What were the other signees going to do if we failed to come to an agreement? Were the committed to life as it was prior to the agreement, or would they have contemplated lifting sanctions or acting in other ways to contrary to the way it was?
Nuclear Accord with Iran
- Thread starter knowknow456
- Start date
I have posted this site before but there is another relevant intelligence squared debate on this topic. Worth a listen if it interests you.
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/1347-obamas-iran-deal-is-good-for-america
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/1347-obamas-iran-deal-is-good-for-america
What made the sanctions effective was the fact the US, EU, Russia and China all agreed to enforce them. That kind of global coalition is hard to achieve and maintain. Once Iran signaled a willingness to move ahead on nuclear concessions the sanctions were doomed to fall. Russia and China are ready to move on and will drop the sanctions if we veto to the deal. The EU is conflicted but will probably follow suit. The US can go it alone but it wont have any meaningful effect on Iran.
If the deal falls apart, Iran's nuclear program remains where it is today. That may be good enough for some but I believe it will be an squandered opportunity
Today is the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. You have to be about 80 years old to have a meaningful memory about the end of World War II. You need to be 70 or so to remember to duck and cover, about 60 to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis and approximately 40 to recall "We begin bombing in five minutes". Over the past 30 plus years the nuclear threat has diminished in the public consciousness from a fact of life to a more theoretical fact of life. The ongoing debate over the Iran deal is a reminder that nuclear arms are still a thing.
There is often commentary about whether Truman should have authorized dropping the bombs. Perhaps those 200,000 (who knows how many) lives lost in that one week period seventy years ago scarred leaders sufficiently to prevent it from happening again, thereby saving millions more lives. Who knows. Let's hope those lessons stay learned and we don't need to remind ourselves with first hand proof
There is often commentary about whether Truman should have authorized dropping the bombs. Perhaps those 200,000 (who knows how many) lives lost in that one week period seventy years ago scarred leaders sufficiently to prevent it from happening again, thereby saving millions more lives. Who knows. Let's hope those lessons stay learned and we don't need to remind ourselves with first hand proof
AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press
VIENNA (AP) -- Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-13-06-05
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press
VIENNA (AP) -- Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-13-06-05
Senator Bob Menendez was at SHU yesterday and explained why he thinks the Nuclear pact is a bad deal , why Obama is dead wrong,and why he will vote against it. Chuck Schumer also will vote against it and cross party lines. It is not, in my opinion about crossing party lines, as it is about doing what is best for the world and America. I applaud Senator Menendez for his common sense approach. The full speech can be viewed on his website.
Diplomatically speaking, this is a clear win for Iran. One of the last major points of contention was Iran's reluctance to open up this site, claiming it was a military and not a nuclear site. The concept of allowing the Iranians to tell us what is going on at this site would be amusing if the stakes weren't so high. As a practical matter, the issue is not as much of a win. This site has been known for years and we most likely have substantial, if incomplete, evidence as to what is there. In many ways, having the Iranians tell us what is there is like asking a question we already know most of the answer to. We can use the Iranian answer, assuming it is incomplete, as a guide to how serious they intend to honor the overall agreement as well as leverage with our G5+1 partners to give them pause considering that overall they want to move forward with Iran at a quicker pace than we would like. In the end, this revelation should do little to change anyone's opinion.
Senators Menendez and Schumer should be applauded for breaking party ranks and voting against the deal if they truly believe the deal is bad. That being said, I was disappointed that every Republican senator will vote against the deal. Logically, there must be at least a couple who would consider voting for the deal but party pressure has suppressed them.
Senators Menendez and Schumer should be applauded for breaking party ranks and voting against the deal if they truly believe the deal is bad. That being said, I was disappointed that every Republican senator will vote against the deal. Logically, there must be at least a couple who would consider voting for the deal but party pressure has suppressed them.
you really think that any of this is done on the merits from these two? This is strictly capitulating to their hawkish Israeli donors (forget the name of that one part. special interest group), esp. in the case of Schumer. It's so obvious. Plus, Menendez has been a sabre-rattling Dem a la Lieberman for a while now, just less dramatic about it.
[QUOTE="knowknow456, post: 91011, member: 1072"
Senators Menendez and Schumer should be applauded for breaking party ranks and voting against the deal if they truly believe the deal is bad. That being said, I was disappointed that every Republican senator will vote against the deal. Logically, there must be at least a couple who would consider voting for the deal but party pressure has suppressed them.[/QUOTE]
I agree. The legislators should vote their conscience not their political party. Unfortunately this rarely happens. Too many feel they are supposed to represent their political party rather than their constituents.
Tom K
Senators Menendez and Schumer should be applauded for breaking party ranks and voting against the deal if they truly believe the deal is bad. That being said, I was disappointed that every Republican senator will vote against the deal. Logically, there must be at least a couple who would consider voting for the deal but party pressure has suppressed them.[/QUOTE]
I agree. The legislators should vote their conscience not their political party. Unfortunately this rarely happens. Too many feel they are supposed to represent their political party rather than their constituents.
Tom K
Just to tidy up this thread, in the end, only four Democrats crossed the party line to vote against the agreement. That was not enough to override a Presidential veto. In fact, it wasn't even enough to force the vote to happen at all. Early on, I had my doubts this would be the outcome but its seems Republicans opposition focused too much on partisan rhetoric and too little on the real threats of this agreement. As a result, enough Democrats who were on the fence fell in line behind the President. It was certainly easier to vote against the deal and be wrong as opposed to the other way around. So, the deal will move ahead, at lest until January, 2017 when President Carump, (or is it President Trumson?) rips ups the deal and negotiates a better one.
Opponents of the deal (in the Senate) have known since April they needed 67 "No" votes to override the inevitable Presidential veto and 61 "No" votes to overcome the filibuster. Nothing changed in the intervening months. For whatever reason, there were not enough "No" votes so the up and down vote became unnecessary. The good news is the country had 60 days to learn about and debate the agreement, every Senator had to come out in advance of the vote and signal their support or opposition to the agreement, and the House had their up and down vote, even if that vote was largely symbolic. So, the goal of Congressional review was completely satisfied.
It is ok to call out Democrats for filibustering the final up and down but those are the rules as currently written. I would venture to say that Republicans would have done the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot.
It is ok to call out Democrats for filibustering the final up and down but those are the rules as currently written. I would venture to say that Republicans would have done the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot.
We were doomed once John Kerry was negotiating this deal. He has no balls at all and once the deal was negotiated we were basically screwed. We left our prisoners behind too. So far our negotiations with Iran and Cuba have given us nothing. With Cuba Obama and his corporate buddies will make a fortune - he is so in bed with corporate America its not even funny. Cuba happened because they stopped getting money from Venezuela and Russia who are both hurting financially and we stepped in and filled the void immediately and have received no Joanne Chesimard and no concessions on any human rights there. Follow the money.
And with Iran, the deal that was struck was simply terrible and will only delay their nukes a little which is the positive but empower them to fund so much more terror in the middle east (now that they will have access to the billions of dollars that were tied up) that we will be looking at more war and terrorism there very soon. This is simply Negotiations 101 and Kerry and Obama failed miserably.
And with Iran, the deal that was struck was simply terrible and will only delay their nukes a little which is the positive but empower them to fund so much more terror in the middle east (now that they will have access to the billions of dollars that were tied up) that we will be looking at more war and terrorism there very soon. This is simply Negotiations 101 and Kerry and Obama failed miserably.
Last edited:
Section112, Your post is practically verbatim from conservative talking points.
I don't understand attacking John Kerry on this as not having any balls. There were 5 other countries in the talks to negotiate the deal. Was he supposed to unzip his pants and throw his balls on the table or was he there to work with all of the countries involved to come up with an agreement?
Saying we will see more war and terrorism very soon is just complete propaganda and not really supportable. The bill has many supporters among Nonproliferation experts, and even Colin Powell went on TV stating that it was a good deal.
I think I am on their side for now. Doesn't sound like it is perfect, but I don't think perfect was on the table.
I don't understand attacking John Kerry on this as not having any balls. There were 5 other countries in the talks to negotiate the deal. Was he supposed to unzip his pants and throw his balls on the table or was he there to work with all of the countries involved to come up with an agreement?
Saying we will see more war and terrorism very soon is just complete propaganda and not really supportable. The bill has many supporters among Nonproliferation experts, and even Colin Powell went on TV stating that it was a good deal.
I think I am on their side for now. Doesn't sound like it is perfect, but I don't think perfect was on the table.
Iran is a huge sponsor of terror and has a continued history of supporting terror across the middle east. That is a fact. Freeing up those funds will lead to more terrorism. That is not a fact yet but it will be based on prior experience and its a lot of money. That is simply the truth and is not a conservative talking point. Face the facts Merge. Here is what Khomeni said about the deal and he said Israel won't even be around in 25 years. http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/middleeast/iran-khamenei-israel-will-not-exist-25-years/ "God willing, there will be no such thing as a Zionist regime in 25 years (he's talking about Israel). Until then, struggling, heroic and jihadi morale will leave no moment of serenity for Zionists"
Not getting our hostages back is simply bad negotiation. That is a point that should have been a non-starter for us and the other countries.
All these folks are supporting the deal because the choices are A) No deal at all and everyone is scared that will lead to an immediate war which I agree would not be good, and B) Keep the bad deal that was negotiated. There are no other choices, so folks like Colin Powell are saying this is better than nothing. Very few people have come out and said this deal is fantastic. Why? Because it's not. So they are voting for better than nothing. Kerry was our point person who did work with the other countries to negotiate the "this is better than nothing" deal and he was appointed by the Prez so he gets the credit. Perfect was never on the table but this is not even a good deal.
Not getting our hostages back is simply bad negotiation. That is a point that should have been a non-starter for us and the other countries.
All these folks are supporting the deal because the choices are A) No deal at all and everyone is scared that will lead to an immediate war which I agree would not be good, and B) Keep the bad deal that was negotiated. There are no other choices, so folks like Colin Powell are saying this is better than nothing. Very few people have come out and said this deal is fantastic. Why? Because it's not. So they are voting for better than nothing. Kerry was our point person who did work with the other countries to negotiate the "this is better than nothing" deal and he was appointed by the Prez so he gets the credit. Perfect was never on the table but this is not even a good deal.
Hold on, are you talking about our Socialist President? Hobnobbing with capitalists, some Socialist...
Doesn't seem to matter which party they are in - they are all hobnobbing for the $. And for the record I dont think Obama is a socialist at all.
I posted this previously but it is worth a watch if you haven't.
Tom Pickering laid out the best argument in my mind for the deal. He starts at 27:20.
Not that the other sides don't have valid arguments but I think this is likely the best deal we could have had and is better than the alternative of having no deal.
Tom Pickering laid out the best argument in my mind for the deal. He starts at 27:20.
Not that the other sides don't have valid arguments but I think this is likely the best deal we could have had and is better than the alternative of having no deal.
You will note that once the audience was more educated about the details of the deal a larger percentage of the audience said they were against the deal.
Even though the agreement lost the debate I was actually encouraged by the results.
Before the debate it was 37% for and 19% against. After the debate it was 50% for and 43% against.
So, while the agreement failed to persuade a majority of the undecided people, it did manage to hold the original 37% in favor and increase it to 50%. Like many issues, this is not a slam dunk in either direction so keeping 50% in favor was more positive than negative, at least as I see it.
Either way its a much more dangerous world based on the actions/inactions of the US with our last two Presidencies. We should have never attacked Iraq and we should have never left after we did. Two very bad decisions and the vacuum has been filled with ISIS and more and its clear the world is not a safer place right now.
I read a very good article in the Singapore newspaper when I was there last week talking about how big of a mistake it was for the US to leave Iraq. It was very interesting to see that in another country across the world how much influence the US has (and I see this all the time with my travels outside of the US). They cited the fact that while the US should not be the world's police (and that the Iraq war was a mistake), look what happens when we stand down (implying when we pulled out of Iraq and have been an observer of most of what is going on). A very interesting perspective and front page article in the mainstream media in Asia that got picked up in Hong Kong and other places too. It surprised me frankly and in talking to my foreign clients this year vs a few years ago many agree and they want the US to be more involved. Not sure exactly where I stand (with family on the front lines in the Army) but it shows that the world is looking for leadership from the US. It was also surprising to me how many did not like Obama and I did not lead the conversation at all (I'm always quiet on my views because its very different outside of the US). I had a Chinese cab driver who seemed to be very well informed go off on our Pres. What he said was interesting to say the least. And two clients saying how disappointed they are that the hope and change never came about. I would day two or three years ago they did not have that opinion of the President. Needless to say they are very concerned about Islamic terrorism and warned me about a few new countries to not travel to because of it.
I read a very good article in the Singapore newspaper when I was there last week talking about how big of a mistake it was for the US to leave Iraq. It was very interesting to see that in another country across the world how much influence the US has (and I see this all the time with my travels outside of the US). They cited the fact that while the US should not be the world's police (and that the Iraq war was a mistake), look what happens when we stand down (implying when we pulled out of Iraq and have been an observer of most of what is going on). A very interesting perspective and front page article in the mainstream media in Asia that got picked up in Hong Kong and other places too. It surprised me frankly and in talking to my foreign clients this year vs a few years ago many agree and they want the US to be more involved. Not sure exactly where I stand (with family on the front lines in the Army) but it shows that the world is looking for leadership from the US. It was also surprising to me how many did not like Obama and I did not lead the conversation at all (I'm always quiet on my views because its very different outside of the US). I had a Chinese cab driver who seemed to be very well informed go off on our Pres. What he said was interesting to say the least. And two clients saying how disappointed they are that the hope and change never came about. I would day two or three years ago they did not have that opinion of the President. Needless to say they are very concerned about Islamic terrorism and warned me about a few new countries to not travel to because of it.
I never blamed Bush for getting us into or out of Iraq. I always thought it was Cheney who was driving the bus. Had 9/11 happened later in 43's Presidency he might have had more confidence to question what he was being told.
Personally, I don't feel we are any less safe than we were say, 10 years ago, at least as far as the Middle East goes. The danger just keeps shifting names and locations. The Russian threat has increased. Whether that actually becomes a real problem bears watching.
It is always interesting to hear perspective from the outside, so thanks for the info.
Personally, I don't feel we are any less safe than we were say, 10 years ago, at least as far as the Middle East goes. The danger just keeps shifting names and locations. The Russian threat has increased. Whether that actually becomes a real problem bears watching.
It is always interesting to hear perspective from the outside, so thanks for the info.
Last edited:
Our misdeeds didn't start with our worst pres in memory, Bush (and I say this not only cause of the war but for how he pissed away the balanced budget with hardly a shrug). Taking out the elected pres in the fifties by the CIA and installing the shah - done for cold war mangled thinking - was an event that put this situation in motion. We were rightly indignant because of the kidnapping of our embassy workers in the 70s but most of us didn't know what the CIA did.
Last edited:
Gwb, Cheney. Took surplus budget to huge deficit, had the worst foreign policy in our history. Destabilized the most dangerous place in the world. Obama is not my favorite, but the previous admin set the shit standard. Republicans love to act like the weren't the ones before obama
Last edited:
Iran and Cuba to start. The killing of Bin Laden. We removed the bulk of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan after over a decade of seemingly endless war.
We are more cooperative with our allies instead of the idea that America should go it alone despite what the rest of the world thinks. While there are areas I disagree with this president on, hopefully the days of America being the policeman of the world are coming to an end. He has not done enough in this regard, but he has certainly done better than his predecessor.
A few of the Republican candidates have advocated going back into Afghanistan and Iraq as well as troops in Syria and potential war with Iran... Many voters, lobbyists, politicians and think tanks within the Wilsonian Democracy Movement (Reps and Dems) have the view:
War in the ME = strong foreign policy = safe America
War in the ME = strong foreign policy = safe America
Not to mention... Does anyone notice the coincidence/hypocrisy is many of or Politicians criticizing the Iranian govt for talking. About "war with America" ... Yet a strong minority of our politicians are talking about "war with Iran" and even having a presidential candidate in 2008 singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"....
Interesting from a psychological and sociological point of view.
Interesting from a psychological and sociological point of view.
I am not an Obama fan, but I have heard too often recently how bad Obama is, but Gwb will go down in history as one of the worst.
I feel the same degree of safe as I did since 911. I think opening up Cuba was a no brainer and the Pope obviously agrees as he lobbied for it. I don't trust Iran but this also depended on what allies wanted.
Every country around Israel wants them blown off the face of the earth. Try living with that every day and every minute. I'm not sticking up for Bibi but unless you've lived what Israel is living I find it hard to understand and be critical.
