What sophistry. The Iranians were ready, as of 2005 when they had FAR fewer centrifuges, to put most of their operation in mothballs in return for removal of sanctions and acknowledgement of the right to native enrichment as per the non-proliferation agreement. It was the US and its EU lackeys who turned down a great deal and insisted on no enrichment. Once we were ready to compromise, we "suddenly" found a willing partner across the table.
One can only pity poor Mr. Sanger who knows all this as he's been misreporting this for more than a decade ... the war he was hoping for never materialized.
One can only pity poor Mr. Sanger who knows all this as he's been misreporting this for more than a decade ... the war he was hoping for never materialized.
4
It is always funny to read how many energy have been used by the Usa to fight against the desires of a theocratic republic that the helped to install. When this young nation, in the game of international relation, will learn about history. Without the Anglo-America agitations in Iran, this country could be a peaceful democracy in the middle of absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia and other local variations.
I understand that USA needed to secure its supply of petrol, to protect the interests of its big companies, without a glance for the human price of it.
As the article shows it, USA has not moral sens in the front of "la raison d'état". It is logical : when you have the power to defend your interest and extend your influence, you can do it, even by murders, sabotages and lies. Who will stop you ? And who i am to judge the foreign policy of USA.
I would just read la little less often that USA are the good guys and Iran the bad guy, or Russia, or former Libya or ... It is to simplistic.
I would like more nuances, especially when i read the Times which is nor fox new nor Russia today.
I understand that USA needed to secure its supply of petrol, to protect the interests of its big companies, without a glance for the human price of it.
As the article shows it, USA has not moral sens in the front of "la raison d'état". It is logical : when you have the power to defend your interest and extend your influence, you can do it, even by murders, sabotages and lies. Who will stop you ? And who i am to judge the foreign policy of USA.
I would just read la little less often that USA are the good guys and Iran the bad guy, or Russia, or former Libya or ... It is to simplistic.
I would like more nuances, especially when i read the Times which is nor fox new nor Russia today.
5
Sanger in his usual self is making things up again and giving credit where credit is not due: Netanyahu of Israel. If the virus was so effective we would have had a nuclear deal in 2009. The vehemence Netanyahu fought to undo the nuclear deal, pulling every stunt against Obama that there was proves, his was an impediment to the deal. As a matter of fact for anyone who knows the history of the Iran program, they offered essentially the same deal in 2003, and 2005 with much less centrifuges spinning, only to be scuttled by Israel. This is a fact someone should write about.
11
If we're going to talk about sabotage, it's only fair to talk about the Iran diplomacy sabotage employed by the Republican Party and their AIPAC cousins and right-wing, Israeli war-hawker and half-brother Benjamin Netanyahu.
The “open letter” from Senator Tom Cotton and 46 other Republican senators to the leadership of Iran encouraging Iranian opponents of the nuclear negotiations to oppose America's diplomatic efforts was an act of open treason and sedition by the United States Congress.
http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/17/real-story-behind-republicans-iran-letter/
As Gareth Porter wrote last year, "the real story behind the letter from Tom Cotton and his Republican colleagues is how the enforcers of (Israel's and Netanyahu's ) Likudist policy on Iran used an ambitious young Republican politician to try to provoke a breakdown in the Iran nuclear negotiations. The issue it raises is a far more serious issue than (violation of) the Logan Act, but thus far major news organizations have steered clear of that story."
Not only did President Obama and his team accomplish this difficult diplomatic arrangement with Iran, they had to do it while fighting the sabotage, treason and sedition of the Republican Party, the finest fake patriots the world has ever seen.
The “open letter” from Senator Tom Cotton and 46 other Republican senators to the leadership of Iran encouraging Iranian opponents of the nuclear negotiations to oppose America's diplomatic efforts was an act of open treason and sedition by the United States Congress.
http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/17/real-story-behind-republicans-iran-letter/
As Gareth Porter wrote last year, "the real story behind the letter from Tom Cotton and his Republican colleagues is how the enforcers of (Israel's and Netanyahu's ) Likudist policy on Iran used an ambitious young Republican politician to try to provoke a breakdown in the Iran nuclear negotiations. The issue it raises is a far more serious issue than (violation of) the Logan Act, but thus far major news organizations have steered clear of that story."
Not only did President Obama and his team accomplish this difficult diplomatic arrangement with Iran, they had to do it while fighting the sabotage, treason and sedition of the Republican Party, the finest fake patriots the world has ever seen.
43
I sure wouldn't want to be stuck in the same foxhole as Tom Cotton.
4
"According to newly released FEC filings, Cotton received $960,250 in supportive campaign advertising in the last month from the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), a right-wing group headed by the neoconservative pundit, Bill Kristol, who infamously predicted that the Iraq war would last two months. At its inception, the ECI was based out of the same Washington office as the Committee of the Liberation of Iraq, a pressure group that lobbied for the 2003 invasion. (...)" (Lobelog, "EXCLUSIVE: Emergency Committee for Israel Spends Big on Rep. Cotton")
3
Apart from diplomacy, sanctions and - "left unspoken" - sabotage, that had led to the nuclear deal, most Iranians do want to come in from the cold.
It is why they voted for Hassan Rouhani in 2013, hoping not only to do away with sanctions, but to have normal relations with the international community.
Had the P5+1 and opponents - GOP hawks and Netanyahu - to nuclear talks ignored this desire, Iran could have continued its nuclear activities that it would reach a point of no return. The "covert sabotage program" would not have dampened Iran's ambition. On the contrary it would only strengthened its resolve to achieve its goal and defy the West. Learning from past mistakes it would avoid being hit by saboteurs, making it even more difficult to target its nuclear facilities.
It is why they voted for Hassan Rouhani in 2013, hoping not only to do away with sanctions, but to have normal relations with the international community.
Had the P5+1 and opponents - GOP hawks and Netanyahu - to nuclear talks ignored this desire, Iran could have continued its nuclear activities that it would reach a point of no return. The "covert sabotage program" would not have dampened Iran's ambition. On the contrary it would only strengthened its resolve to achieve its goal and defy the West. Learning from past mistakes it would avoid being hit by saboteurs, making it even more difficult to target its nuclear facilities.
5
Large ballistic missiles are still a threat even if they are not nuclear.
...to everyone. So why does the US have them? Or is it Animal Farm again?
Or in Latin: quod licet iovi, non licet bovi?
Or in Latin: quod licet iovi, non licet bovi?
4
The religious conservatives in Iran are just like the religious conservatives in the USA: deluded by their zealous narcissism, and a threat to peace and stability in the world.
8
"I am a staunch Supporter of Israel..."
"Supporter" is capitalized now? Don't you need some sort of certificate, or plaque, or something, before you're allowed to capitalize a term?
"Supporter" is capitalized now? Don't you need some sort of certificate, or plaque, or something, before you're allowed to capitalize a term?
2
Now I get it…if Iran tries to "sabotage" some other country, political process, oil revenue stream, nuclear power plant, financial industry, or even worse (according to The Hillary Brand®) a women's rights' group - it's bad. VERY BAD…
If we do it, it's pretty much okay and just part of our Democratization of the World - either thru subterfuge and sabotage, or our never-ending boots-on-the-ground through the barrel of a gun warmongering. Since we are the "Entitled Ones" with our fiat-currency-hegemonic-petro-dollar-we'll-kick-your-butt-business-model-unless-you-do-as-we-say-Global-Policy (FCHPDWKYBBMUYDAWSGP)…we can pretty much do whatever we want, to whomever we want, whenever we want to do it. But god forbid anyone else questions our authority or our right to rule.
The only problem here is that Iran is just one of five Middle Eastern countries that our Neo-Con's in Residence had planned to take down from before 9/11. Let's count them: Libya - check. Afghanistan - check. Iraq - check. Iran - in the works. Syria - in the works. And lo and behold - according to a declassified email from The Hillary Brand®, one of the reasons we "took out Gaddafi" - recall the Hillary Mantra - "we came, we saw, he died" - was Libya's gold and silver stash, to the tune of 140+ tons of gold and who knows how much silver. But that reason doesn't make good media copy, so it became yet another "humanitarian crisis." Conveniently so.
One can only imagine what we have planned for Iran and Syria.
If we do it, it's pretty much okay and just part of our Democratization of the World - either thru subterfuge and sabotage, or our never-ending boots-on-the-ground through the barrel of a gun warmongering. Since we are the "Entitled Ones" with our fiat-currency-hegemonic-petro-dollar-we'll-kick-your-butt-business-model-unless-you-do-as-we-say-Global-Policy (FCHPDWKYBBMUYDAWSGP)…we can pretty much do whatever we want, to whomever we want, whenever we want to do it. But god forbid anyone else questions our authority or our right to rule.
The only problem here is that Iran is just one of five Middle Eastern countries that our Neo-Con's in Residence had planned to take down from before 9/11. Let's count them: Libya - check. Afghanistan - check. Iraq - check. Iran - in the works. Syria - in the works. And lo and behold - according to a declassified email from The Hillary Brand®, one of the reasons we "took out Gaddafi" - recall the Hillary Mantra - "we came, we saw, he died" - was Libya's gold and silver stash, to the tune of 140+ tons of gold and who knows how much silver. But that reason doesn't make good media copy, so it became yet another "humanitarian crisis." Conveniently so.
One can only imagine what we have planned for Iran and Syria.
9
I don't believe the account by the insiders mentioned. President Obama did not lend support to Netanyahu. There was virtually no support in the US for such an attack. Especially following the debacle in Iraq.
1
The capability to drop a ground-penetrating weapon that will knock 1000 spinning centrifuges off their mounts from a seismic shock is a credible threat.
2
By the way, it's worth noting that six of the seven Iranians freed in the prisoner swap are staying in the US, and that one of the five (yes, apparently there were five, not four) US "hostages" freed in that deal has decided to stay in Iran.
4
Guess Iran's Supreme Leader is right to distrust America and our intentions!
It's not just imposing new sanctions the day after removing old ones (after Iran moved mountains to comply with the nuclear agreement), but really the entire history of our interaction with Iran.
We want to dictate what Iran is allowed and what happens in Iran. Yet we want the freedom to do whatever we want with regard to Iran. And we want this dichotomy to be called fair and right. And we demand Iran accept that.
It's not just imposing new sanctions the day after removing old ones (after Iran moved mountains to comply with the nuclear agreement), but really the entire history of our interaction with Iran.
We want to dictate what Iran is allowed and what happens in Iran. Yet we want the freedom to do whatever we want with regard to Iran. And we want this dichotomy to be called fair and right. And we demand Iran accept that.
10
We are too arrogant in my view. Sooner or later what folks dont realize is arrogance will be the downfall of America.
2
Call me naive; call me delusional:
"Iran and the fanatical mullahs that control it will never give up their quest for nuclear weapons. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive at best and more likely delusional."
I get all hung up by the absence of evidence.
Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty decades ago, and has long been the most-inspected country in the world by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That was true before the Iran nuclear deal was signed, and now those inspections will be even more extensive. True enough, there have been differences of opinion on what Iran's Safeguards Agreement requires -- as has been true of other countries that have signed SAs -- and the US relentlessly accuses Iran of violating the NPT and its SA.
But the IAEA publishes all of its inspection reports. They're very easy to find on-line. Read them. See for yourself whether there's actual evidence to support US speculations that Iran is developing a bomb.
"Iran and the fanatical mullahs that control it will never give up their quest for nuclear weapons. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive at best and more likely delusional."
I get all hung up by the absence of evidence.
Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty decades ago, and has long been the most-inspected country in the world by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That was true before the Iran nuclear deal was signed, and now those inspections will be even more extensive. True enough, there have been differences of opinion on what Iran's Safeguards Agreement requires -- as has been true of other countries that have signed SAs -- and the US relentlessly accuses Iran of violating the NPT and its SA.
But the IAEA publishes all of its inspection reports. They're very easy to find on-line. Read them. See for yourself whether there's actual evidence to support US speculations that Iran is developing a bomb.
7
"Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty decades ago, and has long been the most-inspected country in the world by the International Atomic Energy Agency."
But the Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed with "infidels" and Muslims do not have to honor agreements with infidels..
But the Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed with "infidels" and Muslims do not have to honor agreements with infidels..
2
"Building nuclear weapons is nothing more than a death wish. As with guns, if you don't want to get nuked, don't have nuclear bombs."
I strongly favor non-proliferation, but I acknowledge that history doesn't support these assertions.
Japan didn't have a nuclear weapon, for example, and it got nuked twice -- indeed, it's the only country that's ever been nuked. North Korea has nuclear weapons, and it's never been nuked. More than a decade ago, Alan Dershowitz (and many others) urged that the US nuke Tehran BECAUSE Iran didn't have nukes but might get them some day if we didn't nuke Iran very soon. Most of those who urged nuking Iran argued it would be "too late" if the US waited until Iran actually had nukes.
I strongly favor non-proliferation, but I acknowledge that history doesn't support these assertions.
Japan didn't have a nuclear weapon, for example, and it got nuked twice -- indeed, it's the only country that's ever been nuked. North Korea has nuclear weapons, and it's never been nuked. More than a decade ago, Alan Dershowitz (and many others) urged that the US nuke Tehran BECAUSE Iran didn't have nukes but might get them some day if we didn't nuke Iran very soon. Most of those who urged nuking Iran argued it would be "too late" if the US waited until Iran actually had nukes.
4
Yes, there are a few countries that are all nuked up. It is an enormous expense.
There is simple fact of human nature we need to acknowledge. People are ungovernable unless they consent to be governed. It is a scale-independent phenomenon.
There is simple fact of human nature we need to acknowledge. People are ungovernable unless they consent to be governed. It is a scale-independent phenomenon.
1
"Please explain to us how it is that Israel has so much power over us that they could lead our country into another war."
Wish I could help you, but I can't. Some things just ARE, but nobody can explain them. This is one of those things.
Be comforted by two thoughts:
1. You're not the only one puzzled by this.
2. At least Israel hasn't yet caused the US to go to war against Iran (and I'm now confident this won't happen).
Wish I could help you, but I can't. Some things just ARE, but nobody can explain them. This is one of those things.
Be comforted by two thoughts:
1. You're not the only one puzzled by this.
2. At least Israel hasn't yet caused the US to go to war against Iran (and I'm now confident this won't happen).
2
This patch land is called "Holy" by many different people who want to suppress diversity there.
"But Mr. Obama’s strategy had a major coercive element as well. This included covert actions..."
Of course -- that was hardly a secret.
Was Jason Rezaian involved in this? Who knows?
Obviously the Iranians said yes. Rezaian says no, as does his employer, the Washington Post – which means either that Rezaian was not involved or that he was involved but neglected to mention this to his employer.
SOMEBODY was carrying out these covert actions for the US. The mere fact that Rezaian is a Washington Post reporter doesn't establish his innocence. Apart from embassy employees, journalist are often the most fertile source of agents for foreign governments.
I have utterly no idea whether Rezaian was involved, which makes me as well-informed on this question as the Washington Post.
Of course -- that was hardly a secret.
Was Jason Rezaian involved in this? Who knows?
Obviously the Iranians said yes. Rezaian says no, as does his employer, the Washington Post – which means either that Rezaian was not involved or that he was involved but neglected to mention this to his employer.
SOMEBODY was carrying out these covert actions for the US. The mere fact that Rezaian is a Washington Post reporter doesn't establish his innocence. Apart from embassy employees, journalist are often the most fertile source of agents for foreign governments.
I have utterly no idea whether Rezaian was involved, which makes me as well-informed on this question as the Washington Post.
4
Building nuclear weapons is nothing more than a death wish. As with guns, if you don't want to get nuked, don't have nuclear bombs.
We would have won that war with Iran the author fears, as easily as we won the Iraq war. Remember, we lost 125 men in the one month it took to destroy the Iraq military. We lost too many lives trying to occupy and build a nation. That was not the real war, that was the police action that took place afterwards. If we went into Iran and destroyed the military and nuclear capacity it would have taken a month and it would have set them back a decade. Then we could have pulled out after achieving our objective. Now we have a deal which accepts them as a future nuclear power. And when they get that bomb, its a war we can't win. Thanks Obama, my grandchildren will pay the price of your glory.
5
"We would have won that war with Iran the author fears, as easily as we won the Iraq war. "
We can completely destroyed Iran without the loss of any American lives. All it would take is fourteen x W88 nuclear warheads, the payload of only two Trident D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles, and a president with the guts to give the launch order.
We can completely destroyed Iran without the loss of any American lives. All it would take is fourteen x W88 nuclear warheads, the payload of only two Trident D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles, and a president with the guts to give the launch order.
1
I'm glad you weren't in the White House for the Vietnam War.
5
a peace in the hand is worth two wars in the bush/future?
Thank God for President Obama. He has prevented as many wars as he has ended. Who counts the soldiers that didn't die, the national treasure that wasn't wasted, the widows and widowers who weren't created, the children who weren't orphaned?
21
History is there to prove that it was the duplicitous schemes of the British and Americans that created the mess in Iran; in 1913 the British grabbed Iranian oil and made it their property. Six years later, Britain imposed another agreement and took over Iran’s treasury and the army. During the Second World War, Britain’s requisitioning of food led to famine and widespread disease. Shortly after that war, Iran’s own efforts to establish its nascent democracy and nationalize the oil industry were thwarted. And by whom? Uncharacteristically, Eisenhower joined the systematic British looting, and, sadly, by 1953, the blossoming Iranian democracy was completely destroyed by the covert operation of American CIA and British MI6, known as Operation Ajax. In place of the democracy was installed Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, a US-British puppet, a despot deeply hated by his own people. His fall to the Khomeini’s mullahs was so precipitated that even today Iranians see it as a British plot, branding Britain as “Original Satan.” So we own the problem, one that needs resolving.
20
In other words, the United States officially mistrusts democracy. That is quite obvious when one lives in the US. Where people are kept ignorant, democracy simply isn't an option.
7
democracy is a very dangerous option where people are ignorant. that's why Jefferson wanted to expand education, but maybe we've forgotten that. it's why the Taliban keeps hitting schools. it's why US oligarchs damage public education.
Iran and the fanatical mullahs that control it will never give up their quest for nuclear weapons. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive at best and more likely delusional. Obama has given them $150 billion and a path to those weapons with the one sided deal he unilaterally agreed to without the input or consent of Congress. Now Iran will do in secret what they previously did in the open. Their centrifuges will spin deep in some hidden bunker, and they will purchase the necessary components for nuclear weapons on the black market. Russia will sell them these components in a heartbeat. Obama has simply postponed the inevitable confrontation and passed the buck to his successor and Israel to do what needs to be done.
1
The $150 billion was impounded Iranian money.
Yes, Islam has things to work out. So do people who boast that they are Christians.
Yes, Islam has things to work out. So do people who boast that they are Christians.
10
Cheney wanted to bomb Syria ??? I'm stunned.
3
"
Mr. Obama had little doubt that if Israel started a conflict, the United States would be unable to stay out. That was t"
That is what the Israelis and their paranoid racist prime minister depend, others dying for the insane religious beliefs.
Mr. Obama had little doubt that if Israel started a conflict, the United States would be unable to stay out. That was t"
That is what the Israelis and their paranoid racist prime minister depend, others dying for the insane religious beliefs.
5
Please explain to us how it is that Israel has so much power over us that they could lead our country into another war. How is it that Republicans and some Democrats could get away with inviting the leader of a foreign country to speak to Congress and applaud this leader when he undermines our president?
And as for Iran....some of us recall that Iran was a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement and had IAEA inspectors all along. Iran had every right to peaceful nuclear power.
And as for Iran....some of us recall that Iran was a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement and had IAEA inspectors all along. Iran had every right to peaceful nuclear power.
11
As to how it is that Israel has so much power, I suggest you read the book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by Mearsheimer and Walt.
5
Dear Mr Sanger,
I am a staunch Supporter of Israel,and have been a loyal out spoken Liberal Democrat.My Liberal instincts have eroded due to the venomous & prejudicial attitude towards Israel by Liberals & in particular Black America, who throughout my life I have supported, in their struggles against racism, this will never change.There are two eye openers for me in your article.The first was Cheney's support for Israel, in destroying Iran's Nuclear facilities. I had referred to Cheney as a villain, who's only interest in the Middle East was oil I had over looked Hillary's embrace of Arafat's wife as the excitement of the moment thing, but I was unaware she was so upset over the assassination of the Iranian Nuclear Scientists,
Mr Sanger has just touched upon the surface of the hidden deals that went on to get Iran to agree to to pull back from their Nuclear endeavor.One Glaring thing that no one brings up is why did we agree to allow Russia to receive Iran's nuclear fuel, knowing full well, Russia ,Iran & Assad were in bed with each other.Another bothersome issue is why did Obama let the FBI Agent Levenson vanquish in an Iranian jail for the past 8 years & why wasn't he included in the prisoner swap.This Deal has been lauded as a great accomplishment for Obama, I firmly believe it might just be the greatest give away ever perpetrated by a sitting President, & the basis of the future unrest in the world.
I am a staunch Supporter of Israel,and have been a loyal out spoken Liberal Democrat.My Liberal instincts have eroded due to the venomous & prejudicial attitude towards Israel by Liberals & in particular Black America, who throughout my life I have supported, in their struggles against racism, this will never change.There are two eye openers for me in your article.The first was Cheney's support for Israel, in destroying Iran's Nuclear facilities. I had referred to Cheney as a villain, who's only interest in the Middle East was oil I had over looked Hillary's embrace of Arafat's wife as the excitement of the moment thing, but I was unaware she was so upset over the assassination of the Iranian Nuclear Scientists,
Mr Sanger has just touched upon the surface of the hidden deals that went on to get Iran to agree to to pull back from their Nuclear endeavor.One Glaring thing that no one brings up is why did we agree to allow Russia to receive Iran's nuclear fuel, knowing full well, Russia ,Iran & Assad were in bed with each other.Another bothersome issue is why did Obama let the FBI Agent Levenson vanquish in an Iranian jail for the past 8 years & why wasn't he included in the prisoner swap.This Deal has been lauded as a great accomplishment for Obama, I firmly believe it might just be the greatest give away ever perpetrated by a sitting President, & the basis of the future unrest in the world.
5
Post 9/11 Iran was looking to cut a deal with the US, to come in from the cold and triangulate Saudi Arabia so that Iran can claim the mantel of leadership of the Muslim world. Instead, they got the Axis of Evil label. Genius! Beyond Stupid.
12
In order to believe this "news" (i.e. Obama WH propaganda) you are required to forget what Barack Obama said repeatedly in 2012.
Obama REPEATEDLY declared that he was going to end Iran's nuclear program. Now in classic Obamacare bait and switch, "ending" Iran's nuclear program has been replaced with "delaying" Iran's nuclear program. And the NYT is tripping over each other to sell this garbage to the American people.
Remember when HHS Secretary Sebelius got caught padding newspapers with "news" stories designed to cast the ACA in a positive light? Remember when the Obama WH got caught leaking classified information to the news media about the Bin Laden raid? How about the Pentagon whistleblower who told us the WH fabricated stories about ISIS on the run to help Obama's 2012 run?
Here. We. Go. Again.
Under no sane application of human thought are we in ANY position to take a victory lap on Iran, given the ridiculous deal Obama has made which actually ENABLES Iran's aspirations as a global and nuclear power.
Yet here we are, pompoms waving.
Why?
Obama REPEATEDLY declared that he was going to end Iran's nuclear program. Now in classic Obamacare bait and switch, "ending" Iran's nuclear program has been replaced with "delaying" Iran's nuclear program. And the NYT is tripping over each other to sell this garbage to the American people.
Remember when HHS Secretary Sebelius got caught padding newspapers with "news" stories designed to cast the ACA in a positive light? Remember when the Obama WH got caught leaking classified information to the news media about the Bin Laden raid? How about the Pentagon whistleblower who told us the WH fabricated stories about ISIS on the run to help Obama's 2012 run?
Here. We. Go. Again.
Under no sane application of human thought are we in ANY position to take a victory lap on Iran, given the ridiculous deal Obama has made which actually ENABLES Iran's aspirations as a global and nuclear power.
Yet here we are, pompoms waving.
Why?
10
@DC, please don't confuse the loyal followers with logic it just upsets them.
1
Here's a sane application of human thought:
- Iran reduced its low-enriched uranium stockpile by 98%.
- Iran dismantled 12,000 centrifuges.
- Iran filled the core of its nuclear reactor at Arak with concrete.
- Iran implemented the transparency measures required for continual monitoring.
So Iran no longer has enough fuel to build a nuclear weapon and they no longer have the facilities to manufacture the fuel needed to build a nuclear weapon.
And this was all confirmed by the UN/IAEA, not America.
Feel free to use facts and logic to prove my insanity.
- Iran reduced its low-enriched uranium stockpile by 98%.
- Iran dismantled 12,000 centrifuges.
- Iran filled the core of its nuclear reactor at Arak with concrete.
- Iran implemented the transparency measures required for continual monitoring.
So Iran no longer has enough fuel to build a nuclear weapon and they no longer have the facilities to manufacture the fuel needed to build a nuclear weapon.
And this was all confirmed by the UN/IAEA, not America.
Feel free to use facts and logic to prove my insanity.
4
Boy, are you a cynic! Obama was totally successful - HELLO. You should congratulate him, not pass negative comments.
Their fuel is gone, and they are following their terms and the UN inspectors have full access and are fully inspecting their facilities.
Meanwhile, Obama has developed missles with nuclear warheads that are small but extremely powerful. They could now easily use these to destroy any bunker. These nuclear missles are precise, yet extremely powerful, but much less than conventional nuclear war heads which would create a real war. The United States is the only country to have it.
So he achieved peace, and he also has a strategy to take out any future threats. North Korea at this time, is not a threat, just a little boy screaming he is.
Their fuel is gone, and they are following their terms and the UN inspectors have full access and are fully inspecting their facilities.
Meanwhile, Obama has developed missles with nuclear warheads that are small but extremely powerful. They could now easily use these to destroy any bunker. These nuclear missles are precise, yet extremely powerful, but much less than conventional nuclear war heads which would create a real war. The United States is the only country to have it.
So he achieved peace, and he also has a strategy to take out any future threats. North Korea at this time, is not a threat, just a little boy screaming he is.
1
"When the final history of this remarkable encounter between Washington and Tehran is written, the story is likely to be far more complex."
And, that story will not come out of NYTimes. Stephen Kinzer or somebody like him will write it when it no longer matters.
And, that story will not come out of NYTimes. Stephen Kinzer or somebody like him will write it when it no longer matters.
3
Thanks for providing a good example of how the introduction of wide spread use of classified information as well as our covert programs in 1947 are more about domestic maneuvering than 'keeping the country safe'. This article asserts that our highly secret program of sabotage was key to bringing peace--but of course, no way of testing that assumption, and no information provided on each of the projects that actually made things considerably worse. The US had a moment where it looked like we were going to push back our use of covert programs in the seventies--but Cheney and others worked hard to insist that our government's way of conducting foreign policy required “our intelligence capability to a certain extent be cloaked in mystery and held in awe.”http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB522-Church-Committee-Faced-White-H... --so, based on illusions, that's why things aren't very stable in the world. The greater our collective illusions, the worse our decisions will be.
5
One glaring omission in the article is the admission of guilt.
The 1979 Islamic revolution wasn't born out of nothing; Iranians - rightly, or wrongly - rose up against the autocratic, corruption-laden rule of the Shah, put in power by the CIA, after the democratically elected leader, Mossadegh was overthrown (the same script was later repeated in Chile).
Whatever the Iranians have done since 1979 has to be considered in this context.
The 1979 Islamic revolution wasn't born out of nothing; Iranians - rightly, or wrongly - rose up against the autocratic, corruption-laden rule of the Shah, put in power by the CIA, after the democratically elected leader, Mossadegh was overthrown (the same script was later repeated in Chile).
Whatever the Iranians have done since 1979 has to be considered in this context.
33
Sabotage delayed Iran's acquisition for years -- especially the killings of scientists in nuclear and weapons research and cyber-warfare as in the case of Stuxnet. My guess is that Israeli intelligence was central to the campaign against Iran's acquisition of the technology needed. Under Obama, the US has betrayed this reliable and extremely talented ally on many fronts -- Iran first and foremost. Israel needs the US; the US also needs Israel. But Israel may be less inclined in the future for partnerships involving grave risks to their own people considering the "reward" they received from Obama.
5
Something to hope for....
3
Yes, scientists were killed.
It sure would be nice if there were more physics jobs outside the armaments industries.
It sure would be nice if there were more physics jobs outside the armaments industries.
1
I can only be grateful that a patient, measured, persistent plan and leadership prevailed over bellicose preemptive action to prove a point of nationalism. If war comes, if these hadn't worked, then that would be a reason. We shouldn't be eager to bring it.
32
As a soldier, the concept of Operational Security (OPSEC) was drilled into us for any operation or exercise, regardless of size or scope, that we were planning or executing. Often I was required to sign a document stating that I would not disclose details. Why do officials in all administrations feel compelled to release details? Any detail released, no matter how small, can provide some information that might help an intelligence analyst complete a picture.
11
The truly desperate are trying to shore up his legacy as President. Just read the fawning comments from the loyal.
4
Disinformation is widely distributed, deliberately.
1
Thank you, Mr. President.
16
Back in law school, we were trained to find "outs" key phrases that give away the true meaning of what we are reading. Here's the "out" in today's NYT puff piece about how Barack Obama just saved the world from Iran's nuclear ambitions, despite the fact that Iran was JUST sanctioned again for its weapons program days ago.
"When the final history of this remarkable encounter between Washington and Tehran is written, the story is likely to be far more complex."
Pro Tip: When anybody you're talking to, or reading uses this sentence, they are hedging--avoiding the consequences of an earlier conclusion. In the same article, the NYT parrots the Obama WH talking points, cheering Obama for saving the universe and walking on water, then the NYT hedges, saying "oh the real facts are complex, and later in history we may (i.e. will) be wrong about the conclusion we are trying to sell you today.
I apologize for interrupting today's Obama victory lap on Iran, but I just returned from Europe. When I am there, no matter where, I always seek out their version of America's political Sunday shows to see what Europeans are saying about America.
I will say this as plainly as I can.
Not one major European nation, not one of our allies over there agree with the NYT narrative that Obama is blameless, flawless and has healed the world with his brilliance. Not one. When the entire world disagrees with you, maybe it's time for a second look fellas.
"When the final history of this remarkable encounter between Washington and Tehran is written, the story is likely to be far more complex."
Pro Tip: When anybody you're talking to, or reading uses this sentence, they are hedging--avoiding the consequences of an earlier conclusion. In the same article, the NYT parrots the Obama WH talking points, cheering Obama for saving the universe and walking on water, then the NYT hedges, saying "oh the real facts are complex, and later in history we may (i.e. will) be wrong about the conclusion we are trying to sell you today.
I apologize for interrupting today's Obama victory lap on Iran, but I just returned from Europe. When I am there, no matter where, I always seek out their version of America's political Sunday shows to see what Europeans are saying about America.
I will say this as plainly as I can.
Not one major European nation, not one of our allies over there agree with the NYT narrative that Obama is blameless, flawless and has healed the world with his brilliance. Not one. When the entire world disagrees with you, maybe it's time for a second look fellas.
15
You posted twice nearly simultaneously putting forward many of the same arguments. Say it loud enough and often enough and some people will believe it?
1
Funnily enough, I just got back myself. And you're hallucinating: where they mention this country at all, what you mainly hear is applause for the Iran deal and the Paris summit.
If anything, you hear and see way more about the summit. And it's appoval.
If anything, you hear and see way more about the summit. And it's appoval.
6
No offense, but I think your problem started when you went to Law school. When "intellectualism" trumps emphatic reasoning in every instance then we know we have a problem. What is it that Iran wants? What is their motivation? It's not to "glow orange" as Mr Cruz suggests. In Obama speak, the question is clear "How does this end?". You and your cohorts answer of mushroom clouds over Tehran isn't much of an answer.
7
Funny, I don't recall the U.S. Congress authorizing military action against Iran. Must've missed that. Proving once again that Obama is every bit the imperialist that his predecessor was.
7
Is this a comic book or a newspaper?
Help me understand why the NYT is racing to give Barack Obama credit for a program dating back to the Clinton Administration? And while you're at it, since the article provides no credible proof, how does the NYT conclude that Iran isn't going to get a nuclear weapon, or that a major world war won't start in the Middle East?
I'll admit that I am confused, particularly after coming back from Brussels a few days ago. Since no country in Europe agrees with anything written in this article, it threw me. I get a little mixed up when no world leaders agree with any of the rah-rah Obama nonsense we are fed by this newspaper.
Let me repeat this.
Not one of our major allies in Europe would agree with a sentence written in this article about Iran's weapons aspirations or the notion that somehow Obama has saved the world. Not France. Not the UK. Not Germany. Not Italy. I've been there. Read their newspapers. Talked to their politicos. Not one.
By plying this propaganda from the Obama WH as news, the NYT is sabotaging its credibility.
Help me understand why the NYT is racing to give Barack Obama credit for a program dating back to the Clinton Administration? And while you're at it, since the article provides no credible proof, how does the NYT conclude that Iran isn't going to get a nuclear weapon, or that a major world war won't start in the Middle East?
I'll admit that I am confused, particularly after coming back from Brussels a few days ago. Since no country in Europe agrees with anything written in this article, it threw me. I get a little mixed up when no world leaders agree with any of the rah-rah Obama nonsense we are fed by this newspaper.
Let me repeat this.
Not one of our major allies in Europe would agree with a sentence written in this article about Iran's weapons aspirations or the notion that somehow Obama has saved the world. Not France. Not the UK. Not Germany. Not Italy. I've been there. Read their newspapers. Talked to their politicos. Not one.
By plying this propaganda from the Obama WH as news, the NYT is sabotaging its credibility.
8
I was thinking that very same thing, perhaps the loyal can't read or understand basic reading skills. Thank you Mr. President? For what? Continuing what was already in place long before he became President? The loyal are delusional.
2
Uh...it may be time to polish up those reading skills. Because what this article essentially argues is that for some pretty good reasons, Obama and his administation have avoided publicly discussing programs of sabotage begun under Clinton and then continued and amplified under Bush.
In other words, the article says that the sabotage program was at least as important as sanctions and diplomacy in getting Iran to come to the table and cut a deal.
Your intelligent criticism would be, in fact, that this Admin has taken credit without mentioning the groundwork by two precious Presidents. i'd disagree, but that would be an intelligent criticism based on what this article actually says.
In other words, the article says that the sabotage program was at least as important as sanctions and diplomacy in getting Iran to come to the table and cut a deal.
Your intelligent criticism would be, in fact, that this Admin has taken credit without mentioning the groundwork by two precious Presidents. i'd disagree, but that would be an intelligent criticism based on what this article actually says.
5
It is more likely that WW III will be between Islam and the West than between China and the US.
2
Interesting, could Netanyahu's posturing have helped along the deal he presumably hated? Maybe he and Obama planned it that way all along? Just wondering.
Another example of Obama resisting the drums of war and using power wisely.
17
The people of America were smart to reelect the President in 2012.
There was one reason that Netanyahu openly campaigned, in the US, for Cranbrook Prep guy cheerleader, Viet Nam draft dodger Willard Mitty Romney.
War with Iran. Willard already had the dancing pony for his cameo charge, in mufti, across the South Lawn of the White House as Willard of Iran.
If you thought the military disasters, spawned by Andover Prep guy cheerleader, Viet Nam dodger Boy George Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq were bad consider that Iran is four times larger and four times a populous as Iraq.
Bear in mind that the current republican front runner, serial bankruptee il Trompolini is one more belligerent, tough talker, who, pleaded physical infirmity, to dodge the Viet Nam draft.
Born cowards live to PLAY tough guys.
With the lives of other people's children and innocents abroad.
There was one reason that Netanyahu openly campaigned, in the US, for Cranbrook Prep guy cheerleader, Viet Nam draft dodger Willard Mitty Romney.
War with Iran. Willard already had the dancing pony for his cameo charge, in mufti, across the South Lawn of the White House as Willard of Iran.
If you thought the military disasters, spawned by Andover Prep guy cheerleader, Viet Nam dodger Boy George Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq were bad consider that Iran is four times larger and four times a populous as Iraq.
Bear in mind that the current republican front runner, serial bankruptee il Trompolini is one more belligerent, tough talker, who, pleaded physical infirmity, to dodge the Viet Nam draft.
Born cowards live to PLAY tough guys.
With the lives of other people's children and innocents abroad.
31
Truly an immense accomplishment! Obama, immensely undeserving Nobel Peace laureate, maybe, maybe, not sure, deserved now for standing up to the Likudniks that was the US Congress (a performance that by any rational analysis was treason).
Obama standing tall despite 29 standing ovations by a treasonous Congress (why not call their conduct for what it was?).
Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Obama - you have the thanks of our nation.
No body bags from Iran, no new trillion-scale war in the middle East.
No surrender, no sufferance instructions from Netanyahu.
Obama standing tall despite 29 standing ovations by a treasonous Congress (why not call their conduct for what it was?).
Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Obama - you have the thanks of our nation.
No body bags from Iran, no new trillion-scale war in the middle East.
No surrender, no sufferance instructions from Netanyahu.
29
How is it, exactly, that Israel, which has never ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has a massive "secret" nuclear arsenal (and, of course, lots of centrifuges), and regularly bombs and invades its neighbors, gets to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists without repercussions? Perhaps its time for a new sanctions regime--but let's stick with sanctions: no assassinations or cyber-sabotage. International law alone should do the trick
26
What doesn't happen, clearly, is often more important than what does. The alternation of action and restraint, commission and omission, is certainly an underestimated art, requiring courage, open to evaluation only in retrospect. Mysterious, almost mystical.
10
"Netanyahu has been warning the world of Iran's "imminent" nuclear threat for more than 20 years. In 1992, Benjamin Netanyahu, then a parliamentarian, warned that Iran was three to five years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon. He implored that the threat should be, "uprooted by an international front headed by the US". Twenty years later, Netanyahu still calls for action against Tehran, "before it is too late". He claims that Tehran is "running out the clock"." (Asia Times Online, "Rouhani's outlook riles Israeli hardliners", June 26, 2013)
[French President] "Sarkozy tells Obama Netanyahu is a "liar"" (Reuters, Nov 8, 2011)
"Leaked cables show Netanyahu’s Iran bomb claim contradicted by Mossad" (TheGuardian, 23 February 2015)
"Netanyahu told cabinet: Our biggest fear is that Iran will honor nuclear deal" (Haaretz, Apr. 12, 2015)