So what do opponents of the Iran deal hope to achieve?

[trenchfoot]

Boooooo Diplomacy!

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!

I just so like it when politicians, especially the Repub politicians with their over the top zingers, pigeonhole themselves in that way and then try to clumsily talk their way out of it when they realize how they royally screwed themselves by letting their pandering get ahead of their politically constricted intellect.

The hilarity that ensues is, time after time, priceless.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Then perhaps you posted in the wrong thread then?

My post was relevant to the thread topic. Or was my point just a little too difficult for you to understand?

 

[Jhhnn]

Sanctions will snap back. By the parties you said aren't interested in continuing sanctions. Furthermore the logic seems to be that where sanctions failed to deter Iran from developing nukes, they will succeed in deterring Iran from violating its treaty obligations which are entirely to deter them from developing nukes.

And, let's be honest. No way is Obama going to war over this.

Iran has developed nukes? Actual nuclear weapons? Really?

 

[MongGrel]

as usual when it comes to Israel you have no clue....

Not really sure that Israel should be an issue where the US is concerned these days really.

 

[Mxylplyx]

My post was relevant to the thread topic. Or was my point just a little too difficult for you to understand?

There are other Iran threads for you to post in if you wish to express your general distaste for the agreement. This thread is intended to challenge you to actually evaluate the consequences if the deal is struck down.

 

[Jhhnn]

You misread what I typed. The other parties to the agreement will not be interested in reimposing sanctions IF the United States bails on the agreement. The agreement is structured so that sanctions snap back automatically absent a certification that Iran is in compliance, and Russia and China cannot veto or block.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are where we are right now, whether you agree that Obama should have brought us here or not. There is no going back to the way things were before, so the question is, WHAT do you hope to accomplish by having the US unilaterally reject this agreement?

What they hope to accomplish is complex.

First off, they have a compulsive need to beat Obama, at everything, and will create adversarial positions for that purpose alone.

Next, they want to maintain an irrational electorate, one distracted by their bullshit. It's like Mussolini puffing out his chest. In that, they want to retain the possibility of aggression on our part by maintaining a high tension level.

They also want to maintain favor with the Israel lobby and to advance the goals of the State of Israel. The Neocons are thick as thieves with Bibi's crew.

Few people in this country understand that the current situation in Iraq & Syria was the desired result all along. Fractured & fighting amongst themselves, they won't be a realistic threat to Israel for at least a generation.

The same minds that engineered that feat would very much like to do the same thing with Iran.

 

[Mxylplyx]

What they hope to accomplish is complex.

First off, they have a compulsive need to beat Obama, at everything, and will create adversarial positions for that purpose alone.

Next, they want to maintain an irrational electorate, one distracted by their bullshit. It's like Mussolini puffing out his chest. In that, they want to retain the possibility of aggression on our part by maintaining a high tension level.

They also want to maintain favor with the Israel lobby and to advance the goals of the State of Israel. The Neocons are thick as thieves with Bibi's crew.

Few people in this country understand that the current situation in Iraq & Syria was the desired result all along. Fractured & fighting amongst themselves, they won't be a realistic threat to Israel for at least a generation.

The same minds that engineered that feat would very much like to do the same thing with Iran.

Part of me would like to think that Republicans engage in brinkmanship merely to satisfy their base, but are always willing to back down just before they lead us off the cliff, and I do believe the US rejecting this agreement would be an unmitigated disaster to our standing in the world. For instance with Schumer, I think he feels safe in coming out against this agreement since he's been given cover by other democrats coming out in support, much as Republicans have felt safe with all their political grandstanding on multiple issues, knowing the senate filibuster and Obama's veto pen protect them, and this country, from the consequences of their grandstanding. Maybe I'm an optimist though. It's getting harder by the day to give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt anymore by assuming they actually know what they do.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There are other Iran threads for you to post in if you wish to express your general distaste for the agreement. This thread is intended to challenge you to actually evaluate the consequences if the deal is struck down.

And the point of my post was to challenge you to actually evaluate the negligible benefits of this deal in light of the adverse consequences. This was a really, really stupid deal and now we're stuck with bad outcomes any way we turn...no deal was light-years better than the horrible deal we negotiated. I don't think it matters now if we strike it down or not at this point...Pandora's Box has been opened.

 

[Mxylplyx]

And the point of my post was to challenge you to actually evaluate the negligible benefits of this deal in light of the adverse consequences. This was a really, really stupid deal and now we're stuck with bad outcomes any way we turn...no deal was light-years better than the horrible deal we negotiated. I don't think it matters now if we strike it down or not at this point...Pandora's Box has been opened.

How could you read my OP and suggest that you "dont think it matters"? It absolutely does matter, and has real consequences. You suggesting we are "stuck" is at least a tacit acknowledgement that a process has begun and we are down a road that cannot be walked back or ignored because you were not in favor of it to begin with. Surely you could at least acknowledge that now that we have taken the path that we have, the only reasonable path forward is to give Iran a chance to honor the agreement. Assuming you want the sanctions to stay in place, the ONLY way that is going to happen now is to catch Iran dishonoring the agreement in which case the sanctions snap back in place. If we walk away now, the sanctions regime is shattered, and Iran will continue their nuclear program unabated. Feel free to dispute anything I just said.

 

[Fern]

You can read the wording of the agreement if you wish. Sanctions will snap back, and there is an implicit understanding that military options are on the table.

Now please address the points I made.

No, sanctions will not "snap back" and nobody in this universe believes Obama will do anything militarily if Iran cheats on the deal.

One of the primary concerns regarding the prospect of Iran getting nukes is nuke proliferation race in the M.E. That has already begun. Obama started it when his actions convinced our allies that he wasn't serious about preventing Iran from going nuke.

It's too late now. The pooch has been well screwed.

Fern

 

[Fern]

And the point of my post was to challenge you to actually evaluate the negligible benefits of this deal in light of the adverse consequences. This was a really, really stupid deal and now we're stuck with bad outcomes any way we turn...no deal was light-years better than the horrible deal we negotiated. I don't think it matters now if we strike it down or not at this point...Pandora's Box has been opened.

Exactly.

Fern

 

[cabri]

What a stinking red herring. I mean, really.

Yet you refuse to address my example. Why
Invalid, or because it is a valid example of obvious flounting by Iran and tact complicity by Russia.

I have not heard Kerry or Obama say anything?

 

[Fern]

In the sensitive political position that Schumer finds himself in, I'd do and say the same things. He has to, or face losing his next election. Everyone on the Hill knows this, especially Pres. Obama.

IMO, Schumer is relying on all of the available data that points to the Deal being passed despite his obligatory objections that is in effect only a defensive move to protect his credibility toward being representative of his religion and the interests of the core demographic sector he has to keep in his corner. I'm sure he also has a fallback position in case his "deeply regrettable yet necessary" support is needed to get the deal passed in Congress.

Now I'm not attempting to support Schumer's decision or justify his actions in any way. I'm only offering my honest opinion about what I think is happening in the politically charged background that led to Schumer's actions.

Yeah, agree. My first thought when Schumer announced his opposition was "well that ensures there is enough Dem support in the Senate to guarantee a veto can't be overturned". I.e., it's a done deal.

Fern

 

[bozack]

In the sensitive political position that Schumer finds himself in, I'd do and say the same things. He has to, or face losing his next election. Everyone on the Hill knows this, especially Pres. Obama.

IMO, Schumer is relying on all of the available data that points to the Deal being passed despite his obligatory objections that is in effect only a defensive move to protect his credibility toward being representative of his religion and the interests of the core demographic sector he has to keep in his corner. I'm sure he also has a fallback position in case his "deeply regrettable yet necessary" support is needed to get the deal passed in Congress.

Now I'm not attempting to support Schumer's decision or justify his actions in any way. I'm only offering my honest opinion about what I think is happening in the politically charged background that led to Schumer's actions.

Eh I disagree, he knows that he is a very influential vote, as explained by the article, and now that he is on record as going against it others may/will follow.

It will be interesting to see if they still pass it, I can't see why we want to work with a nation that clearly does not want to work with, nor respect us...every chance their leadership gets they disparage the US and they are very unwilling to "deal".

I think like much else this is a very divisive issue...seems to be the MO for this administration, never any bridge building just throwing up more walls....and I am sure the usual suspects will whine that its all the fault of the right, but the left is the most inflexible entity out there now as of late...but again I am sure people will crow on about it being a mandate.

 

[MongGrel]

No, sanctions will not "snap back" and nobody in this universe believes Obama will do anything militarily if Iran cheats on the deal.

One of the primary concerns regarding the prospect of Iran getting nukes is nuke proliferation race in the M.E. That has already begun. Obama started it when his actions convinced our allies that he wasn't serious about preventing Iran from going nuke.

It's too late now. The pooch has been well screwed.

Fern

I'd have to find the reference, but I think there was a statement that if they fudge on the deal there would be military action promoted.

I.E. bombing the crap out of anything not sanctioned in the deal.

 

[Fern]

You keep failing to consider what it is you are essentially supporting by rejecting the deal. The previous sanctions regime is GONE. It's history...no more. I'm not quite sure how I can be any clearer. What you are advocating is Iran being released from most sanctions, with no inspection regime in place for their nuclear program, and not to mention the ENORMOUS damage to the credibility of the United States on the world stage. You would be giving all this away, and in exchange for WHAT??

No, there will be no "ENORMOUS damage to the credibility of the United States". We lost that a while ago. Obama began 'secret' negotiations with Iran shortly after being first elected. Valerie Jarrett, who was born in Iran, conducted the negotiations. Our European partners were not informed and publicly expressed surprise when they found out various aspects of our secret and unilateral negotiations. Throughout this year as (public) negotiations progressed our Euro partners have expressed dissatisfaction with Obama's actions. In fact, claims have been made that Obama was negotiating on Iran's behalf against our European allies.

When our allies in the M.E. saw where this was headed they complained to us, expressed grave concern and Obama ignored them. It's no secret that Saudi Arabia and Jordan (IIRC) have begun talks with Pakistan to acquire nukes to counter Iran's acquisition.

We have no cred. How anyone thinks we could after the very public "crossing the red line" fiasco with Syria is baffling.

Europe has basically written us off. Angela Merkel is the world's leader right now. That should have been clear when Obama was utterly ineffective and basically ignored over the Ukraine situation and it was Merkel was calling the shots.

It's been said that elections have consequences, well so does 'leading from behind'.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I'd have to find the reference, but I think there was a statement that if they fudge on the deal there would be military action promoted.

I.E. bombing the crap out of anything not sanctioned in the deal.

Well, if 'words on paper' can bomb Iran, fine cuz no one believes Obama will do it. Remember, this is the guy who stood before the whole world and threatened Syria not to cross the "red line". What happened? Not a god damn thing except him losing credibility.

Fern

 

[VRAMdemon]

Many Israeli experts, including a former Mossad boss, a former Shin Bet, a former deputy national security adviser, and many more support the deal.

https://peacenow.org/entry.php?id=12886#.VcUtMvlr5aR

Also, several former U.S. ambassadors to Israel have endorsed the deal. Included as signatories are one of Reagan's ambassadors to Israel, one of GHWB's, and one of GWB's.

http://news.yahoo.com/former-us-ambassadors-israel-back-iran-nuclear-deal-170751723.html

 

[shira]

What is so bad about this deal and how would you get a "better" deal in these multiparty talks?

isn't it obvious? He would "negotiate harder."

 

[MongGrel]

Well, if 'words on paper' can bomb Iran, fine cuz no one believes Obama will do it. Remember, this is the guy who stood before the whole world and threatened Syria not to cross the "red line". What happened? Not a god damn thing except him losing credibility.

Fern

Obama isn't going to be around that much longer at any rate.

It still surprises me when people still bring his name in reference to the future to begin with.

He's aware of that himself.

At least he's trying to do anything productive at this point, VS many politicians.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Here is a good take on the deal by Pat Buchanan...

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/rejecting-the-iran-deal-would-be-gop-suicide/

 

[trenchfoot]

Obama isn't going to be around that much longer at any rate.

It still surprises me when people still bring his name in reference to the future to begin with.

He's aware of that himself.

At least he's trying to do anything productive at this point, VS many politicians.

This is where the difference between Obama and the Repubs, who had clearly stated that they were going to obstruct him every chance they got to make him a one term president, is stark and glaring.

Obama can point to a list of significant accomplishments during his tenure, whereas all the Repubs can do is point out how they were so unsuccessful at obstructing Obama and the Dems and that because they were so preoccupied with that silly "mission statement" of theirs, they failed to pass any meaningful and significant legislation that actually benefits the nation as a whole. Unless they do something other than continually attempt to make the rich richer and myopically obstruct Obama and the Dems at every turn, that is all that they can claim as "accomplishments" for the whole time Obama has been/will be in office.

 

[Ventanni]

No, there will be no "ENORMOUS damage to the credibility of the United States". We lost that a while ago. Obama began 'secret' negotiations with Iran shortly after being first elected. Valerie Jarrett, who was born in Iran, conducted the negotiations. Our European partners were not informed and publicly expressed surprise when they found out various aspects of our secret and unilateral negotiations. Throughout this year as (public) negotiations progressed our Euro partners have expressed dissatisfaction with Obama's actions. In fact, claims have been made that Obama was negotiating on Iran's behalf against our European allies.

When our allies in the M.E. saw where this was headed they complained to us, expressed grave concern and Obama ignored them. It's no secret that Saudi Arabia and Jordan (IIRC) have begun talks with Pakistan to acquire nukes to counter Iran's acquisition.

We have no cred. How anyone thinks we could after the very public "crossing the red line" fiasco with Syria is baffling.

Europe has basically written us off. Angela Merkel is the world's leader right now. That should have been clear when Obama was utterly ineffective and basically ignored over the Ukraine situation and it was Merkel was calling the shots.

It's been said that elections have consequences, well so does 'leading from behind'.

Fern

Meh, Europeans needed a bit of a wake-up call that they need to step up their game when it comes to military matters.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yet you refuse to address my example. Why
Invalid, or because it is a valid example of obvious flounting by Iran and tact complicity by Russia.

I have not heard Kerry or Obama say anything?

This agreement overrides previous sanctions. As far as the ROTW is concerned, it's over, finito. They'll catch up with the formalities down the road.

As a champion of Israel, you obviously know all about flounting UN resolutions.

 

[Jhhnn]

When our allies in the M.E. saw where this was headed they complained to us, expressed grave concern and Obama ignored them. It's no secret that Saudi Arabia and Jordan (IIRC) have begun talks with Pakistan to acquire nukes to counter Iran's acquisition.

Iran's acquisition of what, exactly? Nuclear weapons?