# US swaps Saudi for Iran



## CQB (Mar 30, 2015)

Ive just been T-Boned by this one. Pretty interesting information. Now with no dependence on ME oil...

The nuclear talks, French diplomats suspect, are just one part of a strategic rapprochement with Iran. Washington has practically sub-contracted the war against the Islamic State’s forces in Iraq to Iranian special forces and Tehran’s Iraqi militia proxies. The French view this as a potentially counter-productive move, one more part of Washington’s turn away from its Sunni allies and toward Tehran.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/30/how-france-became-an-iran-hawk/


----------



## AWP (Mar 30, 2015)

Siding with Iran...I can't think of a more ridiculous policy move in the ME.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 30, 2015)

Who would we "side" against by partnering with Iran?  Unless we want to fight quite literally ALL of our allies in the region, from Israel to Afghanistan, it doesn't make any sense at all to "partner" with Iran.  "Negotiate?" sure.  But "partner?"  No way.


----------



## Brill (Mar 30, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> Who would we "side" against by partnering with Iran?  Unless we want to fight quite literally ALL of our allies in the region, from Israel to Afghanistan, it doesn't make any sense at all to "partner" with Iran.  "Negotiate?" sure.  But "partner?"  No way.



Sometimes you gotta break stuff to rebuild.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/29/judson-phillips-barack-obama-iranian-candidate/


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 30, 2015)

you know, I always thought the "Holy War" in the middle east would be Islam vs Christian........now, thinking it's shaping up to be Shi'a vs Sunni....


----------



## Brill (Mar 30, 2015)

Kraut783 said:


> you know, I always thought the "Holy War" in the middle east would be Islam vs Christian........now, thinking it's shaping up to be Shi'a vs Sunni....



Abu Bakr vs Ali...death match in the Octagon!


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 30, 2015)

Abu Bakr has the experience AND some would say the approval of Muhammad himself, but will his age hamper him in the later rounds?

My money is on Ali.  He's young and eager.  He makes up for a smaller number of followers with grit and determination.  This darkhorse fighter could prove troublesome for Abu Bakr!


----------



## CQB (Mar 31, 2015)

Kraut783 said:


> you know, I always thought the "Holy War" in the middle east would be Islam vs Christian........now, thinking it's shaping up to be Shi'a vs Sunni....


Looks like it. I have mixed feelings about my original post with the only take away being I agree with the French position. The only thing in favour of the Shia is that the Kurds have taken in Christian and Yasidi minorities & I think (correct me here) there are still Jewish communities in Iran. There's none in Iraq & Christians ie: Assyrians et al have been sent packing.


----------



## comrade-z (Mar 31, 2015)

CQB said:


> Looks like it. I have mixed feelings about my original post with the only take away being I agree with the French position. The only thing in favour of the Shia is that the Kurds have taken in Christian and Yasidi minorities & I think (correct me here) there are still Jewish communities in Iran. There's none in Iraq & Christians ie: Assyrians et al have been sent packing.



There are some Jews indeed still in Iran (approx. 8,500).  The majority left around the time of the revolution; those families have some interesting stories about all that, but that is a different topic.


----------



## pardus (Mar 31, 2015)

CQB said:


> Looks like it. I have mixed feelings about my original post with the only take away being I agree with the French position. The only thing in favour of the Shia is that the Kurds have taken in Christian and Yasidi minorities & I think (correct me here) there are still Jewish communities in Iran. There's none in Iraq & Christians ie: Assyrians et al have been sent packing.



Are you saying that the Kurds are Shia? The majority are actually Sunni.


----------



## AWP (Mar 31, 2015)

What makes me pause are the sheer numbers.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslim-population/



> In four countries – Iran, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Iraq – Shia Muslims make up a majority of the total population.


 
We'd side with a vast minority (10-15% of the world's Muslim population) because....ISIL? One of the four above are our outright enemies, Azerbaijan figures into our foreign policy how, leaving Bahrain (Navy base) and Iraq as our "friends?"

Madness.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 31, 2015)

Hey, good news about our new partners-to-be, the Iranians!

There is one reason we are pushing so hard on this issue, and that is domestic politics.  I don't think anyone really thinks there is a shot at Iran being legit partners with us, our interests are fundamentally and diametrically opposed.  The President would very much like this to be a "win," and John Kerry... well, with John Kerry involved I'm pretty sure this one is going to end up in the "L" column too.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 1, 2015)

We know the Iranians will "cheat" on any agreement, so I wonder why POTUS is so determined to lift sanctions?


----------



## pardus (Apr 1, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> We know the Iranians will "cheat" on any agreement, so I wonder why POTUS is so determined to lift sanctions?



I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a fuck you to Israel and Netanyahu. IMO Obama hates Israel, he certainly seems to be doing whatever he can to weaken it's positon.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 1, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> We know the Iranians will "cheat" on any agreement, so I wonder why POTUS is so determined to lift sanctions?


Someone pointed out to me the other day that the Iranians adhered completely to the Algiers Accords, even while shouting "Marg bar Amrika!" from the pulpit.  

I think we ought not get too far ahead of ourselves.  The most important reason being that there's not even a deal yet.  All we can do is make broad generalizations about any country might do. 

I heard something interesting the other day when someone addressed the US' past calls for "regime change" in Iran.  Typically, those kinds of talks were couched in the rhetoric of military action, or support to myriad opposition groups (such as the MeK).  This person pointed out that hard-liners in Iran are best-served by the status quo because they can "Marg bar Amrika" all day and their supporters will support them.  Because of sanctions, many of Irans imports/exports are cut off from the world market and they are not subject to a lot of international norms because of it.  In a way they are isolated, though obviously not to the extent that North Korea is.  They still accept tourists, even from America.  But the lack of transparency in government and, to a lesser extent media, hampers communication.   Having talks with the P5+1 group already de-legitimizes these entrenched hardliners, somewhat.  Getting a deal done and easing trade sanctions would open up Iran to world markets, which would force adoption of the standards of the international community.  This would be an even bigger blow to the hardliners, which he asserted would be a "soft regime change."  It wouldn't necessarily oust anyone, at least not immediately, but it's harder to "Marg bar Amrika" when you "Mo'amele ba Amrika" (trade with America).


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 2, 2015)

Today is Seezdeh Bedar, and important holiday in Persian culture celebrated 13 days after Nowruz.

What a great day to announce that negotiators have reached a deal on the framework for a draft nuclear deal!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/iran-nuclear-talks-breakthrough-lausanne



> *Iran nuclear talks: officials claim breakthrough*
> 
> Iranian and western officials claimed to have made a breakthrough in nuclear negotiations in Lausanne on Thursday night, and said they were drafting a joint statement.
> 
> After eight days of talks, often going late into the night, the Iranian foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif tweeted: “Found solutions. Ready to start drafting immediately.”




It's not a finalized deal, obviously, but this is very exciting news.  Even if you don't like the idea, with the framework settled we can at least get an idea of what specific items a potential deal will involve.  This is a good way to go into the weekend* *


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 2, 2015)

Why do I not trust any of this, including our side.


----------



## CQB (Apr 2, 2015)

Interesting to compare it to Versailles as the winning nations that expended the most blood & treasure got the better deal.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 2, 2015)

pardus said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a fuck you to Israel and Netanyahu. IMO Obama hates Israel, he certainly seems to be doing whatever he can to weaken it's positon.


 
Absolutely. What I find hypocritical is this liberal administration's apparent determination to side with a state that sponsors terrorism, oppresses human rights and treats women like slaves. It makes no sense to me. We are empowering Iran to move into positions of great political influence in Iraq and elsewhere, facilitating their nuclear ambitions. Somehow, American liberals have re-educated themselves to ignore all Iran's evils. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/w...-have-worsened-un-investigator-says.html?_r=0


----------



## pardus (Apr 2, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> Absolutely. What I find hypocritical is this liberal administration's apparent determination to side with a state that sponsors terrorism, oppresses human rights and treats women like slaves. It makes no sense to me. We are empowering Iran to move into positions of great political influence in Iraq and elsewhere, facilitating their nuclear ambitions. Somehow, American liberals have re-educated themselves to ignore all Iran's evils.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/w...-have-worsened-un-investigator-says.html?_r=0



Yep and taken to it's logical conclusion, the left is advocating the genocide of the Jews in Israel. Just like their demi god Clinton was "totally cool bro", with the genocide in Rwanda.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 3, 2015)

Folks, we got an incredibly good deal, by the looks of it.  Unprecedented inspection access, conversion of Fordow, reduction of LEU stockpile, fixed number of 1st gen centrifuges, Arak gets an entirely new core (this is really big!), phased sanction relief, sanctions related to terrorism and human rights stay in place.  The inspection access alone would have been a really positive step forward, but the sheer amount of concessions that we got from Iran are just incredible.  

I'm going to say something very controversial.  A lot has been said about how bad John Kerry has been at the SecState position.  And I totally agree.  Until today, he had basically done nothing and been pretty worthless at the position.  But, if this deal becomes finalized and congress approves it, I believe that it will have such a profound impact that he will go down in the history books as one of the US' greatest diplomats.  Calling it now.

Anyway, here's the big list of stuff:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/04/240170.htm


> Below are the key parameters of a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program that were decided in Lausanne, Switzerland. These elements form the foundation upon which the final text of the JCPOA will be written between now and June 30, and reflect the significant progress that has been made in discussions between the P5+1, the European Union, and Iran. Important implementation details are still subject to negotiation, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We will work to conclude the JCPOA based on these parameters over the coming months.
> 
> *Enrichment*
> 
> ...


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 3, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Folks, we got an incredibly good deal, by the looks of it.  Unprecedented inspection access, conversion of Fordow, reduction of LEU stockpile, fixed number of 1st gen centrifuges, Arak gets an entirely new core (this is really big!), phased sanction relief, sanctions related to terrorism and human rights stay in place.  The inspection access alone would have been a really positive step forward, but the sheer amount of concessions that we got from Iran are just incredible.
> 
> I'm going to say something very controversial.  A lot has been said about how bad John Kerry has been at the SecState position.  And I totally agree.  Until today, he had basically done nothing and been pretty worthless at the position.  But, if this deal becomes finalized and congress approves it, I believe that it will have such a profound impact that he will go down in the history books as one of the US' greatest diplomats.  Calling it now.
> 
> ...


IF, big IF; the Iranians actually comply.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 3, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> ...Getting a deal done and easing trade sanctions would open up Iran to world markets, *which would force adoption of* *the standards of the international community*...


 
DM, I'm leery of this precisely because it's the exact same strategy Clinton and his advisors based their China policy on: open the PRC to the world markets and human rights, freedom of expression and perhaps even democracy would soon follow. That has not happened and was a major miscalculation. In fact our stores and homes are filled with cheap Chinese goods in return for billions of $, the loss of American manufacturing jobs and the sharing of satellite technology. The PRC is considered by many to still present a significant military threat and the oppression of political opponents continues.

Given the Iran's brutal track record, I doubt it will be any more--and probably less--receptive of adopting the standards of the international community.

I can't share your optimism and enthusiasm for this diplomatic breakthrough because I am convinced it is a false triumph. IMO, the Iranians want more than anything else nuclear weapons parity with Israel and no paper agreement is going to derail that ambition. They will continue covertly to work toward this goal.


----------



## AWP (Apr 3, 2015)

Two generic problems with any diplomacy:
1. Party A living up to its side of the bargain.
2. Party B punishing Party A when A does not live up to its side of the bargain.

On paper this looks like a good thing, but reality is yet to be seen.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 3, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> DM, I'm leery of this precisely because it's the exact same strategy Clinton and his advisors based their China policy on: open the PRC to the world markets and human rights, freedom of expression and perhaps even democracy would soon follow. That has not happened and was a major miscalculation. In fact our stores and homes are filled with cheap Chinese goods in return for the loss of American manufacturing jobs and the sharing of satellite technology. The PRC is considered by many to still present a significant military threat and the oppression of political opponents continues.
> 
> Given the Iran's brutal track record, I doubt it will be any more--and probably less--receptive of adopting the standards of the international community.



You're right about China - our foreign policy towards them has not produced the kind of end result that we wanted, yet.  Though I suspect that that's due in large part to NAFTA and China's incredible economic gains in the last 20 years.  I'm not an expert at all on the subject but I doubt the experts in 1994 thought, "You know, China is going to be a super big deal in the next millenium.  Maybe even the biggest deal."  This deal with Iran is not a trade agreement, but rather a return to the baseline (if there ever was a baseline).  Is it going to fix Iran's human rights record overnight?  Of course not.  Over 10 years?  Probably not.  20 years?  Maybe.  Hell, we aren't even sure if Khameini will outlive this deal.  Frankly, I am less-worried about fixing their human rights record and support to terrorism RIGHT NOW than beginning to solve the nuclear issue.  Those issues can't even begin to be addressed (by the United States, at least) until relations have normalized.  In the meantime, we are doing the prudent thing by continuing sanctions related to those issues.  Once the US and Iran bump fists and achieve normal or even semi-normal relations, THEN we can start to say "So uhhh......how about that Hizb'allah?  And hey, Hamas?  Could you, ya know, stop supporting them?"  I think that part of the problem is we still treat Iran as if it were under Ahmedinejad.  That's a dangerous way of thinking: the trend established by Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami was looking pretty good for a while.  The covert nuclear program was even stopped in 2003, even after Bush made that incredibly, ridiculously stupid "Axis of Evil" speech.  Ahmedinejad did an abrupt about-face on the policy and we responded in kind.  

As a side note, the election of Ahmedinejad was kind of unprecedented (though that's not saying a whole lot in a country with not much in the way of Presidential precedent), because he was the first President not to have some sort of religious education background.  He was a populist candidate who made his mark as mayor of Tehran.  That he rolled back significant reforms as mayor should have been a big, flashing neon sign that he was planning to steer hard to the right.

I want the general audience here to consider two things: 1) This deal not only increases the amount of access that the international community has, but reduces Iran's enriched materials AND enrichment rate and capacity.  The effect of this is that detecting a bomb-in-progress will be easier, but the breakout time from from assemblage of material (generally cited as around 25kg of HEU) to a final bomb increases dramatically, giving the international community a larger buffer.  What do we get with no deal?  Less access, and a shorter breakout time.
2) It would ease the collective trauma of Iranians about the 1953 coup.   This is kind of academic so bear with me.   A contemporary Iranian professor told me the other day that Iranians have a long cultural memory, with a history of collective trauma but into their culture.  This trauma stretches back all the way to the martyrdom of Hossein at the hands of Yazid, of which the collective guilt associated with it manifests itself during the celebration of Ashura during the month of Muharram.  Because of this, old events have a recency to Persians that are difficult to understand to us.  Honestly, it's still a difficult concept to me, and this is the stuff that I study.  This professor said, "To Iranians, even those who weren't born yet, the revolution seems like it happened yesterday.  The coup (the US/British overthrow of Mossadegh) happened the day before."  Sanctions and US military action serve as constant reminders of that ,  He (and others) have speculated that this psychic trauma could be one of the reasons why Iran adopts such an aggressive defensive posture.  This is a large part of the reason why "Death to America" has effectively become a T-shirt slogan.  Along with that, it should be noted that contemporary Iran has never attacked another country.  The country HAS supported groups conducting attacks, but has never overtly attacked another country.  I am in no way saying that their covert support is justified, but that the USE of a nuclear weapon, an incredibly overt act, is not in keeping with their national character.  We only need to look back back to the Iran/Iraq war for support: despite Iraq's continued use of chemical weapon assaults during the conflict, Khomeini reportedly refused to retaliate with weapons of their own.  This has been disputed, but never conclusively disproven.  Anyway, the point is that this manner of deal and an easing of relations might engender a cultural shift in Iran that could potentially make the country's current hedgehog defense less palatable to future politicians.  

I also ask this of the deal-doubters: what, if anything, do we gain by maintaining the status quo and having no deal at all?  I posit again that this deal, if passed, does not prevent us from using military strikes in the future.  If anything, it allow future Presidents to make a STRONGER case to the UN and regional powers that a military strike is valid. "See?  We put a bit of trust in Iran and they flipped the bird at us.  This time it's really not cool, okay?"

We are placing trust in the Iranians and they are placing a smidgen of trust in us (and, by extension, the international community).  This is a big breakthrough and should give anyone a reason for optimism.


----------



## Brill (Apr 3, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Folks, we got an incredibly good deal, by the looks of it.



Jesus @Deathy McDeath , "learn a book" (from a SNL skit) and read the Munich Agreement. 

4:15 is the crux of the lesson.






The Iranians clearly understand that this Administration will not intervene militarily WHEN violate the terms of the agreement.  "The entire world will see."

So this is Russia invades Ukraine part 2?  Sanctions...big whoop.  Or is the chem wep usage in Syria a demonstration that POTUS is for reelz???

"Stop or I'll say stop again" can be a foreign policy but probably not very effective...unless you want more stability like Somalia, Nigeria, Yemen, Libya (Obama fucking OWNS that shit show), etc.

Deatht to America and all that crap is a way to rally the people against a common enemy.  If the Persians are pissed at us then they're not pissed at the Iranian government for their own failed domestic policies.  It's population control.  Enough of the "International Apology Tour".  Iranian religious and "political" leaders (is there a difference???) could easily resolve this like the calm Libya experienced prior to the Arab Spring.  Give up your bad shit and we can be friends.

You can't lead from a golf course and wear dad jeans if you want to be taken seriously on the World Stage.


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 3, 2015)

Heh...we are actually trusting Iran to comply with any agreements?  History has taught us nothing.......


----------



## Gunz (Apr 5, 2015)

@Deathly McDeath, I gave you a "like" for your prodigious typing  and indeed for raising a number of worthy points. However my misgivings about the deal are firm. The White House spin is exactly that, positive spin on concessions that _we _had to make in order to put ink on paper, like conceeding 5,000 centrifuges, far more than we'd wanted. And centrifuge activity is difficult to detect with technology. The only way to detect cheating would be through HUMINT. Not only that, but the deal has implications that effect the entire ME, and not all Gulf states are happy about it, particularly the Saudis.

Again, my personal view is that Kerry was played like a fiddle. But I commend your reasoned argument.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 5, 2015)

Before the deal:
US:  "Hey, we can be friends now!"
Iran:  "Death to America!"

After the deal:
US: "Hey we made a great deal!  Umm... right, Iran?"
Iran:  "Death to America!"

Looks like we're off to  a great start!


----------



## pardus (Apr 5, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> Before the deal:
> US:  "Hey, we can be friends now!"
> Iran:  "Death to America!"
> 
> ...


----------



## Scotth (Apr 7, 2015)

Everyone can complain about this and that about the nuke deal with Iran.

What's your alternative other than complaining?  If we go down the road with no deal where does that lead to?

Bombing isn't a real option.  Israel isn't going to bomb Iran, they don't have the capability, or they would have done it a decade ago.  Bush had his chance and didn't.  Obama isn't going to do it and neither will the next President regardless of who gets elected because there is no will for it in the country.

We have two choices make a deal and see what happens or don't make a deal and we all know how that story will end.


----------



## Brill (Apr 7, 2015)

Scotth said:


> Everyone can complain about this and that about the nuke deal with Iran.
> 
> What's your alternative other than complaining?  If we go down the road with no deal where does that lead to?
> 
> ...



That logic sure sounds like "we have to pass it in order to see what's in it".

Are you saying that Iran was closer to a nuke 10 years ago???  If sanctions are NOT working, what was the catalyst that made Iran sit down with "the great Satan" for talks to begin with?

You're assertion that Israel will not attack Iran (overtly or covertly) to preserve their way of life is fundamentally flawed.


----------



## Scotth (Apr 7, 2015)

lindy said:


> That logic sure sounds like "we have to pass it in order to see what's in it".
> 
> Are you saying that Iran was closer to a nuke 10 years ago???  If sanctions are NOT working, what was the catalyst that made Iran sit down with "the great Satan" for talks to begin with?
> 
> You're assertion that Israel will not attack Iran (overtly or covertly) to preserve their way of life is fundamentally flawed.



While your first response was a cute comeback you kind of made my point on my first question.

"What's your alternative other than complaining?"  Do you have an answer?

Since you don't like Obama's solution and offer no other solution what is the answer to my second question of maintaining the status quo?

Nobody said Iran was closer to creating a nuke ten years ago.  They're nuke program was much smaller 10 years ago and the job of taking it out through a bombing campaign WOULD'VE been much easier 10 years ago though.

I never asserted Israel wouldn't defend themselves to preserve their country but attacking Iran to take out there nuke program isn't happening.  I have more then 2 decades of history backing up that point of view.  A bombing campaign at best delays the final outcome.  You either make a deal or they will eventually become nuclear.  Bush thought he could sanction North Korea into a better deal and how did that turn out.  Eventually, Iran will act like North Korea and say screw you and go nuclear.

Better to make a deal that has Russia and China and Europe all involved.  If the deal goes south not only does Iran walk away, but both China and Russia walk away from Iranian sanctions as well.  China starts buying up all of Iran's oil like they want to, Russia goes back to doing what they want and the European's will fight for Iran oil as well so they have to import less Russian oil.  Do you think US sanctions alone are going to stop Iran from going nuclear some where in the future?  At least now, if Iran goes back on the deal it forces the Russian's and Chinese to put sanctions back on Iran.


----------



## Brill (Apr 7, 2015)

Scotth said:


> While your first response was a cute comeback you kind of made my point on my first question.
> 
> "What's your alternative other than complaining?"  Do you have an answer?
> Complaining or expressing First Amendment rights?  What's wrong with continued sanctions and international isolation?  Why a deal now?  How does the status quo HURT the US?
> ...


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 7, 2015)

Scotth said:


> While your first response was a cute comeback you kind of made my point on my first question.
> 
> "What's your alternative other than complaining?"  Do you have an answer?
> 
> ...


Disagree slightly.
Bush put sanctions on Korea after they reneged on the agreement they signed (and generally ignored) with Clinton. His sanctions may not work as well as you or I want, but at least Bush held them to the agreement they signed (thank you Jimmy Carter, dumbass).
You also assume Russia and China (and Europe) won't try to undercut us by participating in the agreement, what does Russia or China have to lose with a nuclear Iran?  I think we will be the biggest loser when the Persians go nuclear.
The Iranians will get caught cheating, and the Russians and Chinese will say it isn't that big a breech, or our data is inconclusive (see Vietnam Peace Treaty for previous example).
We get 13 years of terrorism, then they get nukes and up the ante.


----------



## Scotth (Apr 7, 2015)

lindy said:


> What's wrong with continued sanctions and international isolation? Why a deal now? How does the status quo HURT the US?



There is no international sanctions or isolation if Russia and the Chinese walk away.  The status quo doesn't necessarily hurt us but Iran will eventually go nuclear and isn't that the issue?



lindy said:


> Status quo is an answer and so far a good policy: got them to the table didn't it?



Everyone came to the table for a reason and if they all walk away how successful was the status quo exactly?



lindy said:


> You may want to research Russian-Iranian relations...especially when they just signed a 15 year bilateral military agreement that will go into effect upon lifting of sanctions.


My point exactly, what do you think is going to happen if the deal goes south?



lindy said:


> Disagree. No need to make an unenforceable deal. If there are other elements that necessitate an agreement, why not let Congress in on the terms and enact a valid treaty and not a deal that will not be limited to the current President? If the terms really are that good and enable world peace, isn't that something the ENTIRE nation could get behind instead of the typical partisan politics of "my elephant can beat up your donkey"?



The deal isn't a treaty and no President, Republican or Democrat, is going to concede power to congress. 

Republican's didn't demand when Clinton made his nuke deal with North Korea that it was a treaty and needed congressional approval.  The deal isn't limited to Obama.  The deal is enforceable as long as it is in place.  The North Korea deal went away because GW ended it on June 6, 2001.  

Nobody is arguing this will create world peace but at some point you actually need to do something.


----------



## Scotth (Apr 7, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Disagree slightly.
> Bush put sanctions on Korea after they reneged on the agreement they signed (and generally ignored) with Clinton. His sanctions may not work as well as you or I want, but at least Bush held them to the agreement they signed (thank you Jimmy Carter, dumbass).
> You also assume Russia and China (and Europe) won't try to undercut us by participating in the agreement, what does Russia or China have to lose with a nuclear Iran?  I think we will be the biggest loser when the Persians go nuclear.
> The Iranians will get caught cheating, and the Russians and Chinese will say it isn't that big a breech, or our data is inconclusive (see Vietnam Peace Treaty for previous example).
> We get 13 years of terrorism, then they get nukes and up the ante.



For me, better to try and fail then to do nothing and ensure that outcome.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 7, 2015)

Scotth said:


> For me, better to try and fail then to do nothing and ensure that outcome.


Kind of funny reading that.
The same could be said for the GWOT.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 9, 2015)

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/09/i...-if-inspectors-want-access-to-military-sites/



> *Seemingly out of nowhere*, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated Thursday that Iran won’t sign off on any final nuclear agreement unless military sites are declared off limits to foreign inspectors.



Trust us!  We will keep the terms of this deal, no need for those pesky compliance checks.  

more credible source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/world/middleeast/iran-khamenei-rouhani-nuclear-agreement.html?_r=1


----------



## Gunz (Apr 10, 2015)

_"In his remarks Thursday, Ayatollah Khamenei seemed to rule out any inspections inside military bases or compounds...Several of the sites the United States is most concerned about in Iran are on military bases, including Fordo."_

...and just when Kerry thought he'd finally hammered that square peg into the round hole...


----------



## Centermass (Sep 10, 2015)

Iran Agreement Passes

So, here we are, fittingly (Or coincidently) on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary.

Khamenei and his henchman are literally laughing their asses off with regards to how much they will wind up with, knowing full well, how much this agreement is all smoke and mirrors.







(Caption reads "We stand in support of the agreement.")

All you need to know is who's standing at the lectern. (And, I'm sure she and everyone else has read the complete agreement .....yeah, right) This isn't about national security, which has become a running joke for the last 7 years, it's all about politics and saving face. That's the main reason these idiots, once again, found a way around congress by making it an "Agreement" rather than a "Treaty." At the onset of this, months ago, 99 out of 100 Senators voted in favor of bringing this up for debate. Harry Reid effectively "Filibustered" the possibility of that ever happening, in true Harry Reid fashion, much like how the ACA (Obamacare) was shoved down our throats. The devil is in the details.

Not to mention that the side deals, (Most of which have been and are still being withheld) are in direct violation to the Corker Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, the very same, which the president himself signed. No one it seems, including him, or in this administration, abides by the laws,  when it comes to getting what he or they want. And as for the rule of law, that has become a joke in the last 7 years as well. This shouldn't have anything to do with dems or republicans. It should have everything to do with common fucking sense, instead of towing party lines.

Even if the next President comes along and overturns this agreement, it won't mean a hill of beans, as Pandora's Box will have already opened, seized funds will be immediately transferred back to Iran and any possibility of "Snap Back" sanctions will become as useless then as anyone who's read any part of this agreement, already knows now.

Iran get's everything and we once again, get a sham, with no teeth, along with a whitewash of supposed inspections that will run in Hans Blix mode and resemble the same, when the Iranians start to play hide and go seek. 

Only a fool would hand over a loaded gun to an angry man. That's exactly what we're doing here. This administration knows as much about national security and foreign policy as Big Bird......

"We got an incredibly good deal" my ass.  

God help us.


----------



## pardus (Sep 10, 2015)

Every member of the White House/Congress/Senate who agreed to this _deserves_ to be put up against a wall and shot.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 11, 2015)

The core truth for me in this ridiculous agreement is that we are ignoring the fact that you need a lot more centifuges to produce nuclear power than you need to produce a bomb. So, in effect, by making them cut back to 500 centrifuges we are limiting their ability to generate nuclear power and facilitating--or at least not impeding--their ability to make a nuclear weapon. :wall::wall:


----------



## Dame (Sep 12, 2015)

Well, what do you know?
*Iran finds unexpectedly high uranium reserve*


> DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran has discovered an unexpectedly high reserve of uranium and will soon begin extracting the radioactive element at a new mine, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation said on Saturday.
> 
> The comments cast doubt on previous assessments from some Western analysts who said the country had a low supply and would sooner or later would need to import uranium, the raw material needed for its nuclear program.
> 
> ...


Iran says finds unexpectedly high uranium reserve


----------



## AWP (Sep 12, 2015)

Dame said:


> Well, what do you know?



SHOCKED! I am utterly shocked at these recent developments and do not think the good, peace-loving people of Iran staged this announcement.


----------



## Brill (Sep 12, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> SHOCKED! I am utterly shocked at these recent developments and do not think the good, peace-loving people of Iran staged this announcement.



It will be used for their peaceful nuclear weapons program and nothing more.


----------



## AWP (Mar 4, 2016)

Now that Iran has their 100 billion in assets back they can go on a shopping spree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/w...de-toward-business-ties-with-the-us.html?_r=0



> Boeing has been invited to talks with Iranian officials about modernizing Iran’s aged commercial aircraft fleet, the country’s transport minister said Thursday, in what could be a precursor to the biggest business arrangement with an American company after more than three decades of estrangement.
> 
> Boeing said last month that as an outcome of the nuclear agreement, it had received a license from the United States government to conduct planning discussions with Iran about an aircraft fleet, a step meant to assess Iran’s needs before any negotiations for purchases.


----------



## CQB (Mar 7, 2016)

Yep, that agreement they signed was a sweet deal for them, fer sure.


----------

