Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals

[Shady]

You know it's bad when The Washington Post editorial board is questioning the logic behind Obama's treasured nuclear deal. A deal that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

-THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact

-When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

-The proposed accord will provide Iran a huge economic boost that will allow it to wage more aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the region.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-iran-deal-falls-well-short-of-his-own-goals/2015/04/02/7974413c-d95c-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html?postshare=4151428013724869

As usual, and as been proven by the last several years, Obama has absolutely no idea how to negotiate. In this instance, they negotiated from a standpoint of weakness instead of strenght, when the sactions that Iran desperately wants lifted gave them much more leverage then they used. But Obama's desperate for a deal, any deal, no matter how bad. And after this garbage one, he says, America, you're welcome.

The only people that will be enthused about this deal is Iran. It's proxies in the region. And those around the world, and in this forum, that believe Iran should have nuclear weapons.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Shady

[Je suis Omar]

You know it's bad when The Washington Post editorial board is questioning the logic behind Obama's treasured nuclear deal. A deal that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

The only people that will be enthused about this deal is Iran. It's proxies in the region. And those around the world, and in this forum, that believe Iran should have nuclear weapons.

Is there any reason that Iran shouldn't nuclear weapons when Israel has them, Shady?

[Michael Hardner]

Is there any reason that Iran shouldn't nuclear weapons when Israel has them, Shady?

Their government is ultimately a religious dictatorship, for one. Israel is an ally, for another.

[Je suis Omar]

Their government is ultimately a religious dictatorship, for one. Israel is an ally, for another.

It was and is illegal for Israel to possess nuclear weapons. You seem to be of the opinion that all manner of war crime, terrorism and illegality is made okay because one is an ally.

I hope you don't also consider your position moral.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Michael Hardner]

It was and is illegal for Israel to possess nuclear weapons. You seem to be of the opinion that all manner of war crime, terrorism and illegality is made okay because one is an ally.

I hope you don't also consider your position moral.

Illegal ? How so. No, I don't think war crimes and terrorism are ok. You asked a question, using the term "should". I wouldn't have thought you were using that word in the context of collective (international ?) morality.

[eyeball]

-The proposed accord will provide Iran a huge economic boost that will allow it to wage more aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the region.

Oh noes not another country fighting or sponsoring wars across the region.

Snore.

[Big Guy]

The Israeli position and that of many on this board is that "no deal is better than a bad deal". Also, any negotiated deal means concessions on both sides. Those not part of the negotiations, on both sides, will always feel that it is a bad deal.

Personally, I feel that any deal is better than no deal. If nothing else it puts a confrontation off for down the line in the future where conditions may have changed.

To those who feel that this deal is worse than no deal, please share with me what you feel will happen in Iran and the Middle East if negotiations break off and both sides walk away.

[eyeball]

They will get exactly what they want to see happen. Shock and Awe in Tehran.

[Je suis Omar]

Illegal ? How so. No, I don't think war crimes and terrorism are ok. You asked a question, using the term "should". I wouldn't have thought you were using that word in the context of collective (international ?) morality.

The UN General Assembly has passed an Arab-introduced resolution calling on Israel not to develop, produce or possess nuclear arms and criticizing the country for not being part to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The resolution calls on Israel to "accede to that treaty without further delay, not to develop, produce test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons," and put its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, AP reports.

The UN would like to see the whole of the Middle East a nuclear weapons-free zone, according to the text of the document, which specifies Israel is the only country in the region which has not signed the non-proliferation treaty.

Israel, which is believed to have nuclear arms but has never admitted to it, has long been under fire from Arab countries in the region for not putting its alleged stockpile under international supervision.

The resolution, initiated by Egypt, was approved by 161 nations with only five voting against it and 18 abstentions.

The United States and Canada were among the minority opposing the measure.

http://rt.com/news/210939-un-israel-nuclear-arms/

If you don't agree with war crimes and terrorism then why do you support war criminals and terrorists?

[msj]

Maybe Obama is a realist and prefers an open and friendlier Iran with nukes than a closed and hostile Iran with nukes.

So Iran gets nukes in 5 to 10 years under sanctions/threats versus, say, 10 to 15 years with negotiations.

BFD.

[bush_cheney2004]

I am not concerned...Justin Trudeau and Canada will save the day with "soft power" and peacekeeping. It always does....

[eyeball]

I doubt it. This time we're all gonna die.

Pass the popcorn.

[Topaz]

I agree with you Michael, BUT it also depends on the leader and their frame of mind and since the Middle-East is a religious problem, some decisions in that area may not be the right one, the hatred is so high for each other, so anyone could use the bomb.

[Je suis Omar]

I am not concerned...Justin Trudeau and Canada will save the day with "soft power" and peacekeeping. It always does....

The peace keepers are powerless to do a thing because the USA has the CIA constantly committing terrorist acts, fomenting trouble, undermining democratic movements, training death squads, killing people, disappearing others, torturing and training others in the use of torture, ... .

Peacekeeping is a fruitless venture when you have a completely amoral nation, kept where it is by a largely ignorant population.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Peacekeeping is a fruitless venture when you have a completely amoral nation, kept where it is by a largely ignorant population.

And yet, the amoral nation and ignorant population is 75% of Canada's export market...including depleted uranium and other military hardware.

If the "peacekeeping" myth is good enough for ignorant Canadians, it is good enough for Iran.

[Je suis Omar]

And yet, the amoral nation and ignorant population is 75% of Canada's export market...including depleted uranium and other military hardware.

If the "peacekeeping" myth is good enough for ignorant Canadians, it is good enough for Iran.

What solution, then, do you offer to stop, what we both agree is, the greedy, amoral nation that is the USA?

[bush_cheney2004]

What solution, then, do you offer to stop, what we both agree is, the greedy, amoral nation that is the USA?

Why would I want to stop it ? Why would Canada want to stop it ?

Actions speak louder than sanctimonious words.

Close the border...stop the evil warmonger export and trade...walk the talk.

[Je suis Omar]

Why would I want to stop it ?

I can well imagine any random group of Nazis saying that.

[bush_cheney2004]

I can well imagine any random group of Nazis saying that.

Godwin's Law proven yet again...amazing !

[Big Guy]

I get the impression from some of the posters here that Iran would like to get involved in a war against the West and Israel.

While I have no idea what plans the secular and spiritual leaders in Iran are planning I do know that they could start a war to-day if that was their plan. It is very easy to start a war there especially under the current conditions.

Perhaps they are negotiating with Russia to see what kind of military support they could count on in case of a war.

Unlike the West, I believe the Iranians are looking at possible outcomes, exit strategy, what would constitute a "victory" and the cost of a war.

The mere fact that Netanyahu is apoplectic about this deal tells me that is has merit for the Western powers. It is certainly not what Israel wanted but who cares what Israel wants. Israel has a foreign and domestic policy that has put it into the position it now holds and has created the enemies who now want to see its demise. Good for Israel on its development, expansion and success of its military. I hope they do well on their own.

[Je suis Omar]

I hope they do well on their own.

The problem is that they are not on their own.

[Je suis Omar]

Godwin's Law proven yet again...amazing !

It's not a law, it's an observation, hardly an accurate one. It has as much effect on how the English language is used as The King's English or Strunk & White do.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not a law, it's an observation, hardly an accurate one. It has as much effect on how the English language is used as The King's English or Strunk & White do.

It is very accurate in this case....don't worry....you are not the first to do it...and won't be the last.

[Moonlight Graham]

If this deal prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon during the length of the deal (which can always be extended or re-negotiated at its expiry) and prevents full-scale war with Iran (which would be necessary to destroy Iran's vast nuclear facility network), then that's all that matters. You almost never get all that you want in negotiations. The fact that they even reached a deal together was virtually unthinkable 5 years ago.

Fareed Zakaria: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-nuclear-deal-with-iran-is-the-best-option/2015/04/02/bc8292d2-d978-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html

People speak of a strike on Iran like Israel’s against an Iraqi reactor in 1981 and a Syrian facility in 2007. But those were single facilities. Iran, by contrast, has a vast nuclear industry, comprising many installations spread across the country, some close to population centers, others in mountainous terrain. The United States would effectively have to go to war with Iran, destroying its air defenses, then attacking its facilities in dozens — perhaps hundreds — of sorties. The bombers would be equipped with highly explosive weapons, demolishing buildings, reactors and laboratories, but also producing considerable collateral damage.

...

Finally, once it had been attacked, Tehran would invoke the need for a deterrent against future attacks and would work directly and speedily not on a nuclear program but a nuclear weapon. In his op-ed advocating war with Iran, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton argues that military attacks “should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.” But bombing and then threatening the Islamic Republic’s existence would likely produce exactly the opposite effect — a government strengthened at home with a clear rationale to acquire a nuclear deterrent.

[Je suis Omar]

It is very accurate in this case....don't worry....you are not the first to do it...and won't be the last.

I know what I said was accurate and you agreed with me. Your repeated position, that you avidly support war crimes and war criminals is exactly what any group of Nazis or Russians or Chinese or Indonesians or Contras would say.

I'm not at all worried. I know that speakers of any language are not impeded from making apt comparisons by things such as this fanciful notion you raised in a lame attempt to illustrate how worldly you are.