Iran deal reached

[chucky2]

Says the guy who has delusions I can describe with song lyrics from the Beatles "I am the Walrus".

Yikes indeed!

Yeesh, you think me linking you and your other profile, which have highly similar LOLstyles, is delusional? OMG that worries me! Hahahaha :biggrin:

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you now support sanctions, you want us to keep them up because they're working?

Absurdity. Iran has had the technical ability to create nuclear weapons for probably a decade and chose not to do so. Sanctions would not have stopped them had they set themselves to it. With the completion of their Fordow facility, bombing wouldn't have stopped them, either.

One of the things Righties seldom do is consider the idea that they might have been mistaken. They don't ask themselves the right questions to figure it out being totally caught up in astroturfed "conventional wisdom".

What if nuclear weapons never were Iran's goal in all of this? What if it has been a very successful exercise in brinkmanship on their part? What if they just used that to maneuver Uncle Sam into a grand bargain, the beginnings of which are embodied in the proposed agreement?

I would submit that this agreement is much more valuable to Iran than nuclear weapons ever will be & that they know it. Honoring it means that they will achieve normalized relations wrt the ROTW to much better exploit their resources & the skills of their people. Over the next several years, they'll achieve full legitimacy in the realms of trade & diplomacy.

I think we'll also see huge changes in Iranian society, as well, changes for the better. Their hard liners can't stand unless they have a perceived external threat to lean on, nor can our own.

 

[Jhhnn]

No.

This deal does not stop Iran from building a bomb.

The say they wont for a few years, in exchange for that delay they get hundreds of billions of dollars.

After those few years they are free to build a bomb.

Completely indoctrinated by fear & suspicion, huh?

The agreement provides for expansion of Iran's peaceful nuclear program down the road under IAEA supervision, not that they'll be released from constraints wrt weapons. When we get there, I doubt that Iran will be willing to sacrifice any of what they've gained in shedding their rogue nation status.

 

[Blackjack200]

What if nuclear weapons never were Iran's goal in all of this? What if it has been a very successful exercise in brinkmanship on their part? What if they just used that to maneuver Uncle Sam into a grand bargain, the beginnings of which are embodied in the proposed agreement?

Well, that doesn't really make any sense. The sanctions that are being lifted were put in place as a response to Iran's nuclear program.

I read somewhere that the American sanctions put in place because Iran is a "state sponsor of terror" will remain in place.

 

[Aristotelian]

Well, that doesn't really make any sense. The sanctions that are being lifted were put in place as a response to Iran's nuclear program.

I read somewhere that the American sanctions put in place because Iran is a "state sponsor of terror" will remain in place.

Which, thankfully, do not constitute a legal basis for continued sanctions against the Iranian oil/gas sector, which is the vast majority of where the sanctions had the greatest result. Terrorism-based sanctions are of a different character than, e.g., sanctions against Russia, Iran, Syria. I mean, this deal doesn't mean that the EU would unravel its human rights based sanctions regime against Iran. It's the nuclear-related sanctions that had the devastating economic impact against Iran, nothing else.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Do you now support sanctions, you want us to keep them up because they're working?

"Us"?...This idea goes back to the bizarre idea that the negotiations were between the U.S. and Iran, and the U.S. controls what sanctions exist. Maybe the American media is to blame; maybe it's the provincialism of many Americans. The sanctions and negotiations included Iran's biggest trading partners, in Europe, Russia, and China. Do you trust Putin to increase sanctions on Iran and keep them up? For how long do you think Putin would do that? You think the Kremlin is going to call up Senator Cotton and ask what they should do when the U.S. And Europe have sanctions on Russia because of its invasion of Ukraine?

In 2010, Iran bought $18 billion of goods from China, and sold $12 billion of stuff to China. The idea that the U.S. determines what goes on in international trade is just bogus. Europe had roughly the same amount of trade with Iran earlier in the decade. The U.S. doesn't get to decide how much trade occurs between two foreign countries. The U.S. can't expect to achieve the same results by, say, threatening a German company with fines for violating American foreign policy. We know this idea is a loser because we couldn't compel the world to enforce strong sanctions in Iran before, nor could we compel them to embargo Cuba for the last sixty years.

Now, with this deal, we have all trading partners agreeing to "snap" back new sanctions...

 

[VRAMdemon]

Again you desire to have people think you know whjat you are talkin g about -- You have no clue...
even enemies have ways of cooperating when it is in their best interest.....the word cooperation does not have anything to do with friendship!!

Israel is not monolithic, and many Israelis disagree with Bibi. They think the deal makes Israel safer. How about this? Israel admits it has nukes and allows inspectors to the same degree. After all, only one nation can actually nuke the other right now and it ain't Iran.

 

[michal1980]

Absurdity. Iran has had the technical ability to create nuclear weapons for probably a decade and chose not to do so. Sanctions would not have stopped them had they set themselves to it. With the completion of their Fordow facility, bombing wouldn't have stopped them, either.

One of the things Righties seldom do is consider the idea that they might have been mistaken. They don't ask themselves the right questions to figure it out being totally caught up in astroturfed "conventional wisdom".

What if nuclear weapons never were Iran's goal in all of this? What if it has been a very successful exercise in brinkmanship on their part? What if they just used that to maneuver Uncle Sam into a grand bargain, the beginnings of which are embodied in the proposed agreement?

I would submit that this agreement is much more valuable to Iran than nuclear weapons ever will be & that they know it. Honoring it means that they will achieve normalized relations wrt the ROTW to much better exploit their resources & the skills of their people. Over the next several years, they'll achieve full legitimacy in the realms of trade & diplomacy.

I think we'll also see huge changes in Iranian society, as well, changes for the better. Their hard liners can't stand unless they have a perceived external threat to lean on, nor can our own.

They havent reformed in years, BUT now they will?


Seems like this deal depends on alot of HOPE. And not much of anything else.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Anything short of Iran being wiped off the face of the earth is a failure in the eyes of Righthadists. It's OK, President Trump will undo and make right what Obama did wrong.

It will be great - avoid nuclear war,... by starting a nuclear war. Makes total sense.

 

[Blackjack200]

Which, thankfully, do not constitute a legal basis for continued sanctions against the Iranian oil/gas sector, which is the vast majority of where the sanctions had the greatest result. Terrorism-based sanctions are of a different character than, e.g., sanctions against Russia, Iran, Syria. I mean, this deal doesn't mean that the EU would unravel its human rights based sanctions regime against Iran. It's the nuclear-related sanctions that had the devastating economic impact against Iran, nothing else.

First off, you obviously know more than anyone else here how sanctions work, so thanks for contributing.

Let me ask you something; I read that Rouhani was elected on a platform of reducing isolation and brining Iran back into the international community, and obviously this was an important first step, what do you think their next step will be?

 

[norseamd]

So, 1+2 = I'm speaking with a rabid Zionist, especially when looking at your signature.

Understatement of eternity.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, that doesn't really make any sense. The sanctions that are being lifted were put in place as a response to Iran's nuclear program.

I read somewhere that the American sanctions put in place because Iran is a "state sponsor of terror" will remain in place.

This is just a start. The rest of it will fall away over time, provided that Iran honors the agreement. The upside for them is huge.

 

[Indus]

Since your Mr option 2, you just don't want war today, you'd rather wait a few years until they get the bomb and then deal with the problem. So just by your standard this is a Chamberlain deal

Big big difference.

1. We're not geographically located where England was to Germany.
2. Iran has not invaded it's neighbors taking over the Rhineland, Austria and Sudetenland.

Why is it when anyone thinks like FDR, don't attack until attacked first, people make up stuff comparing to nazi appeasement.

And Iran does not have 6 aircraft carriers to attack us by complete surprise. Nor do they have ICBMs.

 

[Jhhnn]

They havent reformed in years, BUT now they will?


Seems like this deal depends on alot of HOPE. And not much of anything else.

You really are quite dense. The Great Satan has been breathing down their neck for nearly 40 years, so that has affected their internal deliberations & conduct in no small way. Now that we've agreed to relent & if we also honor the agreement then all the incentives change for both sides. The fact that we've abandoned regime change changes everything.

 

[cabri]

Anything short of Iran being wiped off the face of the earth is a failure in the eyes of Righthadists. It's OK, President Trump will undo and make right what Obama did wrong.

It will be great - avoid nuclear war,... by starting a nuclear war. Makes total sense.

So says a Leftist

 

[ivwshane]

First off, you obviously know more than anyone else here how sanctions work, so thanks for contributing.

Let me ask you something; I read that Rouhani was elected on a platform of reducing isolation and brining Iran back into the international community, and obviously this was an important first step, what do you think their next step will be?

The next step is to get their economy going, a failure to do that will bring out those who still think the US is an evil nation. Just imagine where our country, policy wise and polling wise, would be headed if Obamas actions to fix the Great Recession did not work but instead continued the worsening economy, republicans would have screamed, "See! See! We were right!" and the American people would have voted for a republican president and given them an even bigger hold on congress.

For years, leaders in Iran have been blaming the US for their woes, Rouhani comes in and says let's try something different. So far it's worked, sanctions are going to be lifted but now their economy needs to improve.

 

[michal1980]

The next step is to get their economy going, a failure to do that will bring out those who still think the US is an evil nation. Just imagine where our country, policy wise and polling wise, would be headed if Obamas actions to fix the Great Recession did not work but instead continued the worsening economy, republicans would have screamed, "See! See! We were right!" and the American people would have voted for a republican president and given them an even bigger hold on congress.

For years, leaders in Iran have been blaming the US for their woes, Rouhani comes in and says let's try something different. So far it's worked, sanctions are going to be lifted but now their economy needs to improve.

so when the economy fails to improve, working with america will be shown to be a failure.

 

[cabri]

Big big difference.

1. We're not geographically located where England was to Germany.
2. Iran has not invaded it's neighbors taking over the Rhineland, Austria and Sudetenland.

Why is it when anyone thinks like FDR, don't attack until attacked first, people make up stuff comparing to nazi appeasement.

And Iran does not have 6 aircraft carriers to attack us by complete surprise. Nor do they have ICBMs.

#2 - They are using proxies instead

 

[ivwshane]

so when the economy fails to improve, working with america will be shown to be a failure.

If the economy fails, yes.

 

[nickqt]

I fully support making a deal, lifting sanctions, and eventually allowing Iran to prove themselves liars to the entire world. Once that happens nobody will trust Iran, except Jhhnn, and maybe nickqt. They will continue to make apologies forever, regardless of what Iran does.

You're laughably stupid.

Since you're clearly laughably stupid, you might want to think about who the parties of this deal are, idiot.

I know thinking is hard and fear is so much easier and satisfying, but think about who the signatories of this deal is.

Idiot.

 

[nickqt]

Yeesh, you think me linking you and your other profile, which have highly similar LOLstyles, is delusional? OMG that worries me! Hahahaha :biggrin:

That you continue to believe your delusions is hilarious.

Of course, that is the MO of the average American conservative, so keep on keepin' on, delusional conservative.

Hahahaha :biggrin:

 

[cubby1223]

If the economy fails, yes.

It's striking the parallels that can be seen with Russia. Either way, in 5-10 years time no matter what the economy is, there will be a rise in people who believe dealing with the west & the U.S. is undermining the nation and its people, and history will repeat.

Only question left is will they have nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors with by then?



...and please, for the love of humanity we've already argued this to death in the past, this is the definition of threat, I'm not in the mood to rehash that argument over basic word definitions with you ever again:

threat
THret/
noun
noun: threat; plural noun: threats

1.
a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're laughably stupid.

Since you're clearly laughably stupid, you might want to think about who the parties of this deal are, idiot.

I know thinking is hard and fear is so much easier and satisfying, but think about who the signatories of this deal is.

Idiot.

Be nice, OK?

Righties are more sinned against than sinners, heavily exploited by their leadership. 9/11 opened an avenue to their minds that didn't previously exist, leaving them easily exploitable using fear & misdirection. The same effect used to facilitate the invasion of Iraq is still in play today, now ingrained into their psyches.

As you say, the ROTW doesn't seem too concerned about any of this. The backbiting & dissension among our allies isn't nearly as great as it is here in the US. The reason we led the negotiations is because we wanted more from Iran than anybody else. Once we took that role, we had to deliver an agreement in order to retain our leadership position. All of the carefully crafted propaganda on both sides would have gone for naught, the good will of actually negotiating cast aside as hardliners on both sides would have liked.

When we think about it at all, reasons to maintain hostility w/ Iran are mighty thin.

KSA? Our unbelievably repressive medieval kingdom pals?

The arrogant back stabbing Netanyahu govt, also repressive, who has the chutzpah to interfere in our domestic politics, defy the State Dept, defy all efforts at an honest peace with the Pals?

I get what's in it for them. What's in it for us?

 

[feralkid]

Where did I say they want to conquer the US.

I said its a chamberlain deal. Its appeasement.

Please tell us what the USA and the world got in return for allowing Iran to get the bomb?

Now THAT is a textbook example of "Begging The Question".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

[JEDIYoda]

Israel is not monolithic, and many Israelis disagree with Bibi. -- you can spout all this all you want but I see no links that support your contention that MANY Israeli`s disagree with Bibi on this point....care to provide a link or 2....

They think the deal makes Israel safer. How about this? -- links or are you just spouting FUD to spout FUD?

Israel admits it has nukes and allows inspectors to the same degree. After all, only one nation can actually nuke the other right now and it ain't Iran. -- now that is an asinine comparison -- If Israel was going to nuke Iran it already would have....your playing games with words and showing your ignorance in this matter!! You honestly believe that allowing Iran to have nukes will stabilize the region? Oh...I get it your one of those people.....

Here is the difference between Israel and Iran.....

If the Iran gave up all their weapons and decided to live in peace in 10 years Iran would still exist!
If Israel gave up all their weapons and decided to live in peace in 10 years there would be no Israel......

I also don`t understand why you need to lie to make your point......

Here is another take on the whole thing --

http://news.yahoo.com/arab-world-worries-deal-boost-irans-power-064114480.html

In Arab world, worries that deal will boost Iran's power

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The nuclear deal with Iran was met with a profound wariness in the Arab world, where concerns are widespread that the easing of its international isolation could tip the already bloody contest for power in the region toward Shiite-led Tehran.





Arab countries have deep fears of Iran gaining a nuclear weapon, and some have been skeptical that a deal will prevent that from happening. But equally high for key Sunni-dominated Gulf allies of the United States is the worry that a deal gives Iran the means — through an economic windfall — and an implicit green light to push influence in the region.

The Arab world has been polarized for years in a worsening proxy conflict between Iran and Gulf powers, particularly Saudi Arabia, fueling Sunni-Shiite tensions and stoking wars. In Syria, Iran's support has ensured the survival of President Bashar Assad against Sunni rebels backed by Gulf nations in a devastating civil war, now in its fifth year. Yemen has been torn apart this year as Saudi Arabia, leading a coalition air campaign, has tried to help fend off Shiite rebels supported by Tehran. In Iraq, Saudi Arabia has opposed the growing power of Iran even since the 2003 ouster of Saddam Hussein and the rise of a government led by Shiite politicians close to Iran.

"Deal or no deal, tension in the region is not going to go away," said Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, a professor of political science at United Arab Emirates University. "If Iran is bent on acting as a hegemon, as a regional power, I think we are in for some difficult times."

Saudi Arabia issued a pointed warning, saying Iran must use any economic gains from the lifting of sanctions to improve the lives of Iranians, "rather than using them to cause turmoil in the region, a matter that will meet a decisive reaction from the nations of the region," in a statement carried on the state news agency late Tuesday.

Other Gulf monarchies sought to show some cautious optimism. The president of the United Arab Emirates, which has longstanding trade ties to Iran, and the emir of Kuwait, who visited Tehran last year in an effort to improve relations, each sent congratulations to Iran and expressed hope the agreement will contribute to regional security and stability.

On the nuclear issue itself, Arab countries have shown skepticism that a deal would stop Iran from building a weapon. In its statement Tuesday, Saudi Arabia withheld judgment on the final accord, but underlined it always wanted an agreement that guarantees Iran cannot develop a bomb, includes a strict inspection mechanism for all sites — including military ones — and ensures a swift re-imposition of sanctions if Tehran violates the deal.

Saudi Arabia's former intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, warned earlier this year that a deal might fuel a regional arms race.

Egypt's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Badr Abdelattie, said his country hopes the deal would be "a step toward a region free of nuclear weapons"— a project Egypt has been lobbying for in the United Nations for long, with its eyes on Israel's all but confirmed arsenal.

But foremost on the minds of Iran's opponents in the region was the worry that the deal strengthens its hand in the region's conflicts.

"This agreement, from our point of view, represents an indirect threat to Gulf and Arab interests and peace," said Tariq Al-Shammari, a Saudi analyst and president of the Council of Gulf International Relations.

Behind the scenes, he said, Gulf Arab countries will work to try and keep Iran isolated politically and economically, he added, pointing out that Saudi Arabia in particular has already moved to improve ties with Russia, which is a strong ally of Iran.

Syrian rebels were alarmed, warning that now Iran will feel free to infuse even more cash and weapons to prop up Assad's overstretched army.

"This agreement translates into more barrel bombs, more massacres and more blood across Syria," said a rebel with the Islamic al-Jabha al-Shamiya faction in northern Syria who spoke on condition he be identified by his nom de guerre of Abu Yasser, for his own safety. Barrel bombs are the crude but destructive bombs dropped from Syrian military aircraft that have caused considerable civilian casualties.

He said an Iran at peace with the international community will feel "even more at ease" to implement its agenda across the region, including in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

On the pro-government side in Syria, some had the same expectation. Bassam Mahfouz, a 54-year-old resident of the capital, Damascus, said he hoped Iran will now increase its support for Syria in the fight against "terrorism.

Assad was quick to congratulate Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani. In his cable addressed to Khamenei, Assad described the deal as "a great victory" achieved by Iran and a "historic turning point" in the history of Iran, the region and the world.

"We are quite assured that the Islamic Republic of Iran will continue, with greater momentum, supporting the just issues of nations," he said.

President Barack Obama acknowledged Tuesday that the U.S. and Iran remain at odds over many issues, including Tehran's support for terrorism in the Middle East and its detention of several American citizens. Still, he suggested a breakthrough on the nuclear issue could pave the way for a broader shift in relations between the U.S. and Iran.

"This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction," Obama said. "We should seize it."

Supporters of the deal see that opening as an opportunity to try to moderate Iran's role in the region.

In Iraq, the complex sectarian fault lines make the deal's impact hard to read. The Iran-U.S. and Iran-Saudi rivalries have fueled tensions in the country for years. At the same time, Iran and the U.S. have recently found themselves on the same side fighting against the Islamic State group, though they have avoided working with each other.

Saad al-Hadithi, the spokesman for Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, called the deal "a catalyst for regional stability" that will lead to better unity in the fight against terrorism.

Hamid al-Mutlaq, an Iraqi Sunni lawmaker, was more cautious. "We hope now to see a positive Iranian interference, not a negative one in the region, and to change the way it sees and deals with people of the regional countries," he said.

But Sunni hard-liners in the Arab world were convinced the deal signals U.S. acquiescence to the spread of Iranian power.

One prominent Saudi Muslim cleric, Salman al-Ouda, who is often critical of the Saudi government, warned in a tweet that "Iran is moving according to a well-studied clear vision, absorbing its adversaries. Where are the Arab governments? Where is their alternative project to face the challenge?"

A hard-line Qatari cleric, Mohammed al-Shinqiti, tweeted that in return for limiting Iran's nuclear program, "America has something to offer Iran: An Arab world open for its wars."