Iran deal reached

[fskimospy]

Will Schumer's decision (whatever it is) not be a surprise to you as well...o wise one?

lol. You do not take criticism well.

 

[cabri]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the deal works. In order to 'snap back' their 'punishment' does not need to be authorized by the UN. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

If the US brings forth an accusation that Iran has breached its obligations in the deal then it is brought before the Security Council. After both sides have their say then a vote is taken on whether or not to continue the suspension of sanctions, not whether to re-impose sanctions. Unless the vote passes, sanctions are immediately re-imposed, not the other way around as you said. Unlike most things in the UN the default is action, not inaction.

In short, any country with a veto in the UNSC can basically unilaterally reimpose sanctions at any time. A country like...say... the US.

If this is the case, good.

I suspect that Iran does not feel that this is the case.

Would you indicate to which section in the agreement that this condition is laid out.

 

[fskimospy]

If this is the case, good.

I suspect that Iran does not feel that this is the case.

Would you indicate to which section in the agreement that this condition is laid out.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/

Last part of section 36 and basically all of section 37.

...if the
complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant nonperformance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

37. Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. In such event, these provisions would not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with this JCPOA and the previous and current UN Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council, expressing its intention to prevent the reapplication of the provisions if the issue giving rise to the notification is resolved within this period, intends to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue of the Advisory Board. Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.

Bolding is mine.

 

[Sonikku]

The big question is if the World of Warcraft sanctions have been lifted.

 

[cabri]

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/

Last part of section 36 and basically all of section 37.

If the meaning of resolutions is understood by all to mean the sanctions; good

And thankyou

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

lol. You do not take criticism well.

You were criticizing me? I certainly didn't take it that way. Anyway, I was more confused as to the way you framed your response. Steve Israel just announced his position on the Iran deal...although not surprising, his position certainly wasn't known prior to his announcement and your saying he "always opposed this deal" is not true...at least in to realm of public statement.

 

[Blackjack200]

Anyway, I was more confused as to the way you framed your response.

You framed Israel's opposition as a defection.

 

[ivwshane]

You framed Israel's opposition as a defection.

Don't even bother.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You framed Israel's opposition as a defection.

He took an opposing position on a significant issue STRONGLY supported by Obama and party leadership...this is commonly characterized as "defection"....what do you call it?

 

[nickqt]

He took an opposing position on a significant issue STRONGLY supported by Obama and party leadership...this is commonly characterized as "defection"....what do you call it?

That's called defection in the Republican party.

In the Democratic party, it's called Wednesday.

Oh, and don't forget about Benghazi.

 

[ivwshane]

He took an opposing position on a significant issue STRONGLY supported by Obama and party leadership...this is commonly characterized as "defection"....what do you call it?

the desertion of one's country or cause in favor of an opposing one.

There can be no desertion without first occupying it first. His position was never one of support therefore he deserted nothing.

Your grasp of the English language is revealing.

 

[sportage]

I have to play devils advocate with Obama's Wednesday speech on the Iran deal.
Obama said its either a deal, or war.
That, if we have no deal then it will be only months until Iran has their bomb.
So, because of that time frame, a deal is better than no deal?

Well, I can see the holes in that logic. And the fuel for republicans opposed.
That, if what Obama said was true and actually believed by the Obama administration, that no deal means an Iran bomb within six months, then that tells us even the Obama administration believes Iran is hell bent on having the bomb deal or no deal.

So, if Iran is all that hell bent for a bomb, how would any deal change Iran's objective?
Sounds like what Obama is saying is, #1 we can not trust Iran PERIOD, and #2 Iran will have their bomb sooner or later, regardless.

Then you must proceed to the "deal" lifting the current sanctions against Iran.
If Iran is hell bent on making their bomb, how will pumping millions or billions back into their economy by the lifting of the current sanctions deter Iran from not wanting their bomb more now than ever before?
With all that moo-la pumped back into their economy, would Iran not be more able to make their bomb then find some way to hide this from inspections?

For Obama to admit Iran will have the bomb sooner or later, then claim pumping hoards of $$$ back into their economy would somehow convince Iran from making that bomb, seems a bit illogical even for Obama.

If your 17 year old kid is hell bent on sneaking out of the house after midnight to run with their friends, something you demanded your kid dare not do, then you buy that same kid a brand new corvette and leave the keys in the ignition parked in the driveway, well then... how is this not going to entice that kid more now than ever before?

The kid IS going to sneak out, whatever it takes, one way or another, take their car, and joyfully drive away foot to the peddle.
Should the parent really be all that surprised at the outcome?

I won't say the deal is a bad deal. Or war is better than no war. Or that we could even succeed in such a war considering next time such a war might include more than just the USA going it alone. Next time, Putin and the Soviets might get involved.
Then, you don't just have a war, you have WW III.
And the first to go up in smoke obliterated from the face of the earth, would be Israel.

 

[Zorkorist]

Obama, the President of the United States of America, is abusing his power to attempt to solidify his legacy as the worst president in history.

Socialist, Communist, Traitor.

-John

 

[Jhhnn]

I have to play devils advocate with Obama's Wednesday speech on the Iran deal.
Obama said its either a deal, or war.
That, if we have no deal then it will be only months until Iran has their bomb.
So, because of that time frame, a deal is better than no deal?

Well, I can see the holes in that logic. And the fuel for republicans opposed.
That, if what Obama said was true and actually believed by the Obama administration, that no deal means an Iran bomb within six months, then that tells us even the Obama administration believes Iran is hell bent on having the bomb deal or no deal.

So, if Iran is all that hell bent for a bomb, how would any deal change Iran's objective?
Sounds like what Obama is saying is, #1 we can not trust Iran PERIOD, and #2 Iran will have their bomb sooner or later, regardless.

Then you must proceed to the "deal" lifting the current sanctions against Iran.
If Iran is hell bent on making their bomb, how will pumping millions or billions back into their economy by the lifting of the current sanctions deter Iran from not wanting their bomb more now than ever before?
With all that moo-la pumped back into their economy, would Iran not be more able to make their bomb then find some way to hide this from inspections?

For Obama to admit Iran will have the bomb sooner or later, then claim pumping hoards of $$$ back into their economy would somehow convince Iran from making that bomb, seems a bit illogical even for Obama.

If your 17 year old kid is hell bent on sneaking out of the house after midnight to run with their friends, something you demanded your kid dare not do, then you buy that same kid a brand new corvette and leave the keys in the ignition parked in the driveway, well then... how is this not going to entice that kid more now than ever before?

The kid IS going to sneak out, whatever it takes, one way or another, take their car, and joyfully drive away foot to the peddle.
Should the parent really be all that surprised at the outcome?

I won't say the deal is a bad deal. Or war is better than no war. Or that we could even succeed in such a war considering next time such a war might include more than just the USA going it alone. Next time, Putin and the Soviets might get involved.
Then, you don't just have a war, you have WW III.
And the first to go up in smoke obliterated from the face of the earth, would be Israel.

Iran is not a 17 year old kid.

If Iran were hell bent on weapons and if it were possible to hide production of weapons grade materials from inspectors, then Iran would already have said weapons.

All the speculative bullshit charges right past the central point of the agreement, that weapons cannot exist w/o weapons grade materials. Iran has agreed to downblend the vast majority of their stocks of LEU or sell it off & to mothball most of their production capability, thus extending the time line in which they could achieve breakout. They've agreed to an inspection regime that the IAEA assures us would quickly discover production of weapons grade material. They have agreed to inspections *in perpetuity* and to limiting all future LEU production to less than 4%.

Nonetheless, they will maintain the capability to breakout into weapons production over a time frame of apparently a year or so. That's probably true of many nuclear capable nations. Now that they have it, they're not giving it up nor would they need to under the NPT. Every bit of LEU they've enriched has been perfectly legal under the old regime, so agreeing to reduce that enormously is a major concession on their part.

If they'll live by this new deal, there's no reason for us not to do so ourselves.

 

[Zorkorist]

We can continue to drop strategically placed bombs on their infrastructure.

There is no sense in negotiating with a government that wants to kill us.

-John

 

[MongGrel]

We can continue to drop strategically placed bombs on their infrastructure.

There is no sense in negotiating with a government that wants to kill us.

-John

I guess voters in the US should stop trying to negotiate with the US government then.

 

[5to1baby1in5]

Looks like the deal is helping change Iran within.

The reformist and moderates are combining to push out the hard liners.

Reformists seeking greater democratic changes and moderates supporting Rouhani appear to be cashing in on the lifting of international sanctions the moderate president achieved under last summer's historic agreement.

Perhaps this is a small baby step towards (everyone involved) not being assholes.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/reformists-leading-in-iran-parliament-vote/ar-BBq1T2X?ocid=iehp

 

[JSt0rm]

No we were told this is the worst thing. We should of bombed them and then put boots on the ground to win hearts and minds. Too bad we gave peace a chance. So much opportunity lost in the killing of brown skin people.

 

[Zorkorist]

Dude, you have killed a bunch of people, through your Government.

Bits of body pieces everywhere. Probably in your hot dog, for sure in your cathup.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

No we were told this is the worst thing. We should of bombed them and then put boots on the ground to win hearts and minds. Too bad we gave peace a chance. So much opportunity lost in the killing of brown skin people.

What you have gained is the knowledge that brown skin people are just like you and I.

-John

 

[5to1baby1in5]

Dude, you have killed a bunch of people, through your Government.

Bits of body pieces everywhere. Probably in your hot dog, for sure in your cathup.

-John

I had Inglehoffer's Original Stone Ground mustard on my bratwurst tonight, and the little mustard seeds in there were kind of crunchy. Please tell me I wasn't eating little body pieces too.

 

[Zorkorist]

I wish I could say, no.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

-John

 

[MongGrel]

I guess voters in the US should stop trying to negotiate with the US government then.

Not sure you necroed that one on my account, but I still feel the same.

Things have gotten a lot weirder even since then.

 

[nickqt]

Looks like the deal is helping change Iran within.

The reformist and moderates are combining to push out the hard liners.



Perhaps this is a small baby step towards (everyone involved) not being assholes.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/reformists-leading-in-iran-parliament-vote/ar-BBq1T2X?ocid=iehp

Wait...

You mean, if our government (that is in charge of the strongest military in the history of history) stops screaming at an entire country that they're totally evil...all the while suggesting that destroying their entire country with nuclear weapons is a very possible option...might make it easier for less-hostile forces inside that country to operate and change things from the inside?

No. Can't be. I mean, look at how well the Cuba Embargo has worked!