Both sides may "obstruct" Obama on Iran

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Nov 25, 2013.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    Bipartisan skepticism in the Senate about the newly announced deal with Iran could mean a renewed push for tougher sanctions -- and a veto showdown with President Obama if the administration cannot ease senators' concerns.

    A number of senators, from both sides of aisle, appear to be pushing sanctions as a contingency plan in case the agreement on Iran's nuclear program falters. But some may not be willing to wait -- presenting a problem for the Obama administration, since the deal signed with Iran and five other nations guarantees no new sanctions for six months.

    If the Senate gets impatient and plows ahead with new legislation, Obama could be forced to veto -- and risk being overridden.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-additional-sanctions-amid-iran-nuclear-deal/
     
  2. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    We can only hope they are actually going to display some common sense on this. Iran was about to fold anyway. The sanctions were finally starting to work. The elite of the country were beginning to feel the effects. That's why they wanted to talk in the first place. They would have taken a much stricter deal. But this administration, in all its glorified idiocy, needed to distract from the utter and complete failure of the ACA, so the Naked Emperor rode in on his black horse and offered a sweetheart package that requires nothing, while loosening the sanctions on Iran when they were ready to seriously negotiate anyway.

    This administration is ignorant, inept as to foreign policy, and in complete chaos. So now the world has to pay the price for the Great Pretender's stupidity by waiting for Iran to launch a nuclear attack. Freakin' brilliant!!
     
  3. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    Depends on how you look at it. I'd have to think the sanctions DID work.

    Nuclear Accord With Iran Opens Diplomatic Doors in the Mideast

    "...the chance to chart a new American course in the Middle East for the first time in more than three decades.

    Much will depend, of course, on whether the United States and the other major powers ever reach a final agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions. Mr. Obama himself said Saturday night that it “won’t be easy, and huge challenges remain ahead.”

    But the mere fact that after 34 years of estrangement, the United States and Iran have signed a diplomatic accord — even if it is a tactical, transitory one — opens the door to a range of geopolitical possibilities available to no American leader since Jimmy Carter.

    “No matter what you think of it, this is a historic deal,” said Vali R. Nasr, the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “It is a major seismic shift in the region. It rearranges the entire chess board.”

    Mr. Obama has wanted to bring in Iran from the cold since he was a presidential candidate, declaring in 2007 that he would pursue “aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iranian leaders, and ruling out the concept of leadership change, which was popular at the time...."

    The deal is far from final, a door has been opened. and, it's not an afterthought diversion. Obama never has wanted another war to implement a regime change in Iran, neither have I nor billions of other sane folks.
     
  4. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Negatively. That's how I look at it. Have you seen the deal's fine prints? Forget The New York Times. They're the official Great Pretender cheerleader, got a three year deal with an option for four more if Ms. Benghazi gets elected in 2016.

    Here's what the deal does, allegedly. Iran commits to:
    • Stop enriching uranium above 5%
    • Stop the installation of new centrifuges
    • Neutralize its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%
    • Allow the IAEA to monitor the Natanz and Fordo facilities
    • Stop further advances at the Arak nuclear reactor
    First, only a fool would believe Iran will live up to any of those, but particularly the last three. One, they have plenty of centrifuges, so getting them to commit to not acquiring more is like accepting an Inuit's promise not to import ice to Alaska: "Duh!!" Secondly, they've enriched enough uranium at 20% to build five bombs already. How many does it take to destroy Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Baghdad? Hint: Less than five. And who was the last Islamic regime that promised to let IAEA monitor it's nuclear facilities? Hint: Iraq hanged him December 30 seven years ago, after he reneged on the promise, shipped his nuke program part and parcel, along with other WMDs, to Syria, and started a war with the free world. And finally, by all intelligence accounts available, Arak is finished. No further need of "advances" when your reactor is operational.

    Now, what does the West do for Iran, given these "magnanimous" gestures on their part?
    • No new sanctions
    • $6-7 billion sanction relief
    • The right to civilian nuclear energy
    • Iran forbidden from obtaining nuclear weapons
    If you see that list as anything other than laughably naive, I've got beachfront property in New Mexico for sale. The agreement renders as moot any bipartisan effort in Congress, or any other national legislative body in Europe or Asia, to override it and impose sanctions when -- not if, but when -- Iran fails to live up to any of its obligations. It provides $4 billion in oil sales payments to Iran between now and May 31, which will go straight to the government, with no relief or consideration for its people, just as the "right" to civilian nuclear energy will be interpreted by the fanatics running Iran to mean their decisions as to what constitutes "civilian nuclear energy" will be the order of the day. And need I remind you, Iraq, Pakistan, India and North Korea were also "forbidden" to obtain nuclear weapons. We all know how well that worked, don't we?

    Anyone who thinks this agreement is anything other than a sweetheart deal for the mullahs in charge of Iran probably works in the White House or the media.
     
  5. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    "....the next six months will show whether President Hassan Rouhani is a puppet of Khamenei or an honest, empowered leader in his own right.

    Until then, this deal is only a piece of paper. Just as the “anti-deal” crowd is wrong to burn diplomacy in the womb, so too is the “pro-deal” crowd wrong to crow with gleeful triumphalism. The only sensible reaction is one of hopeful but healthy scrutiny. Perhaps Republican Senator Jeff Flake tweeted it best, “Just heard President Obama describe nuclear deal with Iran. Look forward to studying details....."
    http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set...an-nuclear-deal-Just-a-piece-of-paper-for-now
     
  6. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The mullahs kept their thumb on Ahmadinejad, and he was, if anything, crazier than they are. Why would they let a moderate go running around the world preaching peace? He's a puppet, just like anyone bearing the psuedo-title of "president of Iran" is.
     
  7. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    Iraq War Hawks Beat the Drums on Iran

    "...In 2003, Iran offered to talk with the United States about its nuclear program, its support for the radical Hamas and Hezbollah movements, and its relationship with Israel. The Bush administration quickly rejected Iran’s offer, believing that eventual regime change would be preferable.

    Even after the failures the Iraq war became evident, the Bush administration stood aside and even thwarted European efforts to negotiate with Iran. In that time, Iran’s early nuclear research program grew from a few test centrifuges to over 8,000 operational centrifuges. Iran also amassed enough low enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon if it made the political decision to do so.

    The Bush Administration was even less successful when it came to North Korea. Early in his presidency, President Bush rejected Secretary of State Colin Powell’s plan to continue with Clinton-era negotiations with North Korea on the grounds that they were too accommodating and the verification measures were too weak. The administration then named North Korea as a member of the “axis of evil” and singled it out as a potential target for U.S. nuclear weapons in the 2002 nuclear posture review.

    These actions caused almost a decade of improving relations to deteriorate. In 2002, North Korea threw out IAEA inspectors. It became the first state to withdraw from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty in 2003 and tested its first nuclear device in 2006.

    At this point, it is impossible to determine whether a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear program is attainable. Even if it is attainable, it will not be a perfect deal. It will not completely dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and it will almost certainly allow for some domestic enrichment. What is certain is that even an imperfect deal would reverse Iran’s nuclear expansion. That is a far greater victory against nuclear proliferation than any neoconservative can claim...."
     
  8. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    And ... ???

    You honestly expect me to care or comment, other than going ...

    [​IMG] ...

    ... to an article off a Marxist website?
     
  9. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    So, was there something unfactual about the piece? Here, check this one out:

    In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran's Offer of Dialogue
    06-17-2006

    "
    Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.


    But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said.

    Last month, the Bush administration abruptly shifted policy and agreed to join talks previously led by European countries over Iran's nuclear program. But several former administration officials say the United States missed an opportunity in 2003 at a time when American strength seemed at its height -- and Iran did not have a functioning nuclear program or a gusher of oil revenue from soaring energy demand.

    "At the time, the Iranians were not spinning centrifuges, they were not enriching uranium," said Flynt Leverett, who was a senior director on the National Security Council staff then and saw the Iranian proposal. He described it as "a serious effort, a respectable effort to lay out a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement."

    While the Iranian approach has been previously reported, the actual document making the offer has surfaced only in recent weeks. Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he obtained it from Iranian sources. The Washington Post confirmed its authenticity with Iranian and former U.S. officials.

    Parsi said the U.S. victory in Iraq frightened the Iranians because U.S. forces had routed in three weeks an army that Iran had failed to defeat during a bloody eight-year war.

    The document lists a series of Iranian aims for the talks, such as ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests." Iran agreed to put a series of U.S. aims on the agenda, including full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" against terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending "material support" for Palestinian militias and accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The document also laid out an agenda for negotiations, with possible steps to be achieved at a first meeting and the development of negotiating road maps on disarmament, terrorism and economic cooperation.

    Newsday has previously reported that the document was primarily the work of Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's ambassador to France and nephew of Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi and passed on by the Swiss ambassador to Tehran, Tim Guldimann. The Swiss government is a diplomatic channel for communications between Tehran and Washington because the two countries broke off relations after the 1979 seizure of U.S. embassy personnel.

    Leverett said Guldimann included a cover letter that it was an authoritative initiative that had the support of then-President Mohammad Khatami and supreme religious leader Ali Khamenei.

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stressed that the U.S. decision to join the nuclear talks was not an effort to strike a "grand bargain" with Iran. Earlier this month, she made the first official confirmation of the Iranian proposal in an interview with National Public Radio.

    "What the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United States so that this could be about the United States and Iran," said Rice, who was Bush's national security adviser when the fax was received. "Now it is Iran and the international community, and Iran has to answer to the international community. I think that's the strongest possible position to be in."

    Current White House and State Department officials declined to comment further on the Iranian offer.

    Paul R. Pillar, former national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, said that it is true "there is less daylight between the United States and Europe, thanks in part to Rice's energetic diplomacy." But he said that only partially offsets the fact that the U.S. position is "inherently weaker now" because of Iraq. He described the Iranian approach as part of a series of efforts by Iran to engage with the Bush administration. "I think there have been a lot of lost opportunities," he said, citing as one example a failure to build on the useful cooperation Iran provided in Afghanistan.

    Richard N. Haass, head of policy planning at the State Department at the time and now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the Iranian approach was swiftly rejected because in the administration "the bias was toward a policy of regime change." He said it is difficult to know whether the proposal was fully supported by the "multiple governments" that run Iran, but he felt it was worth exploring.

    "To use an oil analogy, we could have drilled a dry hole," he said. "But I didn't see what we had to lose. I did not share the assessment of many in the administration that the Iranian regime was on the brink."

    Parsi said that based on his conversations with the Iranian officials, he believes the failure of the United States to even respond to the offer had an impact on the government. Parsi, who is writing a book on Iran-Israeli relations, said he believes the Iranians were ready to dramatically soften their stance on Israel, essentially taking the position of other Islamic countries such as Malaysia. Instead, Iranian officials decided that the United States cared not about Iranian policies but about Iranian power.

    The incident "strengthened the hands of those in Iran who believe the only way to compel the United States to talk or deal with Iran is not by sending peace offers but by being a nuisance," Parsi said."
     
  10. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    Here, check this one out:

    Report: Cheney rejected Iran's offer of concessions in 2003
    01-18-2007

    "A package of concessions offered to the US by Iran in 2003 was very close to what the US is now asking from Tehran. The BBC reports that Iran offered, among other things, to end support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and to help stabilize Iraq following the US-led invasion. But a former US senior official told BBC's Newsnight program that the package was rejected by Vice President Dick Cheney's office.

    One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan – but was over-ruled.

    "We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that," Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight. "But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself."...."
     
  11. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    Here's a recent one for you to criticize:

    What critics are getting wrong about the Iran deal
    11-24-2013

    "If you’re trying to decide what to think about the deal struck between the major powers and Iran in Geneva, here’s a suggestion – imagine what would have happened if there had been no deal.

    In fact, one doesn’t have to use much imagination. In 2003, Iran approached the United States with an offer to talk about its nuclear program. The George W. Bush administration rejected the offer because it believed that the Iranian regime was weak, had been battered by sanctions, and would either capitulate or collapse if Washington just stayed tough.

    So there was no deal. What was the result? Iran had 164 centrifuges operating in 2003; today it has 19,000 centrifuges. Had the Geneva talks with Iran broken down, Iran would have continued expanding its nuclear program. Yes they are now under tough sanctions, but they were under sanctions then as well.

    And yet, the number of centrifuges grew exponentially
    (Despite all the sanctions and sabotage, keep in mind, the costs of a nuclear program are small for an oil rich country like Iran.).....

    ....This is a sensible deal – signed off on by France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China – but it is just an interim deal and not a historic rapprochement. And that’s why so much of the opposition to it is misplaced.

    Washington has many points of disagreement with Tehran, from its opposition to Israel and its support of Hezbollah to its funding of Iraq militias. This is not like the opening to China – it’s more like an arms control deal with the Soviet Union, with two wary adversaries trying to find some common ground.

    Many countries in the Middle East – from Israel to Saudi Arabia – have legitimate concerns about Iran. But many of these countries have also gotten used to having a permanent enemy against whom they could rail, focusing domestic attention, driving ideological and sectarian divides, and garnering support.

    The Middle East is undergoing so much change. Perhaps this is one more change. And perhaps Iran will come in from the Cold. For now, this deal is just one step, not a seismic shift. But it is still a step forward."
     

Share This Page

Loading...