When people hold on to false beliefs and refuse to see the big picture.
We have things like the Iraq war and many lives lost.
he specified 24/7 inspections – didn’t get that.
Set out that Iran would never have nuclear weapons – didn’t get that.
Sset out to end the nuclear facility at Fordow – didn’t get that.
He has crossed his own red lines at least three times
http://observer.com/2015/08/dershowitz-obama-is-an-abject-failure-by-his-own-standards/
The one place in the Iran agreement where the Obama admin really got snookered is in the supposedly ironclad “snapback provision” of the agreement. President Obama and Senator Kerry have both touted how this provides a hammer that will keep Iran from cheating. It ain’t necessarily so.
Assume Congress and Iran both approve the agreement. Iran stops its nuclear activities and we reach the point where U.S. companies are permitted to contract with Iran. Now, we see Boeing entering into a 20 year contract to sell airplanes and pars to Iran. Halliburton and Schlumberger both sign a 20 year contract to service the oil fields. European companies sign long term contracts to buy Iranian oil. Other companies follow with long term contracts.
OMG- we discover Iran is cheating. The Hillary admin moves to snap back the old sanctions. Except that they can’t- the snap back provision does NOT apply retroactively to contracts signed before the snap back:
37. Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, …the UN Security Council, …shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. IN SUCH EVENT, THESE PROVISIONS WOULD NOT APPLY WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT TO CONTRACTS SIGNED BETWEEN ANY PARTY AND IRAN OR IRANIAN INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES PRIOR TO THE DATE OF APPLICATION, PROVIDED THAT THE ACTIVITIES CONTEMPLATED UNDER AND EXECUTION OF SUCH CONTRACTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THIS JCPOA AND THE PREVIOUS AND CURRENT UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS.
So Iran is now permitted to resume its nuclear activities AND keep not only the money made before the snap back but the benefit of all contracts signed before the snap back.
How in the world did we agree to this
that Iran will cheat. What guarantee is there they will cheat ? The verification inspections I guess are supposed to be done by IAEA, the same agency that told there was no evidence of any WMD in Iraq. There were multiple reports issued to confirm that conclusion.
So who ignored it, lied, cheated and went to war?
Meanwhile a former official of Pakistan has said the terrorist attack in Mumbai that damaged the historic hotel and killed 168 people was carried out from Pakistan with an Operations center located in Karachi. There is documented proof that journalist Daniel Pearl was assassinated by the Pakistani Taliban with blessings from the Government of Pakistan. The country gave save haven to Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Pakistan is our "trusted ALLY" in war on terror! They have Nukes. What a Joke!.
Here are Israeli butt lickers stuffed with $$ by Defense Industry, Contractors and lobbyists second guessing Iran that has not carried out a terrorist attack on another country.
Under a possible future scenario and find it wanting.
I also find President Obama's description of the snap back remedy a bit incomplete.
... based on hypothetical situations. Both President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and representatives of other 5 countries have said, more than once, that this agreement is based on "verification" and not "trust".
When it comes to "trust" as I mentioned in my previous post, US does not have much credibility after Iraq, Afghanistan and "guilty by association" with the most ruthless state sponsor of terrorism, Pakistan.
Why not leave it at that!
......will have no choice but to support them. It's obvious Obama was not interested in starting another war in the Middle East.
Assume Congress and Iran both approve the agreement. Iran stops its nuclear activities and we reach the point where U.S. companies are permitted to contract with Iran. Now, we see Boeing entering into a 20 year contract to sell airplanes and pars to Iran. Halliburton and Schlumberger both sign a 20 year contract to service the oil fields. European companies sign long term contracts to buy Iranian oil. Other companies follow with long term contracts.
OMG- we discover Iran is cheating. The Hillary admin moves to snap back the old sanctions. Except that they can’t- the snap back provision does NOT apply retroactively to contracts signed before the snap back:
37. Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, …the UN Security Council, …shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. IN SUCH EVENT, THESE PROVISIONS WOULD NOT APPLY WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT TO CONTRACTS SIGNED BETWEEN ANY PARTY AND IRAN OR IRANIAN INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES PRIOR TO THE DATE OF APPLICATION, PROVIDED THAT THE ACTIVITIES CONTEMPLATED UNDER AND EXECUTION OF SUCH CONTRACTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THIS JCPOA AND THE PREVIOUS AND CURRENT UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS.
So Iran is now permitted to resume its nuclear activities AND keep not only the money made before the snap back but the benefit of all contracts signed before the snap back.
How in the world did we agree to this?
I mean let's get real here... Israel, despite what the trolls in here would have you believe does not want war. They never have. But the State of Israel was forged in the Crucible of the Holocaust, and produced a generation unwilling to roll over and be bullied. When a country espouses as its official position the elimination of the Zionist Entity, they don't mean they want to replace chicken soup with Fesenjan and Luleh Kabob.
There is no advantage to going to war with Iran, but if they do, it will be because they felt there was no choice.
I can only reiterate what I have said countless times over the years... the West has no concept of the Middle Eastern mindset. And that is the biggest reason why I am adamantly against the deal with Iran as it stands. Kerry gave away the farm and got nothing in return.
Want to claim "they're speaking to their home base"... THEY ARENT THE UNITED STATES WHERE POLITICIANS PANDER TO THEIR BASE!!! They are in the midst of a centuries long Jihad; they are encouraged to lie to achieve their objectives.
Naivete reigns supreme.
If they wanted war with Iran, they would have chosen to do so during the Bush admin, which was long before Iran's highly advanced air defense system that Russia is/has installed.
There are so many intangibles on an Israeli first strike against Iran and I am not overly optimistic about its success. The Israelis have the guts and technology to pull it off alone but I just don't think they can finish the job, the way it would need to be done correctly.
The only deal that would have possibly worked would be a complete and verifiable dismantling of the program and sadly, we got nothing even approaching that.
Yes, I do claim the religious thugs are playing to their base with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” Iran in fact does have politics just as the United States does. In order to stay in power, Khamenei has to appease both the Republican guard hardliners, and the far larger group of youth, moderates, and liberals in the government.
Where is the jihad? In 35 years since the fall of the Shah, has Iran invaded anybody other than to counter attack Saddam? Has Iran ever deployed troops on its border to threaten Israel? In the Hezbollah –Israel war or the Hamas Gaza war, did the Iranian army fire a shot at Israel? All they were willing to do was send money for arms and terrorism and provide some Quds force training. If they were serious about “Death to Israel” this would have been the time to act.
I also think your belief in the “Middle East mindset” incorrectly conflates Persians with Arabs, and Sunni with Shiite. The mind sets of these groups are very different. There is no "Middle East mindset." Why is Iran fighting ISIS if “jihad” is actually a pragmatic goal? They want to exercise influence in the region but not necessarily impose Sharia law.
Finally, I totally disagree with your focus on “a centuries long jihad.” As of 2012, more than half of Iran’s population was UNDER 35. These guys and gals, highly educated and chaffing under the religious restrictions imposed, don’t give a fuck about Persian history. They want Western goods, higher wages, uncensored internet, and sexual freedom. Maybe a few aging hard liners think this way but they are dinosaurs.
The Iran agreement will pass bc despite its imperfections they alternative is a bomb. Khamenei will die within a year and you will see a sea change in Iranian conduct as a moderate ayatollah replaces him, most likely the guy who made his fortune doing imports and exports.
And now that I’ve made this rant, it’s time for my snack
... when two men of good conscience disagree, that is not a crime.
At some point, I would continue this conversation with you...
absent the trolls and other distractions.
For the moment -- Both Hezbollah and Hamas are proxy's for Iran. Would you agree or disagree?
Iran doesn't have to fire a single bullet themselves... as long as they keep pouring money and arms into Hezbollah and Hamas coffers. They have made no secret of their goal of Persian Hegemony.
As for the religious context - not knowing how much or little of a religious background you have, all i can tell you is this. I have first hand experience in what it is like living in a fundamentalist environment. My own sister truly believes the world is 5775 years old; 5776 in September. And much like the trolls zealots and other single-minded narrow focused personalities on this board, you simply can't have a civilized discussion with someone who is not interested in rational doalog and exchange of ideas.
Believe it or not, I wish I could agree with you, in principle at least, if not in fact.
Do let me know when they stop dancing in the street every time an American is killed in action.
Where is the jihad? In 35 years since the fall of the Shah, has Iran invaded anybody other than to counter attack Saddam? Has Iran ever deployed troops on its border to threaten Israel? In the Hezbollah –Israel war or the Hamas Gaza war, did the Iranian army fire a shot at Israel? All they were willing to do was send money for arms and terrorism and provide some Quds force training. If they were serious about “Death to Israel” this would have been the time to act.
I also think your belief in the “Middle East mindset” incorrectly conflates Persians with Arabs, and Sunni with Shiite. The mind sets of these groups are very different. There is no "Middle East mindset." Why is Iran fighting ISIS if “jihad” is actually a pragmatic goal? They want to exercise influence in the region but not necessarily impose Sharia law.
Finally, I totally disagree with your focus on “a centuries long jihad.” As of 2012, more than half of Iran’s population was UNDER 35. These guys and gals, highly educated and chaffing under the religious restrictions imposed, don’t give a fuck about Persian history. They want Western goods, higher wages, uncensored internet, and sexual freedom. Maybe a few aging hard liners think this way but they are dinosaurs.
The Iran agreement will pass bc despite its imperfections they alternative is a bomb. Khamenei will die within a year and you will see a sea change in Iranian conduct as a moderate ayatollah replaces him, most likely the guy who made his fortune doing imports and exports.
And now that I’ve made this rant, it’s time for my snack.
1) how did you come to this conclusion? Meaning, did you read the doc yourself and decipher it to mean what you say or did you hear/read someone you respect on the relevant language and agree with him/her?
2) Am I to assume, had the Iranians insisted on this language and it was a deal breaker for them to alter it, you would have adviced Messrs. Kerry and Obama not to sign on the dotted line for the entire deal
Today, I pulled the exact language from the agreement –which I quoted in the post - and concluded the Times was correct. The plain language of the agreement (other than say weapons deals) says existing contracts are grandfathered. Yet, so far I have not heard President Obama acknowledge this exception at all.
Very disappointing.
I than read that Senator Corker also agrees that existing contracts are grandfathered in, even if sanctions are imposed on new contracts. So he reads it like I do.
The notion that Boeing and other companies would insist on long term contracts to protect their investment, however, is purely my speculation. I have not seen anyone else say it like that.
Would this be a deal breaker for me? Well, how can you even ask that without addressing the consequences of no deal? As I have posted many times, no deal means they get a bomb if they choose (unless you disbelieve the breakout time Sec Moniz gave us).
I would tell them “get your ass back to the negotiating table and make snap back apply to all contracts.”
2) Am I to assume, had the Iranians insisted on this language and it was a deal breaker for them to alter it, you would have adviced Messrs. Kerry and Obama not to sign on the dotted line for the entire deal?
But we'll agree to disagree on that point I guess.
I am still not following you on one thing:
If you could not get the change you wanted re: snap back, would you have walked away from the table? You weren't exactly clear on that point. LOL
And in a year we can take out their facilities with our new bunker buster bombs before they could deploy a nuclear weapon.
Obama was never going to, and will never, bomb Iran. He wanted a deal, Mari. ANY deal. Much like he wanted ANY health care plan.
The military option was never on the table. If it was, we would have never been stuck with this shitty deal to begin with.
He desired a major domestic program with his name on it and a major foreign policy "achievement" with his finger print on it.
It's about legacy with him, not competent governance.
I think you are smart enough to know that and wise enough not to admit it.
Can predict what Hillary will do but I would think that if we knew iran was building a bomb she would build a coalition to take out the nuclear facilities and then do it. If not, benji will.
You have said it would take the US up to a year to do so, but Israel can accomplish this feat in one day?
We and all of our partners are supposedly agreeable to, ready, willing and able to snap back to tougher than ever sanctions should Iran not live up to certain specific requirements, yet if Congress nixes the U.S. participation in the agreement (i.e overrides Obama's veto) we are told it would be far to difficult, nay, impossible for any meaningful sanctions to be put back into place. As if to say everyone at that point will simply say "aw fuck it, let Iran do whatever it wants". Maybe so. They probably are thinking they could always blame Congress for the outcome.
And what about the 2 sections that supposedly even Obama hasn't read yet?
since Obama has now told the world, and our enemy Iran, that "no deal means war", does Obama then HAVE to strike Iran's sites if congress nixes and overcomes a veto, per his own words?
Is it another line in the sand that HE layed down yet that he wont cross?
With re: to the secret side deals, with a terrorist state that threatens death to our key ally, well...there is a reason no liberal on a board dare touch that one. It is beyond insane.
Quote:
Under paragraph 37 of the agreement, "Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions ... or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this [agreement] in whole or in part." In other words, if the United States seeks to punish Iran for violating the agreement, Iran will be within its rights to simply walk away from the deal and resume work on its nuclear program without restriction.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/07/29/a-nuclear-deal-dangerously-biased-in-favor-of-iran
Very disappointing.
I than read that Senator Corker also agrees that existing contracts are grandfathered in, even if sanctions are imposed on new contracts. So he reads it like I do.
The notion that Boeing and other companies would insist on long term contracts to protect their investment, however, is purely my speculation. I have not seen anyone else say it like that.
Would this be a deal breaker for me? Well, how can you even ask that without addressing the consequences of no deal? As I have posted many times, no deal means they get a bomb if they choose (unless you disbelieve the breakout time Sec Moniz gave us).
I would tell them “get your ass back to the negotiating table and make snap back apply to all contracts.”
2) Am I to assume, had the Iranians insisted on this language and it was a deal breaker for them to alter it, you would have adviced Messrs. Kerry and Obama not to sign on the dotted line for the entire deal?
We agreed to the grandfather clause.
-- Modified on 8/5/2015 4:04:48 PM
on Iran, Dershowitz cited:
he specified 24/7 inspections – didn’t get that.
Set out that Iran would never have nuclear weapons – didn’t get that.
Sset out to end the nuclear facility at Fordow – didn’t get that.
He has crossed his own red lines at least three times
http://observer.com/2015/08/dershowitz-obama-is-an-abject-failure-by-his-own-standards/
When people hold on to false beliefs and refuse to see the big picture.
We have things like the Iraq war and many lives lost.
he specified 24/7 inspections – didn’t get that.
Set out that Iran would never have nuclear weapons – didn’t get that.
Sset out to end the nuclear facility at Fordow – didn’t get that.
He has crossed his own red lines at least three times
http://observer.com/2015/08/dershowitz-obama-is-an-abject-failure-by-his-own-standards/