Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on April 09, 2015, 04:48:26 PM
-
Good analysis.
The Six Points of Kissinger and Schultz’s Refutation of the Iran Deal
Posted on April 9, 2015
by Keith Koffler
It’s no surprise that Marie Harf at the State Department sought Wednesday to dismiss the analysis by Henry Kissinger and George Schultz of the Iran deal as little more than “big words and big thoughts.” When you hear administration officials launch ad hominem attacks, you know it is because they are deeply threatened.
That’s because Kissinger and Scultz’s Wall Street Journal piece is the most thorough and damning evisceration of President Obama’s Iran arms deal you can find. And it’s been lodged by two of the foreign policy establishment’s wisest and most experienced hands, neither known for their partisan fervor.
I thought I’d take you through their argument, which you may not be able to access on the Wall Street Journal website. Because it’s a major statement about what may be the most important issue of our time.
Below, I’ve placed my own headlines above quotes from the piece to clarify their main points. There are six.
1. The deal permits a nuclear Iran
Negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first 10 years. The gradual expiration of the framework agreement, beginning in a decade, will enable Iran to become a significant nuclear, industrial and military power after that time—in the scope and sophistication of its nuclear program and its latent capacity to weaponize at a time of its choosing. Limits on Iran’s research and development have not been publicly disclosed (or perhaps agreed). Therefore Iran will be in a position to bolster its advanced nuclear technology during the period of the agreement and rapidly deploy more advanced centrifuges—of at least five times the capacity of the current model—after the agreement expires or is broken.
2. Iran triumphed in the negotiations
While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal. In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon.
Ambiguities apply to the one-year window for a presumed Iranian breakout. Emerging at a relatively late stage in the negotiation, this concept replaced the previous baseline—that Iran might be permitted a technical capacity compatible with a plausible civilian nuclear program. Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints. It only places them under temporary restriction and safeguard—amounting in many cases to a seal at the door of a depot or periodic visits by inspectors to declared sites.
3. The agreement is probably unenforceable
The physical magnitude of the effort is daunting. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency technically, and in terms of human resources, up to so complex and vast an assignment? In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect. Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another. Any report of a violation is likely to prompt debate over its significance—or even calls for new talks with Tehran to explore the issue.
Compounding the difficulty is the unlikelihood that breakout will be a clear-cut event. More likely it will occur, if it does, via the gradual accumulation of ambiguous evasions. When inevitable disagreements arise over the scope and intrusiveness of inspections, on what criteria are we prepared to insist and up to what point? If evidence is imperfect, who bears the burden of proof? Undertaking the “snap-back” of sanctions is unlikely to be as clear or as automatic as the phrase implies. Iran is in a position to violate the agreement by executive decision. Restoring the most effective sanctions will require coordinated international action.
4. The deal result in nuclear proliferation
Some of the chief actors in the Middle East are likely to view the U.S. as willing to concede a nuclear military capability to the country they consider their principal threat. Several will insist on at least an equivalent capability. Saudi Arabia has signaled that it will enter the lists; others are likely to follow. In that sense, the implications of the negotiation are irreversible.
Among the original nuclear powers, geographic distances and the relatively large size of programs combined with moral revulsion to make surprise attack all but inconceivable. How will these doctrines translate into a region where sponsorship of nonstate proxies is common, the state structure is under assault, and death on behalf of jihad is a kind of fulfillment?
Are the guarantees extended against the use of nuclear weapons—or against any military attack, conventional or nuclear? Is it the domination by Iran that we oppose or the method for achieving it?
5. An expansionist Iran will be newly empowered
For some, the greatest value in an agreement lies in the prospect of an end, or at least a moderation, of Iran’s 3½ decades of militant hostility to the West and established international institutions, and an opportunity to draw Iran into an effort to stabilize the Middle East. There exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding. Even while combating common enemies, such as ISIS, Iran has declined to embrace common objectives. Iran’s representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means.
The final stages of the nuclear talks have coincided with Iran’s intensified efforts to expand and entrench its power in neighboring states. Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries, operating beyond the control of national authorities. With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East’s strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally.
6. The administration erred in de-linking the nuclear deal from other issues
Unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, an agreement freeing Iran from sanctions risks empowering Iran’s hegemonic efforts.
Some have argued that these concerns are secondary, since the nuclear deal is a way station toward the eventual domestic transformation of Iran. But what gives us the confidence that we will prove more astute at predicting Iran’s domestic course than Vietnam’s, Afghanistan’s, Iraq’s, Syria’s, Egypt’s or Libya’s?
Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America’s traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian hegemony. They will increasingly look to create their own nuclear balances and, if necessary, call in other powers to sustain their integrity.
Nuclear arms must not be permitted to turn into conventional weapons. The passions of the region allied with weapons of mass destruction may impel deepening American involvement. If the world is to be spared even worse turmoil, the U.S. must develop a strategic doctrine for the region. Stability requires an active American role.
*******
This is typical Obama. As Kissinger and Schultz point out, we have no strategy. No broad thinking has gone into this agreement. We just put a bandaid on the situation for ten years while strengthening our adversary, Iran, and destabilizing the region.
And we and our children will pay dearly for it.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/04/09/kissinger-schultzs-refutation-iran-deal/
-
Is he going to get b-slapped like Schumer?
Democrat Rep. Norcross: 'I Can't in Good Conscience Vote for Iran Deal'
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=3fee396a-e8e7-4dd8-a46c-9f35ce08a44f&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Democrat Rep. Norcross: 'I Can't in Good Conscience Vote for Iran Deal'
By Rep. Donald Norcross
Wednesday, 19 Aug 2015
Iran must never be allowed to become a nuclear threat to the world. Not today. Not 10 or 15 years from now. Never.
The Iranian regime is a known sponsor of terrorism that has made no secret of its hatred for both the Unites States and Israel. Providing relief for them by lifting economic sanctions now essentially rewards past behavior and infuses billions of dollars into the their economy that could be used to buy more weapons and outsource more terror.
Moreover, the deal does not provide enough assurance that Iran will be restricted from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. So this windfall may ultimately help fund their nuclear ambitions.
In April, prior to the announcement of a deal, I wrote a letter to President Obama, voicing my concerns over the negotiations with Iran and missed deadlines. In it, I outlined my belief that an acceptable deal would be long-term and fully transparent, and would provide for the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program verified by intrusive inspections in exchange for phased sanctions relief. Unfortunately, the JCPOA falls short in each of these criteria.
For these reasons, I cannot in good conscience endorse this deal.
Even though I applaud the Obama Administration and other world powers that worked diligently on a diplomatic solution, the deal ultimately falls short of the guarantees necessary to assure the American people that it will do more good than harm.
During the 60-day congressional review period of the deal, I met twice with President Obama, including a briefing inside the White House Situation Room. I was also briefed by Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and senior members of the U.S. Department of Defense. As a member of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, I had the opportunity to review classified documents related to the Iran nuclear deal multiple times and as recently as last Friday.
Earlier this month, I traveled to Israel as part of a bipartisan Congressional Delegation. During the trip, I received a two-hour long briefing from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, met with Israeli Knesset members, military officers, and Israeli citizens.
I, as well as my staff in Washington, D.C. and at the First Congressional District office in Cherry Hill have met and continue to meet with constituents both in favor and against the deal.
I’ve listened. I’ve studied the issues. And, after careful consideration, I must vote against this deal.
We all know no deal is perfect or iron-clad. I’m not looking for perfection, but I do believe that a better deal can be achieved. We have not exhausted all efforts. Diplomacy has worked and can continue to work. That’s why I urge all parties back to the bargaining table so we can continue a dialogue that can help us achieve an accord that ensures a nuclear-free Iran and a safer world. To that end, I promise to work with congressional leaders to foster more diplomatic action.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/donald-norcross-cannot-support/2015/08/19/id/670902/#ixzz3jImVcBNR
-
35 US military generals and admirals support it.
Various Israeli generals, admirals, and military experts support it.
Numerous nuclear scientists support it.
"Good analysis".
-
No doubt.
-
35 US military generals and admirals support it.
Various Israeli generals, admirals, and military experts support it.
Numerous nuclear scientists support it.
"Good analysis".
I wonder how many of those Generals and Admirals Obama would fire if they didn't support it.
-
I wonder how many of those Generals and Admirals Obama would fire if they didn't support it.
None. Seeing how they are all retired, I would have to say it is pretty impossible for him to fire them for speaking their minds.
-
None. Seeing how they are all retired, I would have to say it is pretty impossible for him to fire them for speaking their minds.
YEP
-
Good analysis.
The Six Points of Kissinger and Schultz’s Refutation of the Iran Deal
Posted on April 9, 2015
by Keith Koffler
It’s no surprise that Marie Harf at the State Department sought Wednesday to dismiss the analysis by Henry Kissinger and George Schultz of the Iran deal as little more than “big words and big thoughts.” When you hear administration officials launch ad hominem attacks, you know it is because they are deeply threatened.
That’s because Kissinger and Scultz’s Wall Street Journal piece is the most thorough and damning evisceration of President Obama’s Iran arms deal you can find. And it’s been lodged by two of the foreign policy establishment’s wisest and most experienced hands, neither known for their partisan fervor.
I thought I’d take you through their argument, which you may not be able to access on the Wall Street Journal website. Because it’s a major statement about what may be the most important issue of our time.
Below, I’ve placed my own headlines above quotes from the piece to clarify their main points. There are six.
1. The deal permits a nuclear Iran
Negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first 10 years. The gradual expiration of the framework agreement, beginning in a decade, will enable Iran to become a significant nuclear, industrial and military power after that time—in the scope and sophistication of its nuclear program and its latent capacity to weaponize at a time of its choosing. Limits on Iran’s research and development have not been publicly disclosed (or perhaps agreed). Therefore Iran will be in a position to bolster its advanced nuclear technology during the period of the agreement and rapidly deploy more advanced centrifuges—of at least five times the capacity of the current model—after the agreement expires or is broken.
2. Iran triumphed in the negotiations
While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal. In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon.
Ambiguities apply to the one-year window for a presumed Iranian breakout. Emerging at a relatively late stage in the negotiation, this concept replaced the previous baseline—that Iran might be permitted a technical capacity compatible with a plausible civilian nuclear program. Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints. It only places them under temporary restriction and safeguard—amounting in many cases to a seal at the door of a depot or periodic visits by inspectors to declared sites.
3. The agreement is probably unenforceable
The physical magnitude of the effort is daunting. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency technically, and in terms of human resources, up to so complex and vast an assignment? In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect. Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another. Any report of a violation is likely to prompt debate over its significance—or even calls for new talks with Tehran to explore the issue.
Compounding the difficulty is the unlikelihood that breakout will be a clear-cut event. More likely it will occur, if it does, via the gradual accumulation of ambiguous evasions. When inevitable disagreements arise over the scope and intrusiveness of inspections, on what criteria are we prepared to insist and up to what point? If evidence is imperfect, who bears the burden of proof? Undertaking the “snap-back” of sanctions is unlikely to be as clear or as automatic as the phrase implies. Iran is in a position to violate the agreement by executive decision. Restoring the most effective sanctions will require coordinated international action.
4. The deal result in nuclear proliferation
Some of the chief actors in the Middle East are likely to view the U.S. as willing to concede a nuclear military capability to the country they consider their principal threat. Several will insist on at least an equivalent capability. Saudi Arabia has signaled that it will enter the lists; others are likely to follow. In that sense, the implications of the negotiation are irreversible.
Among the original nuclear powers, geographic distances and the relatively large size of programs combined with moral revulsion to make surprise attack all but inconceivable. How will these doctrines translate into a region where sponsorship of nonstate proxies is common, the state structure is under assault, and death on behalf of jihad is a kind of fulfillment?
Are the guarantees extended against the use of nuclear weapons—or against any military attack, conventional or nuclear? Is it the domination by Iran that we oppose or the method for achieving it?
5. An expansionist Iran will be newly empowered
For some, the greatest value in an agreement lies in the prospect of an end, or at least a moderation, of Iran’s 3½ decades of militant hostility to the West and established international institutions, and an opportunity to draw Iran into an effort to stabilize the Middle East. There exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding. Even while combating common enemies, such as ISIS, Iran has declined to embrace common objectives. Iran’s representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means.
The final stages of the nuclear talks have coincided with Iran’s intensified efforts to expand and entrench its power in neighboring states. Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries, operating beyond the control of national authorities. With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East’s strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally.
6. The administration erred in de-linking the nuclear deal from other issues
Unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, an agreement freeing Iran from sanctions risks empowering Iran’s hegemonic efforts.
Some have argued that these concerns are secondary, since the nuclear deal is a way station toward the eventual domestic transformation of Iran. But what gives us the confidence that we will prove more astute at predicting Iran’s domestic course than Vietnam’s, Afghanistan’s, Iraq’s, Syria’s, Egypt’s or Libya’s?
Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America’s traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian hegemony. They will increasingly look to create their own nuclear balances and, if necessary, call in other powers to sustain their integrity.
Nuclear arms must not be permitted to turn into conventional weapons. The passions of the region allied with weapons of mass destruction may impel deepening American involvement. If the world is to be spared even worse turmoil, the U.S. must develop a strategic doctrine for the region. Stability requires an active American role.
*******
This is typical Obama. As Kissinger and Schultz point out, we have no strategy. No broad thinking has gone into this agreement. We just put a bandaid on the situation for ten years while strengthening our adversary, Iran, and destabilizing the region.
And we and our children will pay dearly for it.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/04/09/kissinger-schultzs-refutation-iran-deal/
Even though you constantly lie and say you're sitting on the fence and haven't made a decision, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are against the Iran nuclear deal since you only print articles which are against the deal ;)
-
YEP
I don't think 'zero' was the answer he was fishing for.
-
I wonder how many of those Generals and Admirals Obama would fire if they didn't support it.
i read on drudge that obama fired them all immediately.
obama's pilot was so outraged, he refused to take off.
-
Even though you constantly lie and say you're sitting on the fence and haven't made a decision, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are against the Iran nuclear deal since you only print articles which are against the deal ;)
Oh no. Foiled again. Good work detective. :)
-
i read on drudge that obama fired them all immediately.
obama's pilot was so outraged, he refused to take off.
OMG! :o
Zinger of the week right here.
-
None. Seeing how they are all retired, I would have to say it is pretty impossible for him to fire them for speaking their minds.
Your post states Generals and Admirals, not Retired Generals and Admirals. If you are going to post facts, at least be accurate. That's like inviting me to a party you say is going to be full of women and when I get there it's Caitlin Jenner and his "girl" friends. ;D
-
I think it's a great idea to let a country that's a terrorist state inspect their own reactors. Great move that was kept under wraps by Obama. lol.
-
Excuses coming in 3....2....
-
35 US military generals and admirals support it.
Various Israeli generals, admirals, and military experts support it.
Numerous Iranian nuclear scientists support it.
fixed! ;D
-
""The story was the Iranians would take the samples under some kind of IAEA monitoring," Jeffrey Lewis, the arms control expert, told me. "The details of that monitoring were not provided, so it's hard to say how weird that is. Some IAEA officials say that it's not unusual to let a country physically take the samples if there's an IAEA inspector present.""
"A couple of hours after first publishing, the AP added in a bunch of quotes from Republicans furiously condemning the revelations, but at the same time, the AP removed most of the actual revelations. The information in the article was substantially altered, with some of the most damning details scrubbed entirely. No explanation for this was given.
The new version of the story said nothing about environmental sampling. It said that Iran will provide photos and videos of the site, as well as mechanisms by which the IAEA can verify that these are authentic. But information about how the IAEA would verify this, which was in the original story, had also been removed."
"Jonathan Alter, the "if true" political reporter, tweeted that the IAEA would indeed be "on the ground" at Parchin, according to the White House. The IAEA has since come out and said the final agreement on Parchin meets all its standards. The IAEA inspector general issued a statement saying he was "disturbed" by the AP story, which "misrepresent(s) the way in which we will undertake this important verification work.""
"The world pretty much already knows what happened in Parchin. The best-case outcome of inspecting the facility is that we are happily surprised to learn that our suspicions about weaponization work were incorrect. The worst-case, and perhaps more likely, scenario is that inspections end up confirming what we already suspected, but we get a bit more detail on how it went down. To be clear, learning this would not violate or kill the nuclear deal.
A key point here: The Parchin inspection is not part of the Iran nuclear deal that was negotiated by the US and other world powers with Iran. Rather, this is something the IAEA negotiates directly with the country it's inspecting, in this case Iran."
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin (http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin)
http://news.antiwar.com/2015/08/19/bogus-ap-claim-of-iran-self-inspection-at-parchin-fuels-condemnation/ (http://news.antiwar.com/2015/08/19/bogus-ap-claim-of-iran-self-inspection-at-parchin-fuels-condemnation/)
-
Oh no. Foiled again. Good work detective. :)
so you finally admit you're a liar...good job ;)
-
"Jahn’s claims and the document didn’t perfectly square in the first place, but the real blow here is that a former top IAEA official, Tariq Rauf, has pointed out a number of glaring errors in the document, labeling it a “crude” forgery attempting to derail the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran.
Rauf, a Canadian who serves as director of the Arms Control program for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, offered an annotated version of the AP’s putative transcript, pointing out among other things that in the second paragraph the transcript actually got Iran’s name wrong, incorrectly labeling them the “Islamic State of Iran.”
That’s more than a minor typo from the Iranian perspective, as the nation refers to itself as the “Islamic Republic of Iran,” and in later cases when they are simply called “Iran,” the preferred shortened version in official documents would be the Islamic Republic.
Ironically they correctly called it the Islamic Republic of Iran at the end, but in the same sentence the IAEA incorrectly identified the title of its own official, calling Tero Varjoranta the “Deputy Director General for Safeguards” as opposed to the “head of the department of safeguards.”
There were other technical errors in the document. An IAEA sample kit contains six swipes, and the text purports that there will be seven samples collected, a figure Rauf suggested was likely arbitrary. The addition of two other swipes outside Parchin, which again is huge, made even less sense, since the whole document is supposed to be about Parchin in the first place.
A lot of the other language just reads wrong, according to Rauf, with a lot of the language inappropriate for an IAEA official document, or referring to things in ways that are not standard IAEA language. The inclusion of a promised visit of the IAEA Director General as a “dignitary guest” likewise made no sense, with Rauf noting he’s “not a tourist” and only goes to countries when there are technical problems to be resolved.
Rauf likens the forgery to “guy Letter” forgery that emerged ahead of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, and which US officials used as primary evidence for their bogus claims of an active Iraqi nuclear weapons program."
http://news.antiwar.com/2015/08/21/former-iaea-official-ap-doc-on-iran-a-crude-forgery/ (http://news.antiwar.com/2015/08/21/former-iaea-official-ap-doc-on-iran-a-crude-forgery/)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-nuclear-safeguards-official-says-parchin-document-looks-fake_55d67d53e4b020c386de2f7e (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-nuclear-safeguards-official-says-parchin-document-looks-fake_55d67d53e4b020c386de2f7e)
-
None. Seeing how they are all retired, I would have to say it is pretty impossible for him to fire them for speaking their minds.
i read on drudge that obama fired them all immediately.
obama's pilot was so outraged, he refused to take off.
OMG! :o
Zinger of the week right here.
How is this the "zinger of the week right here" if they were all retired?? He cannot fire them if they're retired, which you already admitted.
-
so you finally admit you're a liar...good job ;)
sar·casm
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
-
I wonder how many of those Generals and Admirals Obama would fire if they didn't support it.
How is this the "zinger of the week right here" if they were all retired?? He cannot fire them if they're retired, which you already admitted.
::)
sar·casm
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
Why is this backfire on your behalf not a surprise?
-
OMG, LOL, WTF, LNM FTW.
-
OMG, LOL, WTF, LNM FTW.
QFT!
-
::)
Why is this backfire on your behalf not a surprise?
You were being sarcastic? Sure. Right. :)
-
Your post states Generals and Admirals, not Retired Generals and Admirals. If you are going to post facts, at least be accurate. That's like inviting me to a party you say is going to be full of women and when I get there it's Caitlin Jenner and his "girl" friends. ;D
Exactly.
-
Schumer May Save the Democratic Party
By PATRICK H. CADDELL and DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
August 23, 2015
(http://images.politico.com/global/2015/08/21/150821_oped_schumer_gty.jpg)
The Iran deal has potential, both because of public opinion and the way the administration is positioning itself, to hurt Democrats in much the same way that the Iranian hostage crisis did in 1980 and 1981. Should New York Senator Chuck Schumer succeed in killing the deal, he will be saving the Democrats from what appears to be a grave political mistake.
President Obama has branded opponents of the deal as either ideological extremists or ignorant. In his speech at American University, he compared the agreement’s opponents with Iranian extremists chanting “death to America.” He pointed out that most of those opposed to the Iran deal supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003, thus implying that they were warmongers—conveniently overlooking that his vice president and both of his secretaries of state voted for the war in Iraq.
Listening to the president you would never know that a plurality of Americans, including key parts of the Democratic party’s coalition, are opposed to the nuclear agreement. The Secure America Now (SAN) poll found 45 percent of Americans opposed the deal in July—up eight points from June—and that figure rises to 65 percent after respondents hear more details about the agreement. A more recent Fox poll shows that initial opposition has grown to 58 percent.
In both polls, barely 50 percent of Democrats support the agreement and well over one-third oppose. A critical group of Democratic voters—African Americans—is split on the issue, while Hispanics are overwhelmingly opposed. Making matters worse, a solid majority of women and younger voters oppose the agreement too.
Rubbing salt in these public opinion wounds, President Obama’s popularity is upside down with 52 percent of Americans rating him unfavorably. By contrast, the public views Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposes the nuclear deal, as favorable by a two-to-one margin.
Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and other members of the administration have been berating the nuclear deal’s opponents. Kerry has been almost disdainful to members of Congress who have the temerity to suggest that the deal should be voted down and renegotiated. He claims that it’s too late to revise the agreement—the UN has already approved the deal, he says, the P5+1 partners won’t be willing to reopen negotiations and the Iranians have no interest in making revisions. Kerry seems to have become a defender of Iran’s rights rather than an advocate of the United States’ best interests.
Obama once said that a bad deal was worse than no deal. Now he and Secretary Kerry want us to believe that the choice is between a bad deal or war. At a news conference on July 15, the president made this false choice explicit: “Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war. Those are—those are the options.”
According to an op-ed by former Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, “the administration has used these same arguments before to try to stop Congress from imposing economic sanctions on Iran...but...when the sanctions were adopted, the doomsday forecasts were proven wrong.” Apocalyptic warnings are always the starting position of the Obama administration, and time after time they have been disproved.
For all his rhetoric, though, Obama has a problem: The SAN poll reveals that 62 percent believe that the deal doesn’t make America safer and more secure. Over 60 percent feel that the deal doesn’t prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon—the stated goal of the negotiations. And over 80 percent of respondents don’t believe that Iran should be given up to $100 billion in economic sanctions relief without Congressional approval, including 74 percent of Democrats.
Indeed, the administration’s problems are certain to become even more complicated by the revelation that the Iranians will be submitting their own data to the UN monitoring agency and doing their own inspections. This flies in the face of public opinion: the SAN poll finds that more than 60 percent believe the agreement should be voted down if the inspections are completed by an independent agency and the details of any and all side deals are made public to Congress.
Not only is there growing skepticism from the public, but Obama’s worst political nightmare has been realized: two prominent Democratic senators have decided to oppose the Iran agreement on principle—Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez.
It had been widely assumed that Obama would hold enough Democrats in Congress to ensure that, if Congress rejects the Iran deal, the president’s veto will prevail, and the deal will go forward. But that was before Senator Schumer announced his opposition to the current deal, urging that a better agreement be negotiated.
Schumer, who has until now been a faithful Obama supporter, has been the target of attacks that rival what the Obama administration hurls at Republicans. Administration supporters have warned that Schumer may be endangering his future leadership position, while rabid left-wing groups like Moveon.org allege that he is “voting for war.” Clearly, the administration and its allies believe that there is no such thing as legitimate opposition to the Iran agreement.
Schumer’s decision and his thoughtful and articulate statement explaining it reflect a man putting conscience before politics. Had Schumer—who is normally known as a hyper-partisan actor—been acting politically, he would have delayed his announcement as long as possible.
For all the abuse he’s taking, Schumer may actually be protecting the Democratic Party from the real political danger inherent in Obama’s actions. The contempt that the president and John Kerry showed by taking this agreement to the UN before submitting it to Congress and the American people was reckless. They are not only thumbing their noses at the American people and Congress, but they are showing contempt for the primacy of our system of checks and balances and they could be setting up the Democratic party for years of attacks of “you caused this!” every time Iran behaves in a threatening manner.
Should Obama veto a bill blocking the Iran deal and defy the will of Congress, he would once again find himself on the wrong side of public opinion: 61 percent of voters would want a veto overridden. If a veto is sustained solely by Democrats two-thirds of respondents, including a plurality of Democrats say they would blame the Democratic party if Iran got a nuclear weapon or used the money from sanction relief to support terrorist attacks on Israel.
By contrast, Schumer’s principled stand enjoys broad support: In another part of the SAN poll, Democratic voters were asked what their senators and representatives should do when faced with difficult choices—support the president or follow their conscience if they oppose him—35 percent said that they should “trust the President and his negotiators and support their party’s leader,” while 59 percent wanted their representatives and senators to set aside party loyalties and follow their conscience on the issue at hand.
As President John F. Kennedy famously said, “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.”
Congress is in recess, but the coming weeks will tell whether Democrats have the courage to stand up for what they believe and what the American people want, or whether they will be cowered by their president and risk damaging the party for years to come.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/chuck-schumer-iran-deal-121605.html#ixzz3jqmybnvH
-
The fact of the matter is that at least the Democrats are independent thinkers who ACTUALLY have opinions......they can vote yes or no....the Republicans vote in lockstep like Nazis and have no ideas of their own...how is it that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN can be against the deal???..just as EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN was against Obamacare......it is not possible in the real world to get that many people in a room and they ALL agree on the same thing.....
I'm proud that the Democratic party has independent thinkers who can make decisions for themselves and are not locked into one way of thinking just because their Party leaders tell them to vote a certain way
-
The fact of the matter is that at least the Democrats are independent thinkers who ACTUALLY have opinions......they can vote yes or no....the Republicans vote in lockstep like Nazis and have no ideas of their own...how is it that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN can be against the deal???..just as EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN was against Obamacare......it is not possible in the real world to get that many people in a room and they ALL agree on the same thing.....
I'm proud that the Democratic party has independent thinkers who can make decisions for themselves and are not locked into one way of thinking just because their Party leaders tell them to vote a certain way
LOL!
-
LOL!
you LOL but can't dispute the basic premise of my post
-
you LOL but can't dispute the basic premise of my post
No, Democrats are not independent thinkers. Liberals in particular are incredibly intolerant of opposing viewpoints.
-
No, Democrats are not independent thinkers. Liberals in particular are incredibly intolerant of opposing viewpoints.
WOW..you have absolutely destroyed yourself with that statement.....Liberals are tolerant of others and also have ideas that are new and progressive......Conserv atives want everything to stay the same and not progress...they have turned their back on science...are intolerant of those who are different and have different opinions....and you know this...no way in hell can every single republican vote the same way (usually in the negative) EVERY SINGLE TIME
Get a grip
you are definitely becoming the troll you accuse 240 of being
-
WOW..you have absolutely destroyed yourself with that statement.....Liberals are tolerant of others and also have ideas that are new and progressive......Conserv atives want everything to stay the same and not progress...they have turned their back on science...are intolerant of those who are different and have different opinions....and you know this...no way in hell can every single republican vote the same way (usually in the negative) EVERY SINGLE TIME
Get a grip
you are definitely becoming the troll you accuse 240 of being
Now this made me laugh out loud too. :) Many liberals are hypocrites. (And I actually know how to properly use that word.) They don't practice what they preach. They claim to be tolerant, but silence dissent. They claim to have a big tent, but will attack and ostracize people who happen to think or act differently. I have at least two or three fairly long threads on the board showing exactly how intolerant some liberals can be. Here is one, with a plethora of examples. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=296022.0
Not exactly a secret. Unless you are a true believer, in which case the facts don't matter.
-
No, Democrats are not independent thinkers. Liberals in particular are incredibly intolerant of opposing viewpoints.
I'm pretty sure a whole lot of trump supporters also fall into this category.
-
you are definitely becoming the troll you accuse 240 of being
what i've learned from getbig...
when 50 people tell you that you're fat.. you are.
when 50 people call a person a dumbass, they are one.
and when most of the getbiggers on the political board say dos equis is becoming a troll... it's because he is.
He wasn't always like this - he used to debate. These days, he can't debate, because he doesn't like any of the steaming piles of crap on the GOP buffet... he used to be able to defend powell, cheney... but really, he's smart enough to know palin was an idiot, trump is obnoxious/immature, rand and friends are flipflopping messes with no sets of beliefs.
Beach is trolling cause he can't defend the bags of shit running. Hilary, despite her jailbird crimes, is ten times more prepared, eloquent, and the statesman as the GOP frontrunner, trump.
-
"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Tuesday it received substantive amounts of information from Iran aimed at quelling concerns its nuclear past had military elements, although it was too early to say whether any of it is new."
"Iran had for years been stonewalling an investigation by the U.N. nuclear watchdog into the possible military dimensions of its atomic program, but delivered on its latest promise to send further data to the IAEA by mid-August.
IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told reporters the agency received a "substantive volume" of information from Iran on Aug. 15."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/25/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKCN0QU0W120150825 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/25/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKCN0QU0W120150825)
-
"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Tuesday it received substantive amounts of information from Iran aimed at quelling concerns its nuclear past had military elements, although it was too early to say whether any of it is new."
"Iran had for years been stonewalling an investigation by the U.N. nuclear watchdog into the possible military dimensions of its atomic program, but delivered on its latest promise to send further data to the IAEA by mid-August.
IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told reporters the agency received a "substantive volume" of information from Iran on Aug. 15."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/25/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKCN0QU0W120150825 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/25/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKCN0QU0W120150825)
Good news...lets see where all of this goes.....if it goes well and keeps us out of another war, then great!
-
what i've learned from getbig...
when 50 people tell you that you're fat.. you are.
when 50 people call a person a dumbass, they are one.
and when most of the getbiggers on the political board say dos equis is becoming a troll... it's because he is.
He wasn't always like this - he used to debate. These days, he can't debate, because he doesn't like any of the steaming piles of crap on the GOP buffet... he used to be able to defend powell, cheney... but really, he's smart enough to know palin was an idiot, trump is obnoxious/immature, rand and friends are flipflopping messes with no sets of beliefs.
Beach is trolling cause he can't defend the bags of shit running. Hilary, despite her jailbird crimes, is ten times more prepared, eloquent, and the statesman as the GOP frontrunner, trump.
agreed
-
35 US military generals and admirals support it.
Various Israeli generals, admirals, and military experts support it.
Numerous nuclear scientists support it.
"Good analysis".
I see your 35 Retired generals and Admirals and raise to 200! ;D
"A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-urge-congress-to-reject-iran-deal/2015/08/26/8912d9c6-4bf5-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html
-
I see your 35 Retired generals and Admirals and raise to 200! ;D
"A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-urge-congress-to-reject-iran-deal/2015/08/26/8912d9c6-4bf5-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html
The article basicaly doesn't expalin anything other than to say they are opposed...it really doesn't spell out the why
-
I see your 35 Retired generals and Admirals and raise to 200! ;D
"A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-urge-congress-to-reject-iran-deal/2015/08/26/8912d9c6-4bf5-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html
You don't say? :)
-
You were being sarcastic? Sure. Right. :)
No. I was addressing the comment someone (caratcho) else made to my post.
The sarcasm backfire response is due to your comment to andrewhatever while clearly either not seeing (doubtful) or not understanding (most likely) the conversation taking place between myself and caratcho that was referenced. " :) "
-
I see your 35 Retired generals and Admirals and raise to 200! ;D
"A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-urge-congress-to-reject-iran-deal/2015/08/26/8912d9c6-4bf5-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html
Really? Wonder why?
--snip--
One is retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush and is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council. He had a history of making controversial speeches, including one in which he characterized U.S. military operations against Islamist extremist organizations as a Christian fight against Satan.
It also was signed by retired Vice Adm. John Poindexter and retired Maj. Gen. Richard Secord, who were involved in the Iran-contra affair in the Reagan administration, in which arms were sold to Iran to fund the contras in Nicaragua.
--snip--
Those stellar qualities certainly distinguish themselves as non-biased intellectuals it seems.
-
Really? Wonder why?
--snip--
One is retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush and is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council. He had a history of making controversial speeches, including one in which he characterized U.S. military operations against Islamist extremist organizations as a Christian fight against Satan.
It also was signed by retired Vice Adm. John Poindexter and retired Maj. Gen. Richard Secord, who were involved in the Iran-contra affair in the Reagan administration, in which arms were sold to Iran to fund the contras in Nicaragua.
--snip--
Those stellar qualities certainly distinguish themselves as non-biased intellectuals it seems.
And the other 197? ;D
-
Really really really ODD that all those guys who illegally tried to deal with Iran back in the Reagan administration are all against the Iran deal.....amazing irony :o
the hypocrisy of the Republicans is so amazing and shameful its a wonder how they show their face in public
-
No. I was addressing the comment someone (caratcho) else made to my post.
The sarcasm backfire response is due to your comment to andrewhatever while clearly either not seeing (doubtful) or not understanding (most likely) the conversation taking place between myself and caratcho that was referenced. " :) "
I see. So now you've established you don't understand the definitions of hypocrite/hypocrisy and sarcasm. It all makes sense. That's why you repeatedly get suckered by satire. lol . . . .
-
And the other 197? ;D
They must all be Republican hacks.
Hey I wonder if Obama fired them too? Z inger of the weekend right there. lol :)
-
30 Senators Now Support Iran Nuclear Deal, Obama Needs 4 More
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=285875fe-aaa2-4fe8-850b-7097e3df6d5e&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: 30 Senators Now Support Iran Nuclear Deal, Obama Needs 4 More (AP)
Friday, 28 Aug 2015
Another U.S. Democratic senator said on Friday he would support the U.S.-led nuclear agreement with Iran, moving President Barack Obama a step closer to having sufficient backing to ensure the deal stands.
Tom Carper backed the deal negotiated by the United States and other world powers that would put new limits on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for eased economic sanctions.
Obama is trying to muster 34 votes in the Senate to ensure lawmakers cannot kill the deal. Thirty senators, all Democrats and independents who vote with Democrats, have now said they will support it.
When Congress returns on Sept. 8 from its August recess, debate will begin on a Republican-sponsored "resolution of disapproval" against the deal
In the Senate, Republicans must gather 60 votes to move the resolution forward under Senate procedural rules. If they can, they will then need a simple majority of 51 votes in the chamber to approve the resolution. It would pass, because Republicans control a majority of Senate seats and most have already come out against the agreement.
There is no similar procedural barrier in the House. The resolution is expected to easily win approval there. Republicans hold 246 seats in the 435-seat House.
If both chambers approve the resolution, it would go to Obama's desk for review. He has vowed to veto it.
If he does so, opponents would then try to override the veto. This would take a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber. The Senate has 100 members; the House, 434, plus one vacant seat.
Democrats could block an override in the Senate with 34 votes. So far, 30 senators have committed to voting in favor of the deal; 31 have said they will oppose it.
In the House, if Republicans voted unanimously against the deal, they would need to get at least 44 Democrats to vote with them to override a veto.
The Iran deal is not a treaty, so it does not need the two-thirds vote in the Senate to be ratified. The "resolution of disapproval" mechanism was included in a law Obama signed in May giving Congress the right to weigh in on the nuclear deal with Iran.
If Congress were to pass a resolution of disapproval and override a veto, Obama would be barred from waiving most of the U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran over its nuclear program. Proponents of the agreement say this would kill the deal.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/senators-support-iran-deal/2015/08/28/id/672402/#ixzz3k8lQ9Tq0
-
They must all be Republican hacks.
Hey I wonder if Obama fired them too? &guy of the weekend right there. lol :)
No, Obama only fires retired ones.
-
Really really really ODD that all those guys who illegally tried to deal with Iran back in the Reagan administration are all against the Iran deal.....amazing irony :o
the hypocrisy of the Republicans is so amazing and shameful its a wonder how they show their face in public
LOL this. Reagan didn't go to congress, he just did those felonies quietly.
-
LOL this. Reagan didn't go to congress, he just did those felonies quietly.
:D
-
Colin Powell Backs Obama's Iran Deal
A symbolic victory for Obama.
Zach Carter
Senior Political Economy Reporter, The Huffington Post
Posted: 09/06/2015
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com//asset/crop_29_132_2931_1419,scalefit_630_noupscale/55ec5b101700009a01569911.jpeg)
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday threw his support behind President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran, calling it "a good deal" that will move Iran off its current "superhighway" toward acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that critics of the agreement were ignoring the rapid development of Iran's nuclear program dating back to the Bush years.
"They have been on a superhighway for the last 10 years to create a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapons program, with no speed limit. And in the last 10 years they have gone from 136 centrifuges up to something like 19,000 centrifuges. This agreement will bring them down to 5,000 centrifuges, all of them under [International Atomic Energy Agency] supervision. And I think this is a good outcome."
The Obama administration doesn't need Powell's support to help secure the political survival of the nonproliferation pact, as Senate Democrats already have enough votes to prevent Republican critics from overriding it. But Powell's endorsement carries deep symbolic significance.
Powell served as secretary of state for former President George W. Bush during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Former Vice President Dick Cheney and other neoconservatives have blasted Obama's Iran deal and blamed the Obama administration for the current violence in the Middle East. Powell, by contrast, argues that the current president is making good progress after being dealt a rough hand by his predecessors.
“The fact of the matter is, we did it right in the first Gulf War. We had to listen to arguments for years afterwards about, 'Why didn't you go to Baghdad?' And the 2003 war came along, and you saw why you didn't want to go to Baghdad,” Powell said. "Once you pull out the top of a government, unless there's a structure under it to give security and structure to the society, you can expect a mess."
"Meet The Press" host Chuck Todd also played a clip of Dick Cheney in 1994 arguing that toppling Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War would have been irresponsible.
"If you take down the central government in Iraq, you can see pieces of Iraq flying off," Cheney said at the time, describing a situation that would destabilize Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Cheney now blames Obama for problems in the region, saying the current administration abandoned a successful military project.
Critics of the Iran deal say it will allow a regime that is hostile to the United States to acquire a nuclear weapon in 10 to 15 years. They also say that Iran cannot be trusted to abide by its terms. Powell acknowledged that the pact would require stringent oversight and robust "verification" to work as agreed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/colin-powell-backs-obamas-iran-deal_55ec5acae4b002d5c0764339
-
Its good to see cooler, more intelligent heads prevail.....looks like the entire Republican party will vote no and be isolated ONCE AGAIN
-
Khamenei: Israel won’t survive next 25 years
Taking to Twitter, Iranian leader says Zionists won’t find serenity until destruction, calls US ‘Great Satan’ and rejects any talks with Washington beyond nuke deal
BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF
September 9, 2015
(http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2015/09/Mideast-Iran-Nuclear_Horo-635x357.jpg)
In this picture released by official website of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's office on Thursday, Sept. 3, 2015, he is seen speaking in a meeting with members of Iran's Experts Assembly in Tehran, Iran. (Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP)In this picture released by official website of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's office on Thursday, Sept. 3, 2015, he is seen speaking in a meeting with members of Iran's Experts Assembly in Tehran, Iran. (Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP)NEWSROOM
Israel will not survive the next 25 years, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday, making a series of threatening remarks published online.
In a quote posted to Twitter by Khamenei’s official account, Khamenei addresses Israel, saying, “You will not see next 25 years,” and adds that the Jewish state will be hounded until it is destroyed.
The quote comes against a backdrop of a photograph apparently showing the Iranian leader walking on an Israeli flag painted on a sidewalk.
“After negotiations, in Zionist regime they said they had no more concern about Iran for next 25 years; I’d say: Firstly, you will not see next 25 years; God willing, there will be nothing as Zionist regime by next 25 years. Secondly, until then, struggling, heroic and jihadi morale will leave no moment of serenity for Zionists,” the quote from Iran’s top leader reads in broken English.
The quote was apparently taken from a speech given earlier in the day.
The remarks came as US lawmakers began to debate supporting a recent nuclear agreement between Tehran and six world powers. Critics of the deal have pointed to fiery anti-US and anti-Zionist rhetoric as proof that the regime should not be trusted.
The White House and other deal boosters argue that the pact, meant to keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, is based on verification, not trust.
Khamenei’s statements also reaffirmed his view that the US is a “Great Satan” and that there would be no detente with Washington beyond the nuclear talks.
“We approved talks with the United States about [the] nuclear issue specifically. We have not allowed talks with the US in other fields and we [do] not negotiate with them,” Khamenei said in statements published on his website.
Khamenei is quoted as saying any other talks would be “a tool for penetration and imposing their demands.”
On Twitter, Khamenei said talks with the US were a “means of infiltration and imposition of their wills.”
Quoting the founder of the Islamic Republic and his predecessor as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Khamenei tweeted: “@IRKhomeini stated “US is the Great Satan,” some insist on depicting this Great Satan as an angel.”
The Twitter handle @IRKhomeini is an Iranian government account dedicated to Khomeini’s statements.
Some have pointed to the nuclear deal as an opening for Iran to repair long-frayed ties with the West.
Several senior European officials have traveled to Iran since the nuclear deal was reached to boost economic and diplomatic ties, including Austrian President Heinz Fischer, who on Monday became the first European leader to visit Tehran in over a decade.
On Tuesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani signaled that Iran is ready to hold talks with world powers on ways to resolve Syria’s civil war — provided such negotiations could secure peace and democracy in the conflict-torn country, he said.
Iran, together with Russia, backs the embattled regime of Bashar Assad, who is opposed by much of the West.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-israel-wont-survive-next-25-years/
-
we already know Israel will be here forever...the only way Israel will not be here is if they destroy themselves...which they are doing now
-
Or Iran drops a bomb on them.
-
Or Iran drops a bomb on them.
Not going to happen.....all of that is rhetoric...Iran would be wiped from the face of the earth by both Israel and the U.S....they know that....they are more rational than they lead people to believe..they want to survive
-
Not going to happen.....all of that is rhetoric...Iran would be wiped from the face of the earth by both Israel and the U.S....they know that....they are more rational than they lead people to believe..they want to survive
Good thing you have so much trust and faith in those folks.
-
Retired General: Iran Deal Encourages Allies to Align With Russia, China
Gen. Chuck Wald, former deputy commander of United States European Command, warns Congress of deal’s implications
BY: Morgan Chalfant
September 9, 2015
The chair of a council of prominent military leaders argued in testimony on Capitol Hill Wednesday that the Iranian nuclear deal could encourage U.S. allies in the Middle East to align themselves with other world powers such as Russia or China.
Retired Air Force Gen. Chuck Wald, who co-chairs the Iran Strategy Council at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the implications of the nuclear agreement being pushed by the Obama administration.
Wald, who served as deputy commander of United States European Command, explained that the agreement “undermines U.S. credibility” from the perspective of both allies and enemies in the Middle East by making U.S. commitment to alliances appear “weakened.”
This in turn, Wald said, could prompt allies to “seek protection elsewhere” and enemies to “feel emboldened” against the United States.
“Some U.S. allies have made clear they believe this deal will not prevent a nuclear Iran and, that by proceeding with the [agreement], the United States is disrupting the regional balance of power and endangering them,” Wald said. “Other regional partners have noted that the deal empowers Iran to redouble its destabilizing regional activities, making the Middle East a more dangerous place. ”
“There is anger—even a sense of betrayal—among U.S. allies in the region,” the retired general added, pointing to expressions of concern about the deal from Israel and other allies.
Wald said that giving the impression that the United States was faltering in its commitment was “dangerous,” suggesting that it could encourage America’s allies to act alone against Iran or to seek help from Russia or China.
“This could mean taking matters into their own hands, as Israel previously has done or Saudi Arabia decided to do earlier this year by unilaterally launching an air campaign against Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen. Such actions, if not backed by the overwhelming force of the U.S. military, could spark reprisals that spiral into wider regional conflict,” Wald told House lawmakers.
“Alternatively, our regional allies might seek other guarantors of their security,” he continued. “Whether this means accepting Iranian hegemony or allying with other powers—such as Russia or China—the result would be detrimental to U.S. influence and interests in the region.”
Wald said that allies could decide to terminate cooperation with the United States, making it impossible for the United States to “project power in the Middle East.”
“Basing and overflight rights are critical to maintaining and deploying a deterrent force,” Wald said. “The perception that we are no longer committed to our allies’ security could risk the revocation of those rights and spark a vicious cycle of destabilization.”
Wald also suggested that U.S. credibility has already been undermined by defense cuts under the Obama administration over the last several years. The U.S. Army plans to cut 40,000 more troops over the next two years, losses that would become even more dramatic under sequestration.
Wald testified alongside another member of the Iran Strategy Council, retired Adm. John Bird, both of them spotlighting a recent report from the council indicating that the nuclear deal would make war more likely.
In contrast, the Obama administration has insisted that the nuclear deal is an alternative to military conflict with Iran.
The retired military officials’ testimony comes as congressional lawmakers make their final decisions regarding the nuclear agreement. Congress is expected to vote on the JCPOA sometime before Sept. 17.
While multiple Democrats have voiced opposition to the deal, President Obama on Tuesday managed to recruit enough support to avoid having to veto a resolution rejecting the agreement.
The deal remains unpopular with the public. Only 21 percent of Americans support it, according to Pew Research Center data released Tuesday.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/retired-air-force-general-iran-nuclear-deal-could-encourage-allies-to-align-with-russia-china/
-
Good thing you have so much trust and faith in those folks.
Israel has many many nuclear weapons....Iran has none at this time...I think the Ayatollahs can count
-
Israel has many many nuclear weapons....Iran has none at this time...I think the Ayatollahs can count
Well I guess that settles that.
That's why Iraq didn't drop bombs on Israel and Hezbollah has't been firing rockets into their cities . . . .
-
FNC’s Krauthammer Unloads on Senate Dems for Iran Deal Support, Senate GOP for Bad Tactics
By Curtis Houc
September 15, 2015
During the first “All-Star Panel” segment on Tuesday’s Special Report, Fox News Channel (FNC) contributor Charles Krauthammer offered blistering criticisms of Senate Democrats for their support of the Iran deal along with Senate Republicans for not invoking the nuclear option by introducing a resolution disapproving of the deal.
Leaving no stone unturned, Krauthammer first tore into the Democrats for filibustering the resolution of disapproval that could have future implications if passed: “[T]he whole idea of any of this is to get on the record for the future what the vote is on this treaty, which will live for a very long time, so that any future president will have an easier time getting out of it to delegitimize it.”
Krauthammer then switched over to hitting the Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for tactics that he ruled have not been “the wisest move” in simply pushing for Democrats to go “on the record for something involving Israel” when he should instead:
Introduce an amendment that says what the House bill does that the treaty was never submitted as required because it didn’t have all the documents, meaning the secret IAEA deals, which allow Iran to inspect itself. In the absence of that, it was never transmitted an thus there’s no clock running out on this.
Continuing to unload on the Senate GOP, the syndicated columnist wondered why McConnell won’t employ the same Senate procedural moves that Harry Reid once used:
The other thing I would say is why allow the Democrats to filibuster at all? Apply the nuclear option. Harry Reid applied it so he could three – two or three judicial appointment through the Second Circuit, then why not do it over the most important treaty of our time. There are a lot of options here. They will only expose the Democrats.
Fellow panelist Mara Liasson of National Public Radio followed by toting the Democratic line that they don’t view the Iran deal as “a voting issue” despite the reality that a large majority of Americans oppose the deal. In addition, she touted the claim that the Obama admistration has submitted the proper documents pertaining to the deal and the so-called side deals “are not theirs to disclose.”
On that second point, Krauthammer interjected with pure disgust, quipping that such a claim is “ridiculous” because the United States “sit[s ] under the committee of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)” and “[ e]very country has a right to ban document itself and we have not done that.”
A few moments later, Krauthammer went on another tear against Democrats engaging in “the definition of playing politics” with filibustering the Iran deal resolution for what he argued is “the most important agreement of our generation [ and] it will be with us for decades.”
When Liasson and host Bret Baier tried to get a word in, Krauthammer cut them off and continued his stinging critique of deal supporters:
How can you read an agreement and come out as a true believer where Iran inspects itself in Parcin, where you have a one-month delay in inspections, where you giving them $100 billion in advance after having said, we're not going to lift the sanctions immediately have to be shown.
The relevant portions of the transcript from FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier on September 15 can be found below.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, the whole idea of any of this is to get on the record for the future what the vote is on this treaty, which will live for a very long time, so that any future president will have an easier time getting out of it to delegitimize it. The Democrats want to hide that by noting having a vote. That’s why they are filibustering. McConnell wants to put them on the record for something involving Israel. I don’t think that’s the wisest move. You want to put them on the record? Introduce an amendment that says what the House bill does that the treaty was never submitted as required because it didn’t have all the documents, meaning the secret IAEA deals, which allow Iran to inspect itself. In the absence of that, it was never transmitted an thus there’s no clock running out on this. The other thing I would say is why allow the Democrats to filibuster at all? Apply the nuclear option. Harry Reid applied it so he could three – two or three judicial appointment through the Second Circuit, then why not do it over the most important treaty of our time. There are a lot of options here. They will only expose the Democrats. They would only delegitimize the deal, but that’s going to be important after Obama is gone.
BAIER: Senator Murphy says it’s not right to play politics here, but there’s politics in all of this, Mara. If you look at polls, it’s upside on this Iran deal.
MARA LIASSON: It’s upside on this deal. Yet, the Democrats were firm and they kept the number they needed to filibuster this. Not just to uphold a veto, that was the first bar, but they went even further and a lot of Democrats I talked to say this might be unpopular in polls, but it's not a voting issue. In other words, it's not going to motivate people to vote against you. Trade, on the other hand, is for Democrats. So, they feel pretty safe on this. The interesting is this isn't a traety. If it was, it would have taken 67 votes in the Senate. It's not technically a treaty and I don't know what the Democrats are going to do to counter this. Maybe say Saudi Arabia should recognize Israel, but I do know that the White House they say they have submitted everything. The documents from the IAEA are not theirs to disclose.
KRAUTHAMMER: Oh, that's ridiculous.
LIASSON: That's what they say.
KRAUTHAMMER: We sit under the executive committee of the IAEA. Every country has a right to ban document itself and we have not done that.
(....)
KRAUTHAMMER: One point. You said earlier that Democrats aren’t worried about this because it’s not a voting issue. That’s the definition of playing politics. Here’s the most important agreement of our generation, it will be with us for decades and you’re telling me that the Democrats are calculating it's okay to support it even though it's going to be a catastrophe for the country because it's not --
LIASSON: No, they’re not believing it’s going to be a catastrophe for our country.
BAIER: True believers,
KRAUTHAMMER: Yeah, true believers, all of them? How can you read an agreement and come out as a true believer where Iran inspects itself in Parcin, where you have a one-month delay in inspections, where you giving them $100 billion in advance after having said, we're not going to lift the sanctions immediately have to be shown. We’ll bring what North Korea is doing to its deal, which we did, Wendy Sherman and others wanted to negotiate the Iran deal and negotiated in the 90s, throwing it out, trashing it, 20 years later, recurring now. No, I'll believe that some of them do who are diluted, but I agree with you. For a majority of them, the calculation is it won't cost me my seat. I go with the President. That's a political vote.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2015/09/15/fncs-krauthammer-unloads-senate-dems-iran-deal-support-senate-gop#sthash.5mPqgAJG.dpuf
-
FNC’s Krauthammer Unloads on Senate Dems for Iran Deal Support, Senate GOP for Bad Tactics
According to GOP frontrunner Trump, Krauthammer is a loser and a jerk.
Either the GOP frontrunner is full of shit, or this article is. Which is it?
-
According to GOP frontrunner Trump, Krauthammer is a loser and a jerk.
Either the GOP frontrunner is full of shit, or this article is. Which is it?
Krauthammer has become an anti-Obama shill........I even wrote him an e-mail telling him so.......he has the nerve to talk about true-believers????????.....how is it that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN voted against Obamacare?????????..how is it that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN came out against the Iran deal?????..it is impossible for any group of people to have the SAME OPINION like the Republicans have shown????????....and they still ALWAYS LOSE regardless......
It makes no sense to subject the deal for a vote when the Republicans will just all vote in lockstep and LOSE ANYWAY.......its a waste of time....many Repubs just want to deny Obama a victory as they always try to do and LOSE ANYWAY
Obama destroys the Repubs just the way Reagan used to destroy the democrats
Also the IEAI came out and stated that in all of the treaties that involve nuclear deals, all countries inspect themselves and that the IEAI has a way to detect cheating even when countries inspect themselves which is why they allow it...plus they follow up
lets cut out all this nonsense...END OF THREAD
-
Krauthammer has become an anti-Obama shill........I even wrote him an e-mail telling him so.......he has the nerve to talk about true-believers????????.....how is it that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN voted against Obamacare?????????
Because it was a crappy bill?
-
Because it was a crappy bill?
Doesn't matter...when you get a bunch of supposedly smart egotistical people together they are all bound not to agree ALL THE TIME....YET...they all seem to.....and always in the negative......its IMPOSSIBLE.....unless its premeditated, which it is....even Democrats have voted against the treaty and Obamcare...
come on..you are a shill too
-
Doesn't matter...when you get a bunch of supposedly smart egotistical people together they are all bound not to agree ALL THE TIME....YET...they all seem to.....and always in the negative......its IMPOSSIBLE.....unless its premeditated, which it is....even Democrats have voted against the treaty and Obamcare...
come on..you are a shill too
Doesn't matter if it was a crappy bill? Figures. :-\
-
Doesn't matter if it was a crappy bill? Figures. :-\
again..you are trying your best be negative against Obama..the fact is you KNOW I absolutely have a point.....the Republican voting patterns would be the same as ALL GETBIGGERS agreeing ALL THE TIME and there being n o arguments in threads.....is that possible?????
I think Soul Crusher has hacked your account..you can't be THAT idiotic
-
again..you are trying your best be negative against Obama..the fact is you KNOW I absolutely have a point.....the Republican voting patterns would be the same as ALL GETBIGGERS agreeing ALL THE TIME and there being n o arguments in threads.....is that possible?????
I think Soul Crusher has hacked your account..you can't be THAT idiotic
I disagree with your point. Yes it matters whether the bill is a crappy piece of legislation. Nothing wrong at all with legislators, whether they are in the same party or not, agreeing to vote against a bad bill. Obama had trouble convincing members of his own party to vote for the bill and had to lie to them to get it done.
-
I disagree with your point. Yes it matters whether the bill is a crappy piece of legislation. Nothing wrong at all with legislators, whether they are in the same party or not, agreeing to vote against a bad bill. Obama had trouble convincing members of his own party to vote for the bill and had to lie to them to get it done.
you've absolutely gone mad....but no matter..the treaty will pass...no matter what those idiots vote or don't vote for......Obama wins AGAIN 8) 8) 8)
-
you've absolutely gone mad....but no matter..the treaty will pass...no matter what those idiots vote or don't vote for......Obama wins AGAIN 8) 8) 8)
I was talking about Obamacare.
We have different definitions of a "win."
-
I was talking about Obamacare.
We have different definitions of a "win."
of course we do.....my definition is really a win...your definition is "I wish Obama would have lost"
-
of course we do.....my definition is really a win...your definition is "I wish Obama would have lost"
Nah. My definition is, in large part, "something that benefits the country."
-
Nah. My definition is, in large part, "something that benefits the country."
Obamacare......14 million more people on insurance,......insurance companies can no longer deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions....makes hospitals much more efficient.....
come on
-
Obamacare......14 million more people on insurance,......insurance companies can no longer deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions....makes hospitals much more efficient.....
come on
Many of those are on Medicare. The preexisting conditions part is good, but overall the law is terrible. Premiums have gone up for many. Many people lost their doctor. Many people have to buy insurance or be subject to a tax. Many businesses hate it. I have yet to speak with a single business owner who actually has employees who thinks it's a good law.
-
You would think this would have been figured out when they put the deal together.
EXCLUSIVE: U.S. officials conclude Iran deal violates federal law
By James Rosen
Published October 08, 2015
FoxNews.com
Some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.
At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall…license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”
In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.
Indeed, ITRA also stipulated, in Section 218, that when it comes to doing business with Iran, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent firms shall in all cases be treated exactly the same as U.S. firms: namely, what is prohibited for U.S. parent firms has to be prohibited for foreign subsidiaries, and what is allowed for foreign subsidiaries has to be allowed for U.S. parent firms.
What’s more, ITRA contains language, in Section 605, requiring that the terms spelled out in Section 218 shall remain in effect until the president of the United States certifies two things to Congress: first, that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and second, that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.
Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.
For example, the review act – sponsored by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Foreign Relations Committee, and signed into law by President Obama in May – stated that “any measure of statutory sanctions relief” afforded to Iran under the terms of the nuclear deal may only be “taken consistent with existing statutory requirements for such action.” The continued presence of Iran on the State Department’s terror list means that “existing statutory requirements” that were set forth in ITRA, in 2012, have not been met for Iran to receive the sanctions relief spelled out in the JCPOA.
As the Iran deal is an “executive agreement” and not a treaty – and has moreover received no vote of ratification from the Congress, explicit or symbolic – legal analysts inside and outside of the Obama administration have concluded that the JCPOA is vulnerable to challenge in the courts, where federal case law had held that U.S. statutes trump executive agreements in force of law.
Administration sources told Fox News it is the intention of Secretary of State John Kerry, who negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran’s foreign minister and five other world powers, that the re-opening of the “foreign sub” loophole by the JCPOA is to be construed as broadly as possible by lawyers for the State Department, the Treasury Department and other agencies involved in the deal’s implementation.
But the apparent conflict between the re-opening of the loophole and existing U.S. law leaves the Obama administration with only two options going forward. The first option is to violate ITRA, and allow foreign subsidiaries to be treated differently than U.S. parent firms. The second option is to treat both categories the same, as ITRA mandated – but still violate the section of ITRA that required Iran’s removal from the State Department terror list as a pre-condition of any such licensing.
It would also renege on the many promises of senior U.S. officials to keep the broad array of American sanctions on Iran in place. Chris Backemeyer, who served as Iran director for the National Security Council from 2012 to 2014 and is now the State Department’s deputy coordinator for sanctions policy, told POLITICO last month “there will be no real sanctions relief of our primary embargo….We are still going to have sanctions on Iran that prevent most Americans from…engaging in most commercial activities.”
Likewise, in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last month, Adam Szubin, the acting under secretary of Treasury for terrorism and financial crimes, described Iran as “the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism” and said existing U.S. sanctions on the regime “will continue to be enforced….U.S. investment in Iran will be prohibited across the board.”
Nominated to succeed his predecessor at Treasury, Szubin appeared before the Senate Banking Committee for a confirmation hearing the day after his speech to the Washington Institute. At the hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) asked the nominee where the Obama administration finds the “legal underpinnings” for using the JCPOA to re-open the “foreign sub” loophole.
Szubin said the foreign subsidiaries licensed to do business with Iran will have to meet “some very difficult conditions,” and he specifically cited ITRA, saying the 2012 law “contains the licensing authority that Treasury would anticipate using…to allow for certain categories of activity for those foreign subsidiaries.”
Elsewhere, in documents obtained by Fox News, Szubin has maintained that a different passage of ITRA, Section 601, contains explicit reference to an earlier law – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, on the books since 1977 – and states that the president “may exercise all authorities” embedded in IEEPA, which includes licensing authority for the president.
However, Section 601 is also explicit on the point that the president must use his authorities from IEEPA to “carry out” the terms and provisions of ITRA itself, including Section 218 – which mandated that, before this form of sanctions relief can be granted, Iran must be removed from the State Department’s terror list. Nothing in the Congressional Record indicates that, during debate and passage of ITRA, members of Congress intended for the chief executive to use Section 601 to overturn, rather than “carry out,” the key provisions of his own law.
One administration lawyer contacted by Fox News said the re-opening of the loophole reflects circular logic with no valid legal foundation. “It would be Alice-in-Wonderland bootstrapping to say that [Section] 601 gives the president the authority to restore the foreign subsidiary loophole – the exact opposite of what the statute ordered,” said the attorney, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations over implementation of the Iran deal.
At the State Department on Thursday, spokesman John Kirby told reporters Secretary Kerry is “confident” that the administration “has the authority to follow through on” the commitment to re-open the foreign subsidiary loophole.
“Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president has broad authorities, which have been delegated to the secretary of the Treasury, to license activities under our various sanctions regimes, and the Iran sanctions program is no different,” Kirby said.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the G.O.P. presidential candidate who is a Harvard-trained lawyer and ardent critic of the Iran deal, said the re-opening of the loophole fits a pattern of the Obama administration enforcing federal laws selectively.
“It’s a problem that the president doesn’t have the ability wave a magic wand and make go away,” Cruz told Fox News in an interview. “Any U.S. company that follows through on this, that allows their foreign-owned subsidiaries to do business with Iran, will very likely face substantial civil liability, litigation and potentially even criminal prosecution. The obligation to follow federal law doesn’t go away simply because we have a lawless president who refuses to acknowledge or follow federal law.”
A spokesman for the Senate Banking Committee could not offer any time frame as to when the committee will vote on Szubin’s nomination.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/08/exclusive-us-officials-conclude-iran-deal-violates-federal-law/?intcmp=hpbt2
-
Many of those are on Medicare. The preexisting conditions part is good, but overall the law is terrible. Premiums have gone up for many. Many people lost their doctor. Many people have to buy insurance or be subject to a tax. Many businesses hate it. I have yet to speak with a single business owner who actually has employees who thinks it's a good law.
well if the law is perceived as "terrible" then I guess thats what happens when the opposition abdicates its responsibility to provide input into a law when they should have participated in the legislative process as is ther job.....
-
Businessman is first American detained by Iran since nuclear deal
Published October 30, 2015
FoxNews.com
A fourth Iranian-American has been arrested by Iranian security forces as the Islamic Republic begins implementing a nuclear deal struck with world powers, according to reports.
Siamak Namazi, a 40-year-old Dubai-based businessman who has spent most of his life advocating improved ties between the U.S. and Iran, was arrested about two weeks ago as he was visiting relatives in Tehran. His detention comes as an Internet freedom group said a Washington-based Lebanese citizen recently disappeared while on a trip to Tehran.
Iranian officials and state media haven’t commented either case. There has been speculation that some in Iran want to negotiate a prisoner swap with the U.S. for others held in the Islamic Republic, like detained Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian.
Namazi’s father was a well-to-do oil man in pre-revolutionary Iran. He left in 1983.
Namazi and his older brother were born and raised in the U.S. He has acted as liaison for western businesses wanted to do business in Iran through a company he set up in Iran and left in 2009.
He has also been accused of being an apologist for the regime, long calling for the dropping of sanctions against Iran. Apparently, though, he fell out with the hard-liners in the Revolutionary Guard who have long been suspicious of him.
His brother Babak Namazi works for an international law firm in Dubai. He is believed to be in Iran, perhaps trying to arrange his brother's release.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Namazi is head of strategic planning at Crescent Petroleum Co. in Dubai.
The U.S. State Department declined to confirm Namazi's arrest.
"We're aware of recent reports of the possible arrest in Iran of a U.S. citizen. We're looking into these reports and don't have anything further to provide at this time," Michael Tran, a State Department spokesman, said late Thursday.
Namazi's arrest suggests that hard-liners in Iran could be trying to create tension with the United States in the wake of Iran's nuclear deal with world powers, the Associated Press reported Friday. That agreement reached earlier this year promises Iran relief from crippling economic sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.
Iranian hard-liners are opposed to moderate President Hassan Rouhani's strategy of attempting to improve ties with the West. Internal domestic struggles over the direction of Iran appear to be intensifying ahead of February's parliamentary elections.
The Washington-based National Iranian American Council said it was troubled by reports of Namazi's arrest and denied suggestions that his family had a leadership role in the organization, through it acknowledged "Namazi has known members of NIAC's staff."
"NIAC is very concerned by the continued detention of multiple Iranian Americans by the Iranian government, and is deeply troubled by the reports that Mr. Namazi may also have been detained," it said.
The arrest of an unnamed Iranian American businessman was first reported by IranWire, an online publication, on Oct. 15.
In the past few weeks, Iranian businessmen with links to foreign companies have been detained, interrogated and warned against becoming involved in economic monopolies controlled by Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard, the Journal reported in Friday.
An official at Crescent Petroleum, which is based near Dubai in the Emirati city of Sharjah, said he had no information and did not confirm Namazi's employment when reached by The Associated Press. He later referred questions to an outside public-relations firm that did not respond to requests for comment.
The Lebanese citizen, Nizar Zakka, disappeared Sept. 18 while visiting Tehran for a state-sponsored conference, according to a statement issued by the Washington-based group IJMA3-USA, which advocates for Internet freedom across the Middle East. Zakka was last seen leaving his hotel in a taxi for the airport to fly to Beirut, but never boarded his flight, according to the statement signed by lawyer Antoine Abou Dib.
"We have filed several requests with the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs asking assistance in locating him, without success," the statement said. "We therefore respectfully ask the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Lebanese Embassy in Tehran and the Iranian authorities to assist us in locating Mr. Zakka, and to confirm that he is safe and will soon be permitted to return home."
Other Americans held in Iran include former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, who holds dual Iranian and American citizenship and was arrested in August 2011. Saeed Abedini, a pastor from Boise was convicted in 2013 of threatening Iran's national security by participating in home churches. The U.S. also says it has asked for the Iranian government's assistance in finding former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who went missing in 2007 while working for the CIA on an unapproved intelligence mission.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/30/iranian-security-forces-said-to-detain-fourth-iranian-american/?intcmp=hplnws
-
Heard Congressman Lieu speak about this over the weekend. One of few Democrats with the stones to take a tough stand. The most disturbing things:
1. This deal allows the no. 1 state sponsor of terror with immediate access to billions of dollars.
2. Beginning in year 8 and continuing to year 15, Iran gets to all have everything back they are giving up, which will allow them to develop ballistic nuclear weapons that can reach the U.S. in year 15.
3. Before year 15, Iran will be able use the billions in revenue to develop their infrastructure, military, etc., making disarming them after year 15 impossible without substantial ground forces.
4. The likelihood of Israel taking preemptive action in Iran before year 15 is very high.
You can find his comprehensive written objection to the deal here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/10/blue-state-blues-l-a-media-silent-as-ted-lieu-rejects-iran-deal/
-
Heard Congressman Lieu speak about this over the weekend. One of few Democrats with the stones to take a tough stand. The most disturbing things:
1. This deal allows the no. 1 state sponsor of terror with immediate access to billions of dollars.
2. Beginning in year 8 and continuing to year 15, Iran gets to all have everything back they are giving up, which will allow them to develop ballistic nuclear weapons that can reach the U.S. in year 15.
3. Before year 15, Iran will be able use the billions in revenue to develop their infrastructure, military, etc., making disarming them after year 15 impossible without substantial ground forces.
4. The likelihood of Israel taking preemptive action in Iran before year 15 is very high.
You can find his comprehensive written objection to the deal here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/10/blue-state-blues-l-a-media-silent-as-ted-lieu-rejects-iran-deal/
What an ironic statement coming from the great fence-sitter....HILARIOUS!!!!!!! ;D
-
What an ironic statement coming from the great fence-sitter....HILARIOUS!!!!!!! ;D
So no comment about what Congressman Lieu had to say about the deal?
-
Is congress going to pass this?
Are some here still blindly supporting this treaty without a full examination of the details and their ramifications?
-
Is congress going to pass this?
Are some here still blindly supporting this treaty without a full examination of the details and their ramifications?
Congress doesn't have to pass it. It's not a treaty. It's an agreement Obama made with Iran, which the next president can rescind.
-
Congress doesn't have to pass it. It's not a treaty. It's an agreement Obama made with Iran, which the next president can rescind.
Shit that could end up being enough reason to vote for Trump lol
I thought it was a treaty that congress had to pass. If a repub get elected, that "deal" probably won't last which makes the deal it self not very solid for the iranians.
-
Shit that could end up being enough reason to vote for Trump lol
I thought it was a treaty that congress had to pass. If a repub get elected, that "deal" probably won't last which makes the deal it self not very solid for the iranians.
I hope so. It's a disaster. A surefire way to cause another major conflict in the Middle East.
-
Is congress going to pass this?
Are some here still blindly supporting this treaty without a full examination of the details and their ramifications?
I'm in full support of the treaty and not blindly so...I'm a realist....the Iranians were progressing toward a nuclear weapon ANYWAY...NOTHING was going to stop that.....no amount of sanctions can stop a determined nation from acquiring nuclear weapons....CASE IN POINT: North Korea...one of the poorest backward nations on earth.....Despite sanctions, Iran was making steady progress toward the bomb.
Great Britain and France stated they would not support sanctions any longer if the United States did not agree to the deal..so had the US opposed this deal, all of the nations in the world would have broken with us and started doing business with Iran....SANCTIONS WERE NOT GOING TO HOLD MUCH LONGER..NOW Iran is 15 years from the bomb instead of about a year away
I further support it because the alternative would have been war.....WE ARE BROKE...OUR MILITARY NEEDS TIME TO RECOVER FROM TWO SIMULTANEOUS WARS and we would be going to war AGAIN for the 3rd time in 12 years in the middle east...more wasted blood and treasure
and also WAR HAS FAILED IN THE MIDDLE EAST AS A TOOL OF CHANGE
I also support this treaty because MANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN ISRAEL SUPPORT THE DEAL....many leaders of Shin Bet and the Mossad,,and many generals in their military have came out in favor of the deal and have openly criticized Netanyahu for opposing the deal..if its good enough for them then its good enough for me since their survival is directly threatened
Finally the U.N and the has certified that Iran has complied with all terms of the treaty so far and even that they complied with the pre-terms even before the treaty was actually agreed upon
just being real
-
Congress doesn't have to pass it. It's not a treaty. It's an agreement Obama made with Iran, which the next president can rescind.
NO PRESIDENT is going to rescind the treaty negotiated by another president...not gonna happen...they may try to modify it but that's dead in the water as well because Russia China Britain and France would have to approve...they wont
-
Shit that could end up being enough reason to vote for Trump lol
I thought it was a treaty that congress had to pass. If a repub get elected, that "deal" probably won't last which makes the deal it self not very solid for the iranians.
The deal is here to stay.......presidents seldom make attempts to overturn an agreement signed and negotiated by his predecessor....also if congress does not pass it, the president will veto and it will automatically come into force.....The republicans don't have a 2/3 majority to overturn the veto..it here to stay guys...
Sorry
-
I hope so. It's a disaster. A surefire way to cause another major conflict in the Middle East.
Actually we avoided conflict.....if Israel decided to do something in the future , so be it.....its their blood and treasure....not ours
-
I'm in full support of the treaty and not blindly so...I'm a realist....the Iranians were progressing toward a nuclear weapon ANYWAY...NOTHING was going to stop that.....no amount of sanctions can stop a determined nation from acquiring nuclear weapons....CASE IN POINT: North Korea...one of the poorest backward nations on earth.....Despite sanctions, Iran was making steady progress toward the bomb.
Great Britain and France stated they would not support sanctions any longer if the United States did not agree to the deal..so had the US opposed this deal, all of the nations in the world would have broken with us and started doing business with Iran....SANCTIONS WERE NOT GOING TO HOLD MUCH LONGER..NOW Iran is 15 years from the bomb instead of about a year away
I further support it because the alternative would have been war.....WE ARE BROKE...OUR MILITARY NEEDS TIME TO RECOVER FROM TWO SIMULTANEOUS WARS and we would be going to war AGAIN for the 3rd time in 12 years in the middle east...more wasted blood and treasure
and also WAR HAS FAILED IN THE MIDDLE EAST AS A TOOL OF CHANGE
I also support this treaty because MANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN ISRAEL SUPPORT THE DEAL....many leaders of Shin Bet and the Mossad,,and many generals in their military have came out in favor of the deal and have openly criticized Netanyahu for opposing the deal..if its good enough for them then its good enough for me since their survival is directly threatened
Finally the U.N and the has certified that Iran has complied with all terms of the treaty so far and even that they complied with the pre-terms even before the treaty was actually agreed upon
just being real
Way to use you head.
-
NO PRESIDENT is going to rescind the treaty negotiated by another president...not gonna happen...they may try to modify it but that's dead in the water as well because Russia China Britain and France would have to approve...they wont
It's not a treaty.
-
Actually we avoided conflict.....if Israel decided to do something in the future , so be it.....its their blood and treasure....not ours
No we didn't. We essentially guaranteed a full-scale war. When Israel attacks, we are going to be involved, along with many other countries.
-
No we didn't. We essentially guaranteed a full-scale war. When Israel attacks, we are going to be involved, along with many other countries.
what Israel does is their business...we can't control them...why is that our job?..if they feel its in their best interest to attack, they will
-
what Israel does is their business...we can't control them...why is that our job?..if they feel its in their best interest to attack, they will
Incredibly naive. In the real world, what our allies do is our business. If our allies and enemies are involved in a full scale war, we are going to be involved. When Israel attacks Iran, Iran will respond. It's likely other ME countries join. We will too.
-
Incredibly naive. In the real world, what our allies do is our business. If our allies and enemies are involved in a full scale war, we are going to be involved. When Israel attacks Iran, Iran will respond. It's likely other ME countries join. We will too.
I see your line of reasoning here and on the surface it is logical...but my point is that the United States has NEVER been able to control Israel....its a false idea if people think we can....if the U.S could control Israel they would not have nuclear weapons, would not be continually taking away palestinian land to build settlements (the U.S. has demanded for years that they stop), etc.
Also Israel has attacked Iraq and destroyed their reactor.....and has attacked Syria and destroyed their reactor as well, YET the U.S. did not get involved and could not stop Israel from attacking...AND those countries did not retaliate because they knew that Israel was stronger....so it doesn't mean that Iran would go to war against Israel..
So even though I think your thinking on this has merit and is definitely logical I don't think that it would necessarily lead to us being involved in war
-
I see your line of reasoning here and on the surface it is logical...but my point is that the United States has NEVER been able to control Israel....its a false idea if people think we can....if the U.S could control Israel they would not have nuclear weapons, would not be continually taking away palestinian land to build settlements (the U.S. has demanded for years that they stop), etc.
Also Israel has attacked Iraq and destroyed their reactor.....and has attacked Syria and destroyed their reactor as well, YET the U.S. did not get involved and could not stop Israel from attacking...AND those countries did not retaliate because they knew that Israel was stronger....so it doesn't mean that Iran would go to war against Israel..
So even though I think your thinking on this has merit and is definitely logical I don't think that it would necessarily lead to us being involved in war
You're actually making my point: we cannot control Israel, which means Israel will take military action against Iran before year 15, just like Congressman Lieu acknowledged. It's what happens after they attack Iran that affects the entire region and the U.S.
Depending on when they strike, it's not going to be simply blowing up a site here or there. Iran now has billions to develop their military and infrastructure. They will be head and shoulders above and stronger than Iran or Syria. Much more will be required to stop their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program. If the next president does not stop this, it will not end well.
-
You're actually making my point: we cannot control Israel, which means Israel will take military action against Iran before year 15, just like Congressman Lieu acknowledged. It's what happens after they attack Iran that affects the entire region and the U.S.
Depending on when they strike, it's not going to be simply blowing up a site here or there. Iran now has billions to develop their military and infrastructure. They will be head and shoulders above and stronger than Iran or Syria. Much more will be required to stop their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program. If the next president does not stop this, it will not end well.
Again, better for the Israelis to do it than us...we simply can't take another war at this time........negotiation is better than war at this point....war in the middle east has brought us nothng but ruin.....I don't see Iran battling Israel directly if Israel attacks but they could unleash Hezbollah against Israel and the U.S.
and the next president WILL NOT CANCEL THE AGREEMENT...even if its a Republican.....it would totally destroy our prestige in the world
-
Again, better for the Israelis to do it than us...we simply can't take another war at this time........negotiation is better than war at this point....war in the middle east has brought us nothng but ruin.....I don't see Iran battling Israel directly if Israel attacks but they could unleash Hezbollah against Israel and the U.S.
and the next president WILL NOT CANCEL THE AGREEMENT...even if its a Republican.....it would totally destroy our prestige in the world
Hezbollah is a regional force. I do not view them as an existential threat to the United States unless we provoke them. Israel is a wart on the cock of humanity.
-
Hezbollah is a regional force. I do not view them as an existential threat to the United States unless we provoke them. Israel is a wart on the cock of humanity.
LOL :D..why do you say that?
-
LOL :D..why do you say that?
Israel does not want peace. They want land and more land. While I don't agree with suicide bombings and targeting civilians, if it weren't for Hamas and Hezbollah Israel would have all of Palestine, Lebanon and God knows what else.
-
Israel does not want peace. They want land and more land. While I don't agree with suicide bombings and targeting civilians, if it weren't for Hamas and Hezbollah Israel would have all of Palestine, Lebanon and God knows what else.
I agree with this......people are too busy swallowing the Netanyahu Kool-Aid
-
Iran launches ballistic missiles during military exercise
Published March 08, 2016
FoxNews.com
Iran's Revolutionary Guard launched several ballistic missiles in recent days as part of a military exercise showing off the rogue nation's power, the official IRNA news agency reported on Tuesday.
The missiles launched today appeared to have a short range of 180-250 miles, not viewed as the same threat as the November launch of medium-range ballistic missiles, first reported by Fox News late last year.
Today’s launch would not violate Iran's nuclear deal signed with the U.S. but does breach a U.N. security council resolution, officials tell Fox News. That resolution bars Iran from working on any ballistic missiles.
Still, senior military commanders say they're concerned about Iran’s recent actions. "Some of the behavior that we've seen from Iran of late is certainly not the behavior that you would expect from a nation that wants to be taken seriously as a respected member of the international community," Gen. Lloyd Austin, outgoing commander of U.S. Central Command, told Senate lawmakers Tuesday.
IRNA said the missiles, launched from silos in several locations across the country, demonstrated Iran's "deterrence power" and its readiness to confront threats. State TV ran what it said was video footage of the operation, showing missiles in underground silos and flashes of light from nighttime launches.
State media said the exercise was in its final phase on Tuesday.
In October, Iran successfully test-fired a new guided long-range ballistic surface-to-surface missile. It was the first such test since Iran and world powers reached the landmark nuclear deal last summer.
Iran says none of its missiles are designed to carry nuclear weapons.
Politico reported that culturally and socially, little has changed in Iran since the nuclear deal was signed. The report said that the country’s leader, Ali Khamenei, continues to talk about the U.S. influence in the world and backs “the aggressive use of Hezbollah and other Shiite militias in the region.
Iran claims to have surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 1,250 miles, capable of striking Israel and U.S. military bases in the region.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/08/iran-launches-ballistic-missiles-during-military-exercise-despite-nuke-deal.html?intcmp=hplnws
-
Iran reportedly test-fires 2 long-range missiles while Biden visits Israel
Published March 09, 2016
FoxNews.com
Iran reportedly test-fired two ballistic missiles Wednesday with the phrase "Israel must be wiped out" written in Hebrew on them, but authorities said that the tests do not violate the nuclear deal reached in January.
The tests came as Vice President Joe Biden visited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was strongly opposed to the nuke deal.
“I want to reiterate because I know people still doubt: If in fact they break the deal, we will act,” Biden said in Jerusalem.
The semiofficial Fars news agency offered pictures Wednesday it said were of the Qadr H missiles being fired. It said they were fired in Iran's eastern Alborz mountain range to hit a target some 870 miles away off Iran's coast into the Sea of Oman.
Hard-liners in Iran's military have fired rockets and missiles despite U.S. objections since the deal, as well as shown underground missile bases on state television.
“The missiles fired today are the results of sanctions,” Brig. Gen. Hossein Salami, a deputy commander of the Guards told Fars news agency, according to the BBC. “The sanctions helped Iran develop its missile program.”
There was no immediate reaction from Jerusalem, where Biden was scheduled to speak to Netanyahu.
The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, which patrols that region, declined to comment on the test. Fars quoted Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard's aerospace division, saying the test was aimed at showing Israel that Iran could hit it.
Iranian state television showed one of the missiles being fired from an underground silo sometime overnight, Reuters reported.
"The 1,240-mile range of our missiles is to confront the Zionist regime," Hajizadeh said. "Israel is surrounded by Islamic countries and it will not last long in a war. It will collapse even before being hit by these missiles."
Israel's Foreign Ministry declined to immediately comment. Iran has threatened to destroy Israel in the past. Israel, which is believed to have the only nuclear weapons arsenal in the Mideast, repeatedly has threatened to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Hajizadeh stressed Iran would not fire the missiles in anger or start a war with Israel.
"We will not be the ones who start a war, but we will not be taken by surprise, so we put our facilities somewhere that our enemies cannot destroy them so that we could continue long war," he said.
The firing of the Qadr H missiles comes after a U.S. State Department spokesman on Tuesday criticized another missile launch that day, saying America planned to bring it before the United Nations Security Council.
A nuclear deal between Iran and world powers including the U.S. is now under way, negotiated by the administration of moderate President Hassan Rouhani. In the time since the deal, however, hard-liners in Iran's military have made several shows of strength.
In October, Iran successfully test-fired a new guided long-range ballistic surface-to-surface missile. It was the first such test since Iran and world powers reached a landmark nuclear deal last summer.
U.N. experts said the launch used ballistic missile technology banned under a Security Council resolution. In January, the U.S. imposed new sanctions on individuals and entities linked to the ballistic missile program.
Iran also has fired rockets near U.S. warships and flown an unarmed drone over an American aircraft carrier in recent months.
In January, Iran seized 10 U.S. sailors in the Gulf when their two riverine command boats headed from Kuwait to Bahrain ended up in Iranian territorial waters after the crews "misnavigated," the U.S. military said. The sailors were taken to a small port facility on Farsi Island, held for about 15 hours and released after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke several times with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/09/iran-test-fires-2-long-range-missiles-possibly-capable-hitting-israel.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
Iran Blocking Congressional Access to Country, Nuke Sites
Lawmakers demand travel visas, to no avail
(http://s2.freebeacon.com/up/2016/04/Bushehr-Nuclear-Power-Plant.jpg)
Bushehr Nuclear Power PlantAP
BY: Adam Kredo
April 12, 2016
Leading members of Congress have petitioned Iranian officials to grant them entry to the country ahead of a major speech by a top Iranian diplomat scheduled to take place Friday in Washington, D.C., according to documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Three members of Congress, including a member of the House intelligence committee, have been petitioning Iranian officials to grant them travel visas so they can meet with American hostages and inspect Iran’s nuclear sites to ensure compliance with the recently implemented nuclear deal.
Iranian officials have stalled these attempts for months and missed a self-imposed deadline to respond to the lawmakers’ request, according to correspondence obtained Tuesday afternoon by the Free Beacon.
The lack of reply by Iran has led to accusations of hypocrisy by these lawmakers, who noted that the Obama administration has repeatedly permitted Iranian officials to travel to America for meetings and events.
Valiollah Seif, the governor of Iran’s central bank, is scheduled to appear in D.C. on Friday at a high-profile event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank.
Reps. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), Lee Zeldin (R., N.Y.), and Frank LoBiondo (R., N.J.) are now insisting that Iranian officials extend them the same courtesy already granted to the Islamic Republic by the Obama administration.
“It has now been more than two months since we applied, and we would appreciate a decision on our application,” the lawmakers wrote on Tuesday in a letter addressed to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and obtained by the Free Beacon. “If you reject our visa applications, please provide an explanation.
“As the governor of the Central Bank of Iran, Valiollah Sief, visits Washington, D.C. this week, it is clear the American government is allowing Iranian leaders to visit the United States,” the lawmakers wrote. “Further, American and international business delegations are traveling to Iran and have obviously received visas. We trust the same courtesy will be extended to American leaders.”
The lawmakers travelled to the Iranian Interests Section of the Pakistani embassy in D.C. in early February to hand-deliver their visa applications to Iranian officials.
They also submitted a letter outlining the goals of their visit, which would include meetings with Americans incarcerated in Iran, briefings on the group of U.S. sailors who were temporarily detained by Iran earlier this year, and inspections of the country’s nuclear sites.
“When we submitted our applications, the deputy director of the interests section, Abolfazl Mehrabadi, informed us that we would receive a reply, though your staff missed their own self-imposed deadline for responding,” the lawmakers wrote. “We have followed up several times with them, but to no avail.”
The lawmakers also wanted to observe Iran’s recent elections to ensure transparency, but were unable due to the delay in processing the travel documents.
“With your claims that many moderates were elected, we imagine that there should be no problems now with our trip,” the lawmakers wrote. “However, our straightforward applications continue to be met with ridicule and delay from many Iranian leaders.”
One senior congressional source apprised of the situation called on the State Department to help the lawmakers to visit Iran.
“These three congressmen applied for their visas at the beginning of February and it is now April,” the source said. “Why the Iranian government has delayed so much, and why the U.S. State Department has not stepped in to help facilitate their applications is beyond me. If Iranian officials are allowed to travel to the United States, shouldn’t elected representatives of the American people be able to visit Iran?”
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-blocking-congressional-access-country-nuke-sites/
-
Ben Rhodes, Liar
Column: The man who creates the White House's own reality
(http://s2.freebeacon.com/up/2016/05/Ben-Rhodes-Barack-Obama.jpg)
Ben Rhodes with President ObamaBen Rhodes with President Obama / AP
BY: Aaron MacLean
May 6, 2016
What is Ben Rhodes? With a 10,000 word profile, published Thursday, the New York Times Magazine certainly seems to indicate that his presence at the top of the Obama administration’s foreign policy operation bears some kind of special significance. He is, indeed, an unusual case. Only 38 years old and the holder of an MFA in creative writing from New York University, Rhodes went to work as a speechwriter for Lee Hamilton, worked on the Iraq Study Group, and joined the Obama campaign in 2007. Now, as the deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, he sits at the intersection of “policy, politics, and messaging,” as a colleague puts it in the piece. How did Rhodes, whose older brother is president of CBS News, and whose mother’s “closest friend growing up” (we learn) ran the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace when her son was trying to break into D.C.’s foreign policy community, pull it off?
To be fair, it wasn’t just his connections, but willpower, talent, and an unusual ability to “mind-meld” with his boss, the president of the United States. “I don’t know anymore where I begin and Obama ends,” Rhodes muses to the author of this illuminating profile, which is chock-full (as was a recent, similar profile of the president in the Atlantic) of boasts, indiscretions, and moments of an unflattering lack of self-awareness.
The author observes Rhodes complaining bitterly on the day of Obama’s final State of the Union address, during which 10 U.S. sailors were inconveniently seized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, that the news can’t be kept secret from the American public so that the president can deliver his speech without distractions. Of the “average reporter” with whom the White House works to get out its message Rhodes provides the verdict, “they literally know nothing.” (You’re not wrong, Ben…) In the words of the author, Rhodes concluded during the Iraq war—not the one his White House is currently overseeing, but the previous one—that Washington foreign policy decision-makers from both parties, whom, along with their helpers in the press he calls “the Blob,” are “morons” for whom he maintains “a healthy contempt.”
This contempt is evidently shared by his boss: hence the mind-meld, or at least an important element of it. Senior ex-administration officials express frustration and perhaps some confusion about how they got railroaded repeatedly by Rhodes and his allies in Obama’s inner circle. Leon Panetta complains to the Times, clearly speaking of Rhodes: “There were staff people who put themselves in a position where they kind of assumed where the president’s head was on a particular issue, and they thought their job was not to go through this open process of having people present all these different options, but to try to force the process to where they thought the president wanted to be … And I’d say ‘[expletive], that’s not the way it works.’”
But that was the way it worked, on pulling out of Iraq, on staying out of Syria, on closing the deal with Iran. What Panetta (and Gates, and Hagel, and many others) failed to understand until much too late was that they, the members of the Blob, were the White House’s true adversaries—not the Mullahs or Putin or any of America’s dug-in opponents abroad. Their conventional thinking, their weakness in the face of popular emotions, their investment in alliances with traditional partners, had led to fiascoes like the Iraq war. To avoid “stupid shit” like that, the Blob had to be outmaneuvered: “We don’t have to kind of be in cycles of conflict if we can find other ways to resolve these issues,” Rhodes says in the piece. “We can do things that challenge the conventional thinking that, you know, ‘AIPAC doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the Israeli government doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the gulf countries don’t like it.’” You know, America’s friends.
And outmaneuvered the Blob was, most of the time, by a profoundly ideological, profoundly political operation, the apotheosis of which was the pursuit of the Iran deal. In the piece, Rhodes seems gleeful about how he deceived the American people to get the deal through, even as he bristles about being accused of deceit.
What the Times describes—I detect some sarcasm—as Rhodes’ “innovative” campaign to sell the agreement involved “largely manufacturing” a story in which Rouhani’s 2013 election alerted the administration to an opportunity for negotiations—despite the fact that informal negotiations had been opened in 2012, and despite the fact that the moderates-versus-hardliners taxonomy of the Iranian regime pushed by the White House was known to be nonsense. Or, as the Times puts it, the broad story Rhodes was conveying to friendly journalists and the public at large was “often misleading or false”:
By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making … [and] to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries, which would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. With one bold move, the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the Middle East.
But explaining that this “disengagement” was the White House’s true goal to Congress or the Blob or the American people would have been unfeasible, because, you know, people just don’t get it like the president or Rhodes do. Rather than pitch an honest proposal and work to persuade other branches of the American government and the voters of its wisdom, Rhodes discloses to the Times that the thinking had been, “In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this. … We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked.” Of those opposed to the deal, Rhodes says, “We drove them crazy.”
Well, at least there’s that. I am struck by the extent to which Rhodes, a man who clearly believes the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the crystallization of everything that’s wrong with American policymaking—and America itself—seems to be so openly and, in a way, guilelessly driven by the sort of ends-justify-the-means, we-create-our-own-reality mindset that the left attributed to neoconservatives and Bush’s inner-circle during the last decade. I am also struck by the extent to which he appears to believe that things are going well for the administration’s foreign policy, something that does not seem to be borne out by events in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, the South China Sea… anywhere, really.
But then, my read of the situation is based on the conventional assumption that the success or failure of American policy is best judged by the state of our security, the strength of our allies, the health of the global order, and the containment or defeat of our enemies. If, instead, your principal aim is to defeat the Blob that believes this sort of thing and to “disengage” the country from its many roles abroad—to contain America, for its own good and that of the world—then I suppose this White House has had some limited success, likely to be rolled back the moment Obama leaves office.
So give that to Rhodes, along with some minor innovations in spinning during the age of social media. Beyond that, though, it seems hard to locate any special significance in the man’s career. He is, in many respects, a dime-a-dozen sort of guy for the nation’s capital, save for his lucky sympathy with the president. Ben Rhodes is a functionary. Ben Rhodes is a talented, willful man. Ben Rhodes is a braggart. Ben Rhodes is a true believer. Most of all—I’ll say here what the profile’s author so clearly wants to say plainly, but for whatever reason, can’t bring himself to do so—Ben Rhodes is a liar.
http://freebeacon.com/columns/ben-rhodes/
-
Iranian commander warns there are 100,000 missiles ready to strike Israel
Published July 04, 2016 FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/world/2016/07/04/iranian-commander-warns-there-are-100000-missiles-ready-to-strike-israel/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1467614450738.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
July 16, 2010: Hossein Salami, deputy head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. (Reuters)
The deputy commander of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard declared Friday that there are tens of thousands of missiles in Lebanon ready to strike Israel.
"Hezbollah has 100,000 missiles that are ready to hit Israel to liberate the occupied Palestinian territories if the Zionist regime repeats its past mistakes," Gen. Hossein Salami was quoted as saying by Tasnim, according to Reuters.
The Jerusalem Post reported that Salami warned that Israel’s occupied territories could come under attack if they make the “wrong move.”
“Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are (present) more than ever,” he said.
Additionally, state TV reported Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani accused the West of trying to exploit differences between Shiite and Sunni Muslims to divert attention from the Palestinian-Israel conflict.
"The global arrogance (the United States and its allies) wants to create discord among Muslims ... Unity is the only way to restore stability in the region," Rouhani said. "We stand with the dispossessed Palestinian nation."
Rouhani spoke as tens of thousands of Iranians joined in an anti-Israel rally to express support for the Palestinians. The demonstrators shouted "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" and while they burned an Israeli flag.
“The Zionist regime (Israel) is a regional base for America and the global arrogance ... Disunity and discord among Muslim and terrorist groups in the region ... have diverted us from the important issue of Palestine," Rouhani added.
Israeli opposition has been a policy of Tehran’s since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Shiite Muslim Iran has backed Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups who oppose peace with Israel.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/04/iranian-commander-warns-there-are-100000-missiles-ready-to-strike-israel.html?intcmp=hplnws
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-cash-to-iran-as-americans-were-freed-1470181874
Sickening. Arming our enemy.
-
US held $400M payment to Iran until detainees were released, report says
Published August 17, 2016
FoxNews.com
U.S. officials held a cargo plane carrying the equivalent of $400 million in cash for Iran until Tehran released three American detainees, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.
The report, which cited U.S. officials and others briefed on the operation, said an Iranian cargo plane was allowed to pick up the money in Geneva, Switzerland once a Swiss Air Force plane carrying the three detainees left Tehran last January.
The White House has claimed that the $400 million payment in euros and Swiss francs was the first installment in a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a failed 1979 arms deal dating from just before the Iranian Revolution.
However, congressional Republicans have characterized the money transfer as ransom to secure the detainees' release, a claim President Obama denied earlier this month.
"This wasn’t some nefarious deal," Obama said during an August 4 press conference. "We do not pay ransom for hostages."
The Jounal also reported earlier this month that Justice Department officials objected to the timing of the money transfer, saying it would look like a ransom payment. Those concerns reportedly were dismissed by the State Department.
The three detainees who were flown to Geneva were Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian; former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati; and Christian pastor Saeed Abedini.
Abedini has claimed that he and the other hostages were kept waiting at an Iranian airport for more than 20 hours before their departure. Abedini said he was told by a senior Iranian intelligence official that their departure was contingent on the movement of a second plane.
State Department officials denied Abedini's claims to the Journal, saying the delay was due to issues locating Rezaian's wife and mother, who accompanied him on the flight.
In response to the initial Journal report, Obama said it was necessary to transact the payment in foreign currency due to U.S. sanctions, which prohibit trading in dollars.
According to the Journal, GOP leaders say they plan to hold hearings on the payment next month, when Congress returns from its summer recess. Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., chair of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, last week sent letters to the Justice and Treasury Departments, as well as the Federal Reserve, requesting more information the transaction.
Click for more from The Wall Street Journal.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/17/us-held-400m-payment-to-iran-until-detainees-were-released-report-says.html
-
this!
-
Do it.
Trump Expected to Decertify Iran Nuclear Deal
Thursday, 05 Oct 2017
President Donald Trump is expected to announce soon that he will decertify the landmark international deal to curb Iran's nuclear program, a senior administration official said on Thursday, in a step that could lead to renewed U.S. sanctions against Tehran.
The decision on the nuclear deal is expected to be only part of what Trump will announce, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The official said Trump is also expected to roll out a broader U.S. strategy on Iran that would be more confrontational. The Trump administration has frequently criticized Iran's conduct in the Middle East.
If Trump declines to certify Iran's compliance with the accord, U.S. congressional leaders would have 60 days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions on Tehran suspended under the agreement.
Trump has long criticized the Iran nuclear pact, a signature foreign policy achievement of his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, and signed in 2015 by the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, the European Union and Iran.
In April, the administration said it would review whether the lifting of sanctions against Iran was in the U.S. national security interest. Trump is weighing a strategy that could allow more aggressive U.S. responses to Iran's forces, its Shi'ite Muslim proxies in Iraq and Syria and its support for militant groups.
An administration official previously said the administration was considering Oct. 12 for Trump to give a speech on Iran but no final decision had been made.
Supporters of the deal say its collapse could trigger a regional arms race and worsen Middle East tensions. Opponents say it went too far in easing sanctions without requiring that Iran end its nuclear program permanently.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-expected-iran-nuclear/2017/10/05/id/817954/
-
After being so adamant about it, he really needs to do it. And not just done for looks only where he tries to negotiate something (like in healthcare, etc.) in the future that is essentially the same. He is going against a lot of what those around him are advising him to do so I hope he does not do anything like that due to bad advice/pressure.
-
*Applause*
Trump Strikes Blow at Iran Nuclear Deal in Major Policy Shift
Friday, 13 Oct 2017
President Donald Trump struck a blow against the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement on Friday in defiance of other world powers, choosing not to certify that Tehran is complying with the deal and warning he might ultimately terminate it.
Trump announced the major shift in U.S. policy in a speech in which he detailed a more aggressive approach to Iran over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and its support for extremist groups in the Middle East.
He accused Iran of "not living up to the spirit" of the nuclear agreement and said his goal is to ensure Tehran never obtains a nuclear weapon, in effect throwing the fate of the deal to Congress.
He singled out Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for sanctions and delivered a blistering critique of Tehran, which he accused of destabilizing actions in Syria, Yemen and Iraq.
"We will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror and the very real threat of Iran’s nuclear breakout," Trump said.
Trump's hardline remarks drew praise from Israel, Iran's arch-foe, but was criticized by European allies.
The move by Trump was part of his "America First" approach to international agreements which has led him to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade talks and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico.
His Iran strategy angered Tehran and put Washington at odds with other signatories of the accord - Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union - some of which have benefited economically from renewed trade with Iran.
Responding to Trump, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Friday on television that Tehran was committed to the deal and accused Trump of making baseless accusations.
"The Iranian nation has not and will never bow to any foreign pressure," he said. "Iran and the deal are stronger than ever."
European allies have warned of a split with the United States over the nuclear agreement and say that putting it in limbo as Trump has done undermines U.S. credibility abroad, especially as international inspectors say Iran is in compliance with the accord.
The chief of the U.N. atomic watchdog reiterated that Iran was under the world's "most robust nuclear verification regime."
"The nuclear-related commitments undertaken by Iran under the JCPOA are being implemented," Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said, referring to the deal by its formal name.
U.S. Democrats expressed skepticism at Trump's decision. Senator Ben Cardin said: “At a moment when the United States and its allies face a nuclear crisis with North Korea, the president has manufactured a new crisis that will isolate us from our allies and partners.”
CONGRESS DECIDES
While Trump did not pull the United States out of the agreement, he gave the U.S. Congress 60 days to decide whether to reimpose economic sanctions on Tehran that were lifted under the pact.
If Congress reimposes the sanctions, the United States would in effect be in violation of the terms of the nuclear deal and it would likely fall apart. If lawmakers do nothing, the deal remains in place.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker was working on amending the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act law to include "trigger points" that if crossed by Iran would automatically reimpose U.S. sanctions.
The trigger points would address strengthening nuclear inspections, Iran's ballistic missile program and eliminate the deal's "sunset clauses" under which some of the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program expire over time.
Trump directed U.S. intelligence agencies to probe whether Iran might be working with North Korea on its weapons programs.
The president, who took office in January, had reluctantly certified the agreement twice before but has repeatedly blasted it as "the worst deal ever." It was negotiated under his predecessor, former President Barack Obama.
Trump warned that if "we are not able to reach a solution working with Congress and our allies, then the agreement will be terminated."
"We'll see what happens over the next short period of time and I can do that instantaneously," he told reporters when asked why he did not choose to scrap the deal now.
The Trump administration designated the entire Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under an executive order targeting terrorists. The administration stopped short of labeling the group a Foreign Terrorist Organization, a list maintained by the State Department.
The Revolutionary Guard is the single most dominant player in Iran’s security, political, and economic systems and wields enormous influence in Iran’s domestic and foreign policies.
It had already previously been sanctioned by the United States under other authorities, and the immediate impact of Friday’s measure is likely to be symbolic.
The U.S. military said on Friday it was identifying new areas where it could work with allies to put pressure on Iran in support of Trump's new strategy and was reviewing the positioning of U.S. forces.
But U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said no changes in force posture had been made yet, and Iran had not responded to Trump's announcement with any provocative acts so far.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-iran-policy-change/2017/10/13/id/819619/
-
Glad he did it
Now Trump OWNS whatever happens with IRAN
same way that Trump now OWNS healthcare since he cut all the subsidies for Obamacare
Finally we'll see Republicans step up and take ownership of these issues
-
How does Iran bank? Can look later if no one knows.
-
Glad he did it
Now Trump OWNS whatever happens with IRAN
Unfortunately, Obama allowed them to grow into what they are along with North Korea. He was a moron and a complete fool in all things having to do with our security, etc. Disgusting to see that you and he support such a regime.
Also disturbing that you support the illegal subsidies with all of your heart.
-
Unfortunately, Obama allowed them to grow into what they are along with North Korea. He was a moron and a complete fool in all things having to do with our security, etc. Disgusting to see that you and he support such a regime.
Also disturbing that you support the illegal subsidies with all of your heart.
Tell me about it. Obama gave the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism $400 million in cash. He did a lot of reckless, irresponsible things during his presidency. I'm not sure any were more reckless than that ransom payment and the entire Iran deal.
-
Iranian commander warns there are 100,000 missiles ready to strike Israel
Published July 04, 2016 FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/world/2016/07/04/iranian-commander-warns-there-are-100000-missiles-ready-to-strike-israel/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1467614450738.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
July 16, 2010: Hossein Salami, deputy head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. (Reuters)
The deputy commander of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard declared Friday that there are tens of thousands of missiles in Lebanon ready to strike Israel.
"Hezbollah has 100,000 missiles that are ready to hit Israel to liberate the occupied Palestinian territories if the Zionist regime repeats its past mistakes," Gen. Hossein Salami was quoted as saying by Tasnim, according to Reuters.
The Jerusalem Post reported that Salami warned that Israel’s occupied territories could come under attack if they make the “wrong move.”
“Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are (present) more than ever,” he said.
Additionally, state TV reported Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani accused the West of trying to exploit differences between Shiite and Sunni Muslims to divert attention from the Palestinian-Israel conflict.
"The global arrogance (the United States and its allies) wants to create discord among Muslims ... Unity is the only way to restore stability in the region," Rouhani said. "We stand with the dispossessed Palestinian nation."
Rouhani spoke as tens of thousands of Iranians joined in an anti-Israel rally to express support for the Palestinians. The demonstrators shouted "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" and while they burned an Israeli flag.
“The Zionist regime (Israel) is a regional base for America and the global arrogance ... Disunity and discord among Muslim and terrorist groups in the region ... have diverted us from the important issue of Palestine," Rouhani added.
Israeli opposition has been a policy of Tehran’s since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Shiite Muslim Iran has backed Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups who oppose peace with Israel.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/04/iranian-commander-warns-there-are-100000-missiles-ready-to-strike-israel.html?intcmp=hplnws
praise GOD
-
Trump answers Netanyahu bombshell on Iran: ‘Not an acceptable situation’
Alex Pappas By Alex Pappas | Fox News
President Trump comments on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's presentation, says the U.S. 'got nothing' from the nuclear deal with Iran and signals openness to negotiating new agreement.
President Trump called the Iran nuclear deal a “horrible agreement for the United States” in response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's bombshell allegations about Tehran's covert activity – but stopped short of saying whether he'd abandon the deal ahead of a looming deadline.
The president addressed the claims during a Rose Garden press conference Monday afternoon, moments after Netanyahu held a dramatic presentation revealing intelligence he says shows Iran is lying about its nuclear weapons program.
“That is just not an acceptable situation,” Trump said.
Trump said Netanyahu’s claims show Iran is “not sitting back idly."
Israeli prime minister claims Iran had been hiding all of the elements of a secret nuclear weapons program.Video
Netanyahu on nuclear deal: Iran lied, big time
"They're setting off missiles which they say are for television purposes," Trump said. He added: "I don't think so.”
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders responded, “The United States is aware of the information just released by Israel and continues to examine it carefully. This information provides new and compelling details about Iran’s efforts to develop missile-deliverable nuclear weapons. These facts are consistent with what the United States has long known: Iran has a robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program that it has tried and failed to hide from the world and from its own people. The Iranian regime has shown it will use destructive weapons against its neighbors and others. Iran must never have nuclear weapons.”
Trump has repeatedly expressed a desire to exit the Iran deal, which was signed during the Obama administration. A crucial deadline for re-certifying the deal is on the horizon.
Netanyahu clearly intended for Trump to see his presentation, as he noted that Trump would soon make a key decision on the Iran deal.
“I’m sure he’ll do the right thing,” Netanyahu said.
On Monday, Trump suggested he could seek to negotiate a new agreement, something he discussed during French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Washington last week.
“So we'll see what happens,” Trump said, when asked about the announcement. “I'm not telling you what I'm doing. [A lot] of people think they know. And on or before the 12th, we'll make a decision.”
The president made the comments during a joint press conference with visiting Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari.
President Trump says meeting with the leader on North Korea has a chance to be a big event.
Trump said that overall, “what we've learned has really shown that I have been 100 percent right.”
Netanyahu said during his earlier presentation that new intelligence shows Iran lied about never having nuclear weapons and lied again by not coming clean under the terms of the 2015 deal. "The Iran deal ... is based on lies," he said.
The information was obtained within the past 10 days, Israeli officials told Fox News. Netanyahu said the files were moved to a "highly secret" location in Tehran, and contained materials spread over 55,000 pages and 55,000 files on 183 CD's.
"The nuclear deal gives Iran a clear path to producing an atomic arsenal," Netanyahu said Monday.
NETANYAHU SAYS IRAN ‘BRAZENLY LYING’ AFTER SIGNING NUCLEAR DEAL
Netanyahu's statement came on the heels of a missile attack in northern Syria that killed nearly 26-pro-government fighters, mostly Iranians, according to a Syria war monitoring group. Israel had no comment on the strike, but there was widespread speculation that Israel was behind it. Tehran has sent thousands of Iran-backed fighters to back Assad's forces in Syria's seven-year civil war.
Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon on Monday, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the United States “had nothing to do with the strike last night.”
Mattis also said the evidence cited by Netanyahu on Monday did not come up during his discussions with the Israeli minister of defense last week. But he said parts of Iran nuclear deal “certainly need to be fixed.”
Mark Meadows
✔
@RepMarkMeadows
The Iran Deal was and has always been a foreign policy debacle. But today’s stunning intel presentation from @netanyahu provides even more troubling context. All along it was built on a crumbling foundation of lies, deception, and naivete. This “deal” should be shredded.
9:19 AM - Apr 30, 2018
5,537
2,609 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
“The Iran Deal was and has always been a foreign policy debacle. But today’s stunning intel presentation from @netanyahu provides even more troubling context. All along it was built on a crumbling foundation of lies, deception, and naivete. This 'deal' should be shredded,” House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., tweeted.
Israel and Iran are arch-enemies, and Israel has said repeatedly it would not allow Iran to establish a permanent military presence in Syria. Iran, which is backing the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad, has accused Israel of carrying out another airstrike in Syria this month that killed seven Iranian military advisers and vowed revenge.
“That is just not an acceptable situation."
- President Trump
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Sunday ratcheted up the Trump administration's rhetoric against Iran and offered warm support to Israel and Saudi Arabia in their standoff with Tehran.
"The United States is with Israel in this fight," Pompeo said.
The 2015 deal gave Iran relief from crippling sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.
Netanyahu has been a leading critic of the agreement, saying it fails to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capability and welcoming Trump's pledges to withdraw from the deal if it is not changed.
Both Trump and Netanyahu say the deal should address Iranian support for militants across the region and Iran's development of long-range ballistic missiles, as well as eliminate provisions that expire over the next decade.
On Monday, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the time when Iran's enemies can "hit and run" is over.
"They know if they enter military conflict with Iran, they will be hit multiple times," he said, according to his website. He did not specifically refer to the latest attack in Syria.
Trump on Monday also floated the idea of holding his planned summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in the Demilitarized Zone that divides the Koreas.
"There's something that I like about it because you are there, you are actually there," Trump said. "If things work out there's a great celebration to be had on the site, not in a third-party country."
A Trump-Kim meeting would be the first U.S.-North Korean leadership summit in more than six decades of hostility since the 1950-53 Korean War. Trump has previously said that five locations were being considered, but on Friday said the choice had been narrowed to two or three.
Monday was the first time he'd publicly specified potential locations for the meeting, slated for May or early June. He added that the Southeast Asian city state of Singapore was also in the running.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/30/trump-answers-netanyahu-bombshell-on-iran-not-acceptable-situation.html
-
Another Obama disaster being fixed by a real leader. Awesome.
Trump expected to withdraw from Iran nuclear deal
Fox News
Vice President Pence has told congressional leaders that President Trump plans to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, Fox News has learned.
A source said that Trump has made the decision to withdraw – and his announcement Tuesday afternoon will start a 90-day countdown to the restoration of sanctions.
Once sanctions are re-imposed, the U.S. effectively would be out of the deal.
. . .
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/08/trump-expected-to-withdraw-from-iran-nuclear-deal.html
-
Another Obama disaster being fixed by a real leader. Awesome.
Trump expected to withdraw from Iran nuclear deal
Fox News
Vice President Pence has told congressional leaders that President Trump plans to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, Fox News has learned.
A source said that Trump has made the decision to withdraw – and his announcement Tuesday afternoon will start a 90-day countdown to the restoration of sanctions.
Once sanctions are re-imposed, the U.S. effectively would be out of the deal.
. . .
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/08/trump-expected-to-withdraw-from-iran-nuclear-deal.html
This will lead to Iran building a nuclear weapon more quickly or will it slow it down further than it was before?
What's the Trumptard perspective on this?
-
Iran ‘society set to explode’ while Biden unfreezes $29 billion for regime
Social discontent in Iran has risen by 300 percent in the past year according to an IRGC document obtained from Edalat-e Ali.
By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL
Updated: FEBRUARY 6, 2022
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-695612