Barack Obama, then the tea party/RNC types.
With the RNC, it's more tax-cutting for the rich, and more regulation cutting for the corporations, that is the only "program" the tea party/RNC has...America firmly, as with the gun lobby, in its sites.
2
We, In US and British attacked the Legitimate, Democratically elected government of Iran for Oil and installed Shah to do our dirty deed; “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh” , but we have the audacity to call them terrorist and they are Evil in our eyes, how funny we can turn things around!! Iranian Nation been there for over 3000 years and has lasted, Greek, Romans, Arabs, Mongols and others. You need to familiarize yourselves with history of the nation and the region before making such deterministic argument on how that region/Iran will respond to external forces. What is at stake here is much much bigger than you can think and we need Iran more than you people can imagine. The best is yet to come.
3
Why so cynical? These are some of the first steps towards peace with Iran. These things take a long time people; have patience, and a bit of faith. And try not to be so negative!
20
Its important to read the back story and not just focus on the headline. It seems that the violation brought about by the missile test requires the imposition of specific sanctions - as identified in the agreement. The article is very specific about the new sanctions - they are tied directly to '11 entities and individuals involved in procurement on behalf of Iran's ballistic missile program....". If no new sanctions were imposed then the agreement would be weakened. Yet these are not the same sanctions that will significantly damage the Iranian economy the way the past blanket sanctions did.
I don't fully understand everything involved in this yet it seems to me that the lifting of economic sanctions after two years of negotiations and the prisoner exchange are positive steps. The imposition of new sanctions are specifically tied to a violation of United Nations resolutions. It appears to make sense.
I don't fully understand everything involved in this yet it seems to me that the lifting of economic sanctions after two years of negotiations and the prisoner exchange are positive steps. The imposition of new sanctions are specifically tied to a violation of United Nations resolutions. It appears to make sense.
156
Did we sanction Saudi Arabia for its support of terrorism and funding of Pakistani Nukes.
No.
But we will sanction Iran on their behalf...
No.
But we will sanction Iran on their behalf...
2
Thank you "always thinking" for a sensible comment. That's more than we get from the Obama-can-do-no-right crowd who seem to never be thinking.
Thank you. You have to wonder why news sources are not explaining it nearly as well as you just did.
The new sanctions are mostly aimed at individuals and some small companies accused of shipping crucial technologies to Iran, including carbon fiber and missile parts that can survive re-entry forces. The sanctions are so focused on those individuals and firms that most Iranians will never feel them, and the amounts are comparatively tiny.
----------------------------------------------
Penny wise and Pound foolish (American translation: Cents wise Dollar foolish)?
----------------------------------------------
Penny wise and Pound foolish (American translation: Cents wise Dollar foolish)?
3
Come on people. Read the entire article before commenting. To wit:
"The new sanctions are mostly aimed at individuals and some small companies accused of shipping crucial technologies to Iran, including carbon fiber and missile parts that can survive re-entry forces. The sanctions are so focused on those individuals and firms that most Iranians will never feel them, and the amounts are comparatively tiny."
This is nothing and I guarantee you none of it was a surprise to Iran's leaders.
"The new sanctions are mostly aimed at individuals and some small companies accused of shipping crucial technologies to Iran, including carbon fiber and missile parts that can survive re-entry forces. The sanctions are so focused on those individuals and firms that most Iranians will never feel them, and the amounts are comparatively tiny."
This is nothing and I guarantee you none of it was a surprise to Iran's leaders.
52
What a treacherous move!!! This is really dirty, even between enemies.
4
The lawyer run U.S. government just can't seem to leave Iran alone. We are proud to have Iran as ally and so are many other Arabs. It is sad for the bankrupt, lawyer dominated U.S. government that America has been isolated from Iran for last 35 years because the U.S. wanted to use its embassy in Iran to support and engineer a coup against the host government.
4
"Proud to have iran as an ally"? The one that chants "death to america" on a daily basis? That injured or murdered thousands of US troops in iraq? That overthrew a democratically elected government in Yemen? That is conducting wars of mass slaughter in syria, propping up one of the world's worst dictators? That is driving groups like hezbollah to destroy Lebanon, and hamas to relentlessly attack Israel?
You mean that iran?
You mean that iran?
1
What a sleazy move. No wonder the Iranians don't trust us. The timing was just terrible.
5
"Sleazy"? What would you call the missile launches and the photo-op of our military men in disgrace a day be fore the sanctions were to lift?
1
Mr. President this is wrong on so many levels that I do not know where to begin. So many countries including our own have violated international agreements and we have looked the other way -- Saudi Arabia and Israel come to mind. We purport to be embarking on a new working relationship with Iran and then we pull this stunt? America, always the bully. Shame
14
Machiavelli and Bismarck would be well satisfied with this one!
3
I expect that all those opposing the Iran deal and those fearing Obama would not be watching carefully will now say . Thank you Mr. President for having the courage and forsight to avoid a potential war, arrange a nuclear stalemate and help Iran join the Nations as a reasonable state. Thank you, Iran, thank you Kerry and Obama.
I'm sure this will happen at the next repub debate (food fight).
I'm sure this will happen at the next repub debate (food fight).
13
Why would any sane person want to avoid an iran war, since they have maimed or murdered more US troops than any other country since the Viet Nam war?
Only to the clueless, iran apologist (possibly on their payroll), and the far left, anti-america crowd think that iran is a "reasonable" state.
Only to the clueless, iran apologist (possibly on their payroll), and the far left, anti-america crowd think that iran is a "reasonable" state.
2
Maybe Iran will take more hostages so they can exchange them to get these sanctions removed.
8
So much for securing the release of any future prisoner of the Iranians.
5
This has to be the most inept administration in 40 years from a foreign policy standpoint. Yes, W made unforgivable errors, but you never got the idea with his administration we were just flailing.
5
@Dave: So you are saying this agreement is inept? Yet look at what has already happened over the last few days largely because we now have open diplomatic channels. I suppose that your standard for ineptitude is any administration that does not start a war. By that standard, yes, I agree with you.
19
I'm glad we got our prisoners back. I'm unnerved that it took the release of 13 Iranians to get them back.
I'm glad we're sanctioning Iran for firing mid-range missiles. I'm unnerved by the peculiar timing of the move.
I'm glad we're sanctioning Iran for firing mid-range missiles. I'm unnerved by the peculiar timing of the move.
1
My guess is that Dave must be a 21st century Republican which is a whole lot different than those that came before them. He does not seem to beleive in the concept of getting things done through negotiation, both in our own Congress, by its own declaration to obstruct this president as its first and only priority, and by preferring the idea of military options as the first response to every foreign policy issue that arises in the middle east and in dealing with Russia.
Ever hear of the idea of speaking softly and carrying a big stick?
America has by far the biggest stick in the world. It can swing it anytime it wants to at and wreak havoc on its opponent any time anywhere including collateral damage to everyone, including America's own self interest.
Or it can negotiate first and if that fails, use the big stick with the support of its allies.
That is the difference between this President and this crop of 21st century Republican sabre rattlers.
He speaks first and uses the stick second.
Cruz would carpet bomb first. Trump would ban 1.6 billion Muslims over a threat he refuses to understand and would build a wall more like a Berlin Wall in the eyes of the world. Jeb's dad used negotiation first and the big stick second but he was a 20th century Republican. Jeb is a 21st century Republican and so was his war loving brother whose Iraq deception to justify the big stick he says he still supports. Rubio seems to want conflict and Carson has no clue.
Ever hear of the idea of speaking softly and carrying a big stick?
America has by far the biggest stick in the world. It can swing it anytime it wants to at and wreak havoc on its opponent any time anywhere including collateral damage to everyone, including America's own self interest.
Or it can negotiate first and if that fails, use the big stick with the support of its allies.
That is the difference between this President and this crop of 21st century Republican sabre rattlers.
He speaks first and uses the stick second.
Cruz would carpet bomb first. Trump would ban 1.6 billion Muslims over a threat he refuses to understand and would build a wall more like a Berlin Wall in the eyes of the world. Jeb's dad used negotiation first and the big stick second but he was a 20th century Republican. Jeb is a 21st century Republican and so was his war loving brother whose Iraq deception to justify the big stick he says he still supports. Rubio seems to want conflict and Carson has no clue.
4
Could there possibly be a greater contrast than that between the recent, lengthening string of diplomatic accomplishments of President Obama and Secretary Kerry and the dangerous, increasingly hyperbolic war-mongering of the GOP candidates, especially on display during the last debate? The Republicans ought to take note, beware, and shift toward domestic policy disputes. At the rate Obama and Kerry are going, there may not be much left on the foreign policy front, come next November, that will resonate with the American people as anything other than self-serving politicians beating on an empty drum. With relations with Iran evidently on a new footing, more solid than most suspected, it is not unreasonable to expect significant progress, soon, on international consensus in dealing with ISIS and al-Assad. Hillary Clinton ought to take note, too. Kerry is making her tenure as Secretary of State look pretty thin. Indeed, there must be great satisfaction for him in appearing more and more the President we should have had.
20
Accomplishments by Obama on the international front? Do you mean his creation if ISIS by his premature withdrawal from Iraq, his failure to contain either al Qaeda or the Taliban, his agreeing to a weak nuclear deal that allows Iran to "self-inspect, or his responsibility for the continuing genocide in Syria for failing to keep his "red-line" promise? Apologists for the Obama administration used to be amusing but now they are downright dangerous.
So Iran has engaged with the USA in good faith and found terms for an agreement after lengthy negotiations and Iran has stuck to the rules, give or take, and returned hostages - and the reward is new sanctions?
Meanwhile Saudi Arabia is funding extremism worldwide, creating oil cartels and fueling the conflict in Syria and yet the US can't do enough to bend over backwards to appease the Saudi leadership.
I'm beginning to think there is some strange personal vendetta against Iran among Americans, although I can't think why. Saudi and Iran are equally anti-Israel in their foreign policies and neither country has a great record on human rights. What hope is there for the Middle East when peace negotiations can falter so easily like this?
Meanwhile Saudi Arabia is funding extremism worldwide, creating oil cartels and fueling the conflict in Syria and yet the US can't do enough to bend over backwards to appease the Saudi leadership.
I'm beginning to think there is some strange personal vendetta against Iran among Americans, although I can't think why. Saudi and Iran are equally anti-Israel in their foreign policies and neither country has a great record on human rights. What hope is there for the Middle East when peace negotiations can falter so easily like this?
214
I'm sure that this was largely done for political reasons, and the Iranians are probably aware of that too. Also, as an earlier NYT article stated, there are still other sanctions in place against Iran, which did not come under the umbrella of being nuclear-related. The whole agreement is still within the context of a state that supports terrorism in Hezbollah. This deal does not solve all of our problems with Iran. It is however, a big step forward.
14
Very Simple MB; look at what Israeli wants, look at what oil lobby wants, look at what internationalist bankers want... woe to the nation that ends up in the cross hairs of the conjunction of these three planets.
The U.S. still hasn't gotten over the '79 revolution, but Obama is getting us over it as well as Cuba. Obama gets things done.
Saudi Arabia, it seems, has us so soaked in their oil that 19 of them can destroy New York City and the Pentagon and Dubya goes strolling with them hand-in-hand.
Saudi Arabia, it seems, has us so soaked in their oil that 19 of them can destroy New York City and the Pentagon and Dubya goes strolling with them hand-in-hand.
4
Clinton recently said that she was pleased with the release of the dual citizens but that she would impose sanctions for Iran's ballistic missiles. We sell billions in arms to the Gulf States and at the same time have objections to Iran's home grown ballistic missiles. The UN ban relates to nuclear capable ballistic missiles. Since they don't have any nuclear weapons, isn't that point mute?
Obama continues to hedge his bets, I guess to make sure that Clinton gets elected. On one hand we lift the sanctions and within a span of 24 hours we are imposing additional sanctions. The same way that he extended his hand at the beginning of his administration and at the same time was slipping in stuxnet to do all the damage. How comforting is that to the other side?
Obama continues to hedge his bets, I guess to make sure that Clinton gets elected. On one hand we lift the sanctions and within a span of 24 hours we are imposing additional sanctions. The same way that he extended his hand at the beginning of his administration and at the same time was slipping in stuxnet to do all the damage. How comforting is that to the other side?
37
I always thought that what we as Americans offered the world above all else was 'that we play fair'.
Who knows at this stage what the real back story is - but the immediate take on this story is that when it comes to negotiations with Iran - its our side that doesnt appear to be playing fair.
It's quite a depressing and uncomfortable feeling.
Who knows at this stage what the real back story is - but the immediate take on this story is that when it comes to negotiations with Iran - its our side that doesnt appear to be playing fair.
It's quite a depressing and uncomfortable feeling.
34
There is a perception that America unfortunately plays fair when it is in its best self-interest and I tend to agree. But it is a complicated world and is hard to play fair to all stakeholders at all times.
1
What suggests we haven't?
2
Despite these latest sanctions, the implementation of the nuclear deal is one of the greatest foreign policy achievements of all time. Obama is the man; it cements his legacy. Both he and the Iranian leadership deserve the world's gratitude for their remorseless exercise of intelligent diplomacy and rational compromise, while steadily tuning out the bought-and-paid-for Congress, the Israel lobby, and the rest of the warmongers, "hardliners" and Islamophobes.
As bad as the Middle East is, a war between the US and Iran would have made things unimaginably worse. As for the warmongers and naysayers — the Republican establishment for whom Obama can do nothing right or good, Israel and its Congressional followers who see Iran as a threat to the permanency of Greater Israel, the anti-moderates in Iran who can't bring themselves to trust the word of the Great Satan — all of them have lost, big time.
Let us pray that the next occupant of the White House doesn't betray that trust.
As bad as the Middle East is, a war between the US and Iran would have made things unimaginably worse. As for the warmongers and naysayers — the Republican establishment for whom Obama can do nothing right or good, Israel and its Congressional followers who see Iran as a threat to the permanency of Greater Israel, the anti-moderates in Iran who can't bring themselves to trust the word of the Great Satan — all of them have lost, big time.
Let us pray that the next occupant of the White House doesn't betray that trust.
461
Greatest foreign policy acievements of all time? What an outrageous claim!
1
Dave:
Those are words but you have no content. Please be a bit more specific.
Those are words but you have no content. Please be a bit more specific.
1
He was specific, he called the "Israel lobby" "war-mongers" - did you miss that? We didn't.
I seem to recall the current GOP frontrunners lambasting the President and the Iran deal for ignoring these four Americans. I am sure they'll set some time aside to apologize ...
58
If we are imposing new sanctions on them. This whole deal does not make sense at all. It makes America very untrustworthy in this whole deal. We are now the pariah state looking for wars. We are such hypocrites too because we tell other countries they cant have certain types of weapons when have them.
147
You are correct: the whole deal makes no sense, but then it is typical of a president without any common sense.
2
Jesse Marioneaux - Port Neches
I've had the same question.
We are a sovereign nation. They are a sovereign nation.
I've had the same question.
We are a sovereign nation. They are a sovereign nation.
It was explained in the piece that the new sanctions are completely different and for a different reason than the ones that were lifted. If my son or daughter is at the end of being grounded for a week, but they fail to clean their room, they will still suffer the consequences.
2
We got five innocent Americans. The Ayatollah got:
-- $100+ billion;
-- the sanctions lifted on his economy that were driving him down to his knees;
-- the right to continue shouting Death to America whenever he pleases, and we can expect him to please that a lot;
-- a clear pathway to the possession of nuclear weapons so as to constitute an existential threat to Israel;
-- the economic capability to go on supporting the mass-murderer Assad and similar satraps and henchmen of his around the Middle East;
-- a new best friend named Putin and more best friends coming soon from China;
-- the rials needed to continue arming Hezbollah up to its eye sockets with rockets and missiles;
-- a good housekeeping seal of approval from President Obama and Secretary Kerry enabling him to keep on imprisoning and torturing vast numbers of his own citizens for advocating democratic reforms.
A very good day for temporary bogus legacies. A very bad one for the future of the Middle East.
-- $100+ billion;
-- the sanctions lifted on his economy that were driving him down to his knees;
-- the right to continue shouting Death to America whenever he pleases, and we can expect him to please that a lot;
-- a clear pathway to the possession of nuclear weapons so as to constitute an existential threat to Israel;
-- the economic capability to go on supporting the mass-murderer Assad and similar satraps and henchmen of his around the Middle East;
-- a new best friend named Putin and more best friends coming soon from China;
-- the rials needed to continue arming Hezbollah up to its eye sockets with rockets and missiles;
-- a good housekeeping seal of approval from President Obama and Secretary Kerry enabling him to keep on imprisoning and torturing vast numbers of his own citizens for advocating democratic reforms.
A very good day for temporary bogus legacies. A very bad one for the future of the Middle East.
24
Feeling a little tendentious today, are we?
6
Oh and we avoided a war costing 1 trillion and thousands of lives and years at occupation and creating more terrorists. We gave them back Their money , Putin was always a friend and now Rusia will have to compete with USA, Germany, France, etc. for ther lush constracts. No my fearful friend our leaders did a very big deal and Thank you Obama and Kerry!!
22
You have a uniquely selective view of the history surrounding current events in the Middle East. Unique to Fox and Friends Saturday Morning Fun Show.
You might consider the events after WW2 leading up to Sadat's assassination and post power struggle after British and Soviet occupation in your assessment of current events.
You might consider the events after WW2 leading up to Sadat's assassination and post power struggle after British and Soviet occupation in your assessment of current events.
9
An inch here, an inch there... and your allies are breathing down your neck, your political opponents are going for the jugular, and your credibility is questionable.
I think Iran appreciates this diplomacy. Better to sanction now and appropriately than to be forced to overreact down the road...
I think Iran appreciates this diplomacy. Better to sanction now and appropriately than to be forced to overreact down the road...
6
How long will it be before the Republicans condemn Obama for imposing new sanctions? Surely they'll find some way to blame Obama for something.
68
FKA Curmudgeon asks "How long will it be before the Republicans condemn Obama for imposing new sanctions? Surely they'll find some way to blame Obama for something." Dear me, enquiring minds want to know.
As an independent, my guess to Curmudgeon's question: As long as it would take Democrats to condemn the President if he were Republican. Without a dog in the fight, it is a bit more apparent that both sides can be equally sanctimonious.
It seems that when my assessment makes both sides more or less equally angry, the closer that assessment may be getting to the essence of the matter.
As an independent, my guess to Curmudgeon's question: As long as it would take Democrats to condemn the President if he were Republican. Without a dog in the fight, it is a bit more apparent that both sides can be equally sanctimonious.
It seems that when my assessment makes both sides more or less equally angry, the closer that assessment may be getting to the essence of the matter.
2
This is the same Obama that is trying to sell F-16s to Pakistan, a country that has violated every proliferation treaty on earth and gave shelter to Osama-bin-Laden for a decade while accepting US money to search for him. No wonder the world has no faith in American foreign policy. We will soon have Hillary Clinton in the white house who single handedly created the mess in Libya. If Iran falls apart a-la Iraq, will the US take responsibility for it? I know Israel and Saudi Arabia have to be appeased at all costs but our leaders must realize its actions have consequences.
79
So by joining an already-in-progress Arab League initiative to depose Qadafi Clinton single-handedly created a mess in the Middle East? Obama, who basically invaded Pakistan on a small scale to kill bin Laden, is now their thunder buddy? No wonder you have no faith in US foreign policy, you apparently can't get it straight.
30
"The world" understands that international relations aren't as simple as online commenters would have us believe.
12
Are you talking about Pakistan or Israel whose F-16's, F-18s, etc. are given to Israel compliments of the US taxpayers annual "foreign aid" gift of 3.5 billion dollars. Israeli government's nuclear weapons program, developed with the help of the CIA, is a not so well kept secret and Israel has never signed the nonproliferation treaty pretending they have no nuclear weapons. Hypocrisy is one of the foundation blocks of all diplomacy.
1
New sanctions just because of a missile test? How many other countries, including the U.S. and especially Israel, have ignored countless U.N. resolutions and not been penalized?
191
I don't know. Instead of engaging in innuendo why don't you do the research and let us all know, since you seem to have an interest in the subject.
11
Trillian it is easy to find on the internet and from knowledgeable sources.
1
The new sanctions were built into the nuclear agreement. Please know all the facts before you criticize. The new sanctions are narrow and centered on the specific violation of the nuclear agreement. The delay in imposing these new sancitons was only to complete the hostage swap -- quite strategic, I would say.
5
I couldn't believe the headline. Diplomacy? Trust?
What devious mind was behind this ploy? The arrogance of it all is mind-boggling.
What devious mind was behind this ploy? The arrogance of it all is mind-boggling.
52
Wish I could click multiple times in agreement with what you're saying Jack.
1
It would be a good idea to have the history of the American concocted coup in 1953, overthrowing a democratically elected secular president, Mossadegh, presented to the public in this newspaper. How many Americans know nothing about this and how years of tyranny by the Shah triggered the Islamic revolution? Always a good idea to review history of this magnitude.
354
So true, Renee. I call members of Congress on a regular basis, most Republicans since that's who I have issues with - Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz - you know, all the good neo-cons.
I ask the staffers of the aforementioned if they know why some Iranians chant "Death to America" - and the answers - if they even have one - are astoundingly ignorant and disturbing and can usually be summed up best by one young lady's answer - "Um, because we're exceptional?"
Good lord.
I ask the staffers of the aforementioned if they know why some Iranians chant "Death to America" - and the answers - if they even have one - are astoundingly ignorant and disturbing and can usually be summed up best by one young lady's answer - "Um, because we're exceptional?"
Good lord.
4
And while we're at it, let's review how the US at great expense took out Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, both dedicated foes of Iran. With enemies like us, who needs friends?
But that having been said, I think the real need at this juncture is for all parties to get over the history and move on. We've largely succeeded in doing that with respect to Vietnam, and that era was surely far more consequential to most Americans. I hope we can accomplish the same with the Iranians.
But that having been said, I think the real need at this juncture is for all parties to get over the history and move on. We've largely succeeded in doing that with respect to Vietnam, and that era was surely far more consequential to most Americans. I hope we can accomplish the same with the Iranians.
3
It would be interesting to find out how many people in the US know of our little coup action in 1953?
My son-in-law is Persian, and he had to leave Iran after the Mullahs took power, killing 17 members of his family. He is now an American citizen, a Ph.D. professor out of Columbia, and he says you would be shocked to know how few of his international studies students are aware of the CIA's ill-advised action in Iran in 1953.
I guess Letterman was just kidding us then, when he said they hate us in the ME because... we have cable television. (the "they hate us for our freedoms meme").
I'm not saying we should stand here in sack cloth and ashes, bemoaning our CIA's cold war adventurism (and corporate adventurism...the coup was for access to oil, but also strategic partnerships for a tactical presence). But understanding, with a capital U, might go a long way to figuring out how to proceed in this complicated world. And a Ted Cruz "Bull in a China Shop" would not be anybody's sane recommendation for international relations. (nor a Trump, or a Fiorina, or Bush, or Rubio)
My son-in-law is Persian, and he had to leave Iran after the Mullahs took power, killing 17 members of his family. He is now an American citizen, a Ph.D. professor out of Columbia, and he says you would be shocked to know how few of his international studies students are aware of the CIA's ill-advised action in Iran in 1953.
I guess Letterman was just kidding us then, when he said they hate us in the ME because... we have cable television. (the "they hate us for our freedoms meme").
I'm not saying we should stand here in sack cloth and ashes, bemoaning our CIA's cold war adventurism (and corporate adventurism...the coup was for access to oil, but also strategic partnerships for a tactical presence). But understanding, with a capital U, might go a long way to figuring out how to proceed in this complicated world. And a Ted Cruz "Bull in a China Shop" would not be anybody's sane recommendation for international relations. (nor a Trump, or a Fiorina, or Bush, or Rubio)
6
To quote an old wise saying ' If someone fool you once shame on him but if he does it twice, shame on you.' America get ready to be shamed.
12
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again!
Reminds me of another lie, read my lips, no new taxes.
1. But for Mr. Netanyahu, Iran would have had nuclear weapons a long time ago. As Iran gets closer and closer to possession of atom bombs, which the nuclear deal plainly permits, Israel -- acting alone -- will put an end to the problem.
2. Obviously, the U.S. must always stand ready to come to the aid of American military personnel held captive in foreign countries.
But American journalists, relief workers, businessmen, students, adventurous travelers, persons seeking to be reunited with their families and persons seeking spiritual awakenings in foreign surroundings ought always to be forewarned in the strongest possible terms that the U.S. cannot guarantee their safety or rescue.
2. Obviously, the U.S. must always stand ready to come to the aid of American military personnel held captive in foreign countries.
But American journalists, relief workers, businessmen, students, adventurous travelers, persons seeking to be reunited with their families and persons seeking spiritual awakenings in foreign surroundings ought always to be forewarned in the strongest possible terms that the U.S. cannot guarantee their safety or rescue.
8
I am a long time subsciber Neil. Apparently they make special allowances for that. And for the ability to state simple truths in simple words.
3
There are no actions that Netanyahu took that kept Iran from nuclear weapons. The sanctions on Iran were a result of dogged IAEA inspections/pressure and western diplomacy in setting up the UN sanctions in support of the IAEA.
Israel will not put an end to anything; it would start a general war between the two countries while only putting a crimp in Iran's nuclear efforts. This agreement does more than that.
Israel will not put an end to anything; it would start a general war between the two countries while only putting a crimp in Iran's nuclear efforts. This agreement does more than that.
1
Netanyahu forced Obama to take
far more decisive actions than he wished to, fearing the loss of Jewish support if he didn't.
far more decisive actions than he wished to, fearing the loss of Jewish support if he didn't.
1
American diplomacy is undermined by the sense of entitlement this action displays. We do ourselves harm this way, even as we think we are demonstrating power. If it is not bad faith, then it is close enough to damage us next time we try to use diplomacy, to prove to anyone dealing with us that they cannot trust us.
A good rule of negotiation is always to leave a little something on the table. That last nickel you can pinch out of a deal costs too much in the longer term.
A good rule of negotiation is always to leave a little something on the table. That last nickel you can pinch out of a deal costs too much in the longer term.
236
These sanctions are bad faith on our part? What do you call firing mid-range missiles?
1
"Bad faith," as you put it was demonstrated when Iran sent ballistic missiles within a mile of American ships. "Entitlement" was demonstrated with the same action. There must be consequences when Iran behaves this way. Your advice also applies to Iran. The President is right.
2
Iran did not "sen[d] ballistic missiles within a mile of American ships."
Some small boats were within miles of US ships when they fires some small rockets away from those ships, but the firing took place nearby. Not a great thing, but far from what hawks try to call it.
Some small boats were within miles of US ships when they fires some small rockets away from those ships, but the firing took place nearby. Not a great thing, but far from what hawks try to call it.
2
The West sells billions of state-of-the-art arms to rogue countries while banning Iran from developing it’s own defensive military tools!! Iran has been used as a boogeyman for so long and the World has paid high price for that in terms of spread of terrorism and massive immigration caused primarily by US "allies" in the region. The World needs Iran for the peace in ME. Let's put this Iranophobia aside. Let's not get fooled with biased media and foreign-funded tainted politicians in the US to derail such process. Iran and US are natural allies, the "hardliners" in both countries are in minority while holding the main power. People in both countries should harness their own "hardliners"
341
The times has really sunk to new lows recommending commentary like this - Iran is a brutally repressive anti-democratic "theocracy" that deprives religious minorities (and indeed all its citizens) of even the most basic political and civil rights. It remains an unrepentant supporter of terrorism throughout the world, from assassinations to indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets. This is not a product of a "biased media", this is stark truth.
If only we treated all savage, primitive repressive regimes (e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Brunei) with the contempt they deserve -
If only we treated all savage, primitive repressive regimes (e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Brunei) with the contempt they deserve -
4
I heartily agree. I recently spent 18 days in Iran, and talked to dozens of ordinarily Iranians. Invariably, they cited fears of Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia, and asked why the US kept selling billions in arms to the country that spawned al Quida, which morphed into ISIS. I had no answer.
5
What kind of state-of-the-art arms? Are they selling nuclear?