Agreement in Iran Nuclear talks

[cirdanx]

Dear Bruce :D

 

1.  "You and I sometimes completely misunderstand each other"

maybe

 

2. "the people who wanted political changes in places like Syria or Libya had valid reasons." STOP, you don´t know that, you are allready making an assumption, not to mention you are trying to justify military intervention from other states under a false promise if democracy. While Syria was has been a semi-repiblic for a very long time with an elected president Assad, and re-elected because the people saw that he is fighting for Syria. Sooo? The people stand behind him, the military does. It´s pretty clear that this is not Iraq.

 

3. There was not unrest, there IS unrest in Saudi Arabia. check out NEO btw, if you really want to justify complete opression from an unelected monarchy that tends to behead it´s opponents, you might as well not bring up money, that makes you look like an iditot....despite the fact that you, who always likes to talk about democracy, defends Saudi-Arabi, are you sorry?

 

4. the ****ing arab spring backfired that is what happened, and the arab spring was a washington idea anyway sooooo m any leaked and confirmed documents, but thats fine, i´m glad it backfired. and this has nothing to do with democracy.

 

we should rename it, US-craty? if you are against us we will bomb you? That would work i guess

[BruceVC]

Dear Bruce :D

 

1.  "You and I sometimes completely misunderstand each other"

maybe

 

2. "the people who wanted political changes in places like Syria or Libya had valid reasons." STOP, you don´t know that, you are allready making an assumption, not to mention you are trying to justify military intervention from other states under a false promise if democracy. While Syria was has been a semi-repiblic for a very long time with an elected president Assad, and re-elected because the people saw that he is fighting for Syria. Sooo? The people stand behind him, the military does. It´s pretty clear that this is not Iraq.

 

3. There was not unrest, there IS unrest in Saudi Arabia. check out NEO btw, if you really want to justify complete opression from an unelected monarchy that tends to behead it´s opponents, you might as well not bring up money, that makes you look like an iditot....despite the fact that you, who always likes to talk about democracy, defends Saudi-Arabi, are you sorry?

 

4. the ****ing arab spring backfired that is what happened, and the arab spring was a washington idea anyway sooooo m any leaked and confirmed documents, but thats fine, i´m glad it backfired. and this has nothing to do with democracy.

 

we should rename it, US-craty? if you are against us we will bomb you? That would work i guess

So you think the Arab Spring was an idea that the West created to influence what exactly ?

[Ineth]

Israel? They have the biggest open world prison in Gaza and continue to steal land and kill eveyone in the way.

 

Lol you really have bought into the loony Antizionist rhetoric wholesale, haven't you?

 

Where is the dictator? Same with Iran. Iran has over hundreds of years never fought an aggressiv war, only reacted.

 

The current Iranian state exists only since 1979; it doesn't really make sense to judge it by the peaceful track record of the one it violently replaced.

 

As for a dictator? Yep, they've got one.

 

As for starting wars, well, for now they seem to prefer to sponsor terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to do their dirty-work for them.

 

And anyone is really worried that THEY may build an A-bomb (which is a farce) while Israel, who only has war on it´s mind and practice it against neighbours and own citzens all the ****ing time gets a free ticked?

 

That's what you just can't understand, isn't it? Why the bulk of the Middle Eastern nations aren't worried about the fact that Israel (probably) has the bomb, but when Iran is (probably) getting it they consider themselves genuinely threatened.

 

In order to understand why that is, I'm afraid you would have to challenge some of the preconceptions and propaganda narratives you seem to hold dear.

[cirdanx]

 

Dear Bruce :D

 

1.  "You and I sometimes completely misunderstand each other"

maybe

 

2. "the people who wanted political changes in places like Syria or Libya had valid reasons." STOP, you don´t know that, you are allready making an assumption, not to mention you are trying to justify military intervention from other states under a false promise if democracy. While Syria was has been a semi-repiblic for a very long time with an elected president Assad, and re-elected because the people saw that he is fighting for Syria. Sooo? The people stand behind him, the military does. It´s pretty clear that this is not Iraq.

 

3. There was not unrest, there IS unrest in Saudi Arabia. check out NEO btw, if you really want to justify complete opression from an unelected monarchy that tends to behead it´s opponents, you might as well not bring up money, that makes you look like an iditot....despite the fact that you, who always likes to talk about democracy, defends Saudi-Arabi, are you sorry?

 

4. the ****ing arab spring backfired that is what happened, and the arab spring was a washington idea anyway sooooo m any leaked and confirmed documents, but thats fine, i´m glad it backfired. and this has nothing to do with democracy.

 

we should rename it, US-craty? if you are against us we will bomb you? That would work i guess

So you think the Arab Spring was an idea that the West created to influence what exactly ?

 

 

Seriously. use startpage/duckduck or basicly anything that doesn´t get cencored by goodgle and you will be washed with articles on that matter, some as sold before it even started.

 

 

Israel? They have the biggest open world prison in Gaza and continue to steal land and kill eveyone in the way.

 

Lol you really have bought into the loony Antizionist rhetoric wholesale, haven't you?

 

No i don´t care about tribes A zionst is a tribe, it´s just a historic fact and the last 50 years proof this

 

Where is the dictator? Same with Iran. Iran has over hundreds of years never fought an aggressiv war, only reacted.

 

The current Iranian state exists only since 1979; it doesn't really make sense to judge it by the peaceful track record of the one it violently replaced.

 

As for a dictator? Yep, they've got one.

 

As for starting wars, well, for now they seem to prefer to sponsor terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to do their dirty-work for them.

 

Iran has always stood by Hamas, that is nothing new, but considering that Hamas is originaly(!) a freedom orginisation that went military, (infact military in Iran is not cloriity like in the US) This is a religious,and heritage connection. So? Oh right. Hamas are "trerrorists" according to the US and Israeal, *shrug* i have read enough ti know to question these two.

 

 

And anyone is really worried that THEY may build an A-bomb (which is a farce) while Israel, who only has war on it´s mind and practice it against neighbours and own citzens all the ****ing time gets a free ticked?

 

That's what you just can't understand, isn't it? Why the bulk of the Middle Eastern nations aren't worried about the fact that Israel (probably) has the bomb, but when Iran is (probably) getting it they consider themselves genuinely threatened.

 

In order to understand why that is, I'm afraid you would have to challenge some of the preconceptions and propaganda narratives you seem to hold dear.

 

 

Funny how YOU dare to say i suffer from propaganda while i´m very well aware of the current situation and far more educated in history there.

 

Sorry man, you are an idiot. And it´s not the bulk, it´s Israel and noone else. Egypt has no problem? Oh right..pupet states dont count. Not that it matters it´s done, and if Iran wanted the bomb, they could have allready have it.

 

Again...they never attacked someone in centuries for ****s sake. That should speak for itself, this hatred/isolation against one of the biggest, oldest and most peacfull civilization is idiotic -.-

Edited July 15, 2015 by cirdanx

[BruceVC]

 

 

Dear Bruce :D

 

1.  "You and I sometimes completely misunderstand each other"

maybe

 

2. "the people who wanted political changes in places like Syria or Libya had valid reasons." STOP, you don´t know that, you are allready making an assumption, not to mention you are trying to justify military intervention from other states under a false promise if democracy. While Syria was has been a semi-repiblic for a very long time with an elected president Assad, and re-elected because the people saw that he is fighting for Syria. Sooo? The people stand behind him, the military does. It´s pretty clear that this is not Iraq.

 

3. There was not unrest, there IS unrest in Saudi Arabia. check out NEO btw, if you really want to justify complete opression from an unelected monarchy that tends to behead it´s opponents, you might as well not bring up money, that makes you look like an iditot....despite the fact that you, who always likes to talk about democracy, defends Saudi-Arabi, are you sorry?

 

4. the ****ing arab spring backfired that is what happened, and the arab spring was a washington idea anyway sooooo m any leaked and confirmed documents, but thats fine, i´m glad it backfired. and this has nothing to do with democracy.

 

we should rename it, US-craty? if you are against us we will bomb you? That would work i guess

So you think the Arab Spring was an idea that the West created to influence what exactly ?

 

 

Seriously. use startpage/duckduck or basicly anything that doesn´t get cencored by goodgle and you will be washed with articles on that matter, some as sold before it even started.

 

 

Israel? They have the biggest open world prison in Gaza and continue to steal land and kill eveyone in the way.

 

Lol you really have bought into the loony Antizionist rhetoric wholesale, haven't you?

 

No i don´t care about tribes A zionst is a tribe, it´s just a historic fact and the last 50 years proof this

 

Where is the dictator? Same with Iran. Iran has over hundreds of years never fought an aggressiv war, only reacted.

 

The current Iranian state exists only since 1979; it doesn't really make sense to judge it by the peaceful track record of the one it violently replaced.

 

As for a dictator? Yep, they've got one.

 

As for starting wars, well, for now they seem to prefer to sponsor terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to do their dirty-work for them.

 

Iran has always stood by Hamas, that is nothing new, but considering that Hamas is originaly(!) a freedom orginisation that went military, (infact military in Iran is not cloriity like in the US) This is a religious,and heritage connection. So? Oh right. Hamas are "trerrorists" according to the US and Israeal, *shrug* i have read enough ti know to question these two.

 

 

And anyone is really worried that THEY may build an A-bomb (which is a farce) while Israel, who only has war on it´s mind and practice it against neighbours and own citzens all the ****ing time gets a free ticked?

 

That's what you just can't understand, isn't it? Why the bulk of the Middle Eastern nations aren't worried about the fact that Israel (probably) has the bomb, but when Iran is (probably) getting it they consider themselves genuinely threatened.

 

In order to understand why that is, I'm afraid you would have to challenge some of the preconceptions and propaganda narratives you seem to hold dear.

 

 

Funny how YOU dare to say i suffer from propaganda while i´m very well aware of the current situation and far more educated in history there.

 

Sorry man, you are an idiot. And it´s not the bulk, it´s Israel and noone else. Egypt has no problem? Oh right..pupet states dont count. Not that it matters it´s done, and if Iran wanted the bomb, they could have allready have it.

 

Again...they never attacked someone in centuries for ****s sake. That should speak for itself, this hatred/isolation against one of the biggest, oldest and most peacfull civilization is idiotic -.-

 

 

cirdanx there is no need to insult people like Ineth. You need to realize your views do sound quite bizarre to the average person. Stand by what you believe without getting defensive

 

I asked you a question about what you believe would be the reason the West is behind the Arab Spring, I'm not going to look for answers on the Internet. I know the reasons it occurred and it has nothing to do with the West 

[Gromnir]

 

short term benefits to the iran deal is obvious. potential long term problems will be an issue for future administrations here and abroad.  isn't particular fair to those future folks, but such is life, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

What are you worried about? That Republicans if they win the election next year will change the negotiations terms...or something else ?

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-emerging-iran-nuclear-deal-raises-major-concerns-in-congress-and-beyond/2015/02/05/4b80fd92-abda-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/arab-states-fear-dangerous-iranian-nuclear-deal-will-shake-up-region/2015/07/14/96d68ff3-7fce-4bf5-9170-6bcc9dfe46aa_story.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-blasts-iran-deal-as-dark-day-in-history/2015/07/14/feba23ae-0018-403f-82f3-3cd54e87a23b_story.html

 

so, a number o' arab nations is concerned about an emboldened and enriched iran in the middle-east, and israel, the only dependable US ally in the middle-east (ever) is also concerned and angry. but hey, at least obama got guarantees that iran would not develop its nuclear capacity, right? no?  so, we got what amounts to a capitulation to demands by tehran while playing hardball with Congress? huh?  

 

but hey, before the next election, oil prices is likely to drop and a new market will be opened up for a multitude o' american businesses.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

 

short term benefits to the iran deal is obvious. potential long term problems will be an issue for future administrations here and abroad.  isn't particular fair to those future folks, but such is life, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

What are you worried about? That Republicans if they win the election next year will change the negotiations terms...or something else ?

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-emerging-iran-nuclear-deal-raises-major-concerns-in-congress-and-beyond/2015/02/05/4b80fd92-abda-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/arab-states-fear-dangerous-iranian-nuclear-deal-will-shake-up-region/2015/07/14/96d68ff3-7fce-4bf5-9170-6bcc9dfe46aa_story.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-blasts-iran-deal-as-dark-day-in-history/2015/07/14/feba23ae-0018-403f-82f3-3cd54e87a23b_story.html

 

so, a number o' arab nations is concerned about an emboldened and enriched iran in the middle-east, and israel, the only dependable US ally in the middle-east (ever) is also concerned and angry. but hey, at least obama got guarantees that iran would not develop its nuclear capacity, right? no?  so, we got what amounts to a capitulation to demands by tehran while playing hardball with Congress? huh?  

 

but hey, before the next election, oil prices is likely to drop and a new market will be opened up for a multitude o' american businesses.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Wow...those links are full of doom and gloom. But Gromnir maybe you are letting your dislike of Obama, or rather his policies ,  cloud your judgement on this development ? I noticed that  very few  of the American members on this forum seem supportive of this initiative. I predicted that as I know the general view of Obama on these forums and thats fine, we are all entitled to our views

 

Now back to the links, yes of course Israel and the Sunni countries in the ME will be opposed to this. The latter are obviously concerned with the domination of any Shia power and I know Netanyahu's views. I don't know how accurate the first link is, I just know I watched several interviews with really qualified people who have been involved in these negotiations and they were all supportive of the terms and what Iran agreed to. We need to accept that the people involved in the talks weren't there just to rubber stamp anything Iran asked for because the intention is to ensure that the agreement does ensure that Iran isn't able to develop a nuclear weapon. So I believe they would have taken this seriously

 

Also lets see the strategic picture in the ME. Iran is still very influencial in the region and there government does consist of hardliners and moderates. The West can understand what the Iranian moderates want and the reality is the sanctions have been very effective at getting  Ayatollah Khamenei to at least consider the proposals because we know he dislikes the West. So this was the perfect time to reach an agreement. If the West has refused to negotiate what would that have done for the region...the moderates in Iran would become marginalized as the hardliners would have gained more  popular support as they would have used the usual rhetoric " the West wants to destroy us ..down with the USA" and appealed to the pride of the average Iranian. Now you have a victory for the moderate Iranian view. This is a good thing

 

Forget the links, whats your personal issue with this agreement ?

[cirdanx]

@Bruce

 

Insulting? nah, i can be insulting, and you are being insulting too. So what?

 

The internet shoudl give you a thick skin. ;P I would lead you to the links but i´m almost off to bed *yawn* tired as hell...Arab spring was very benefinital  to the us, even if you don,t believe in anything fishy, which is ok, always ask WHY. always question things.

[Ineth]

No i don´t care about tribes A zionst is a tribe, it´s just a historic fact and the last 50 years proof this

 

?

 

Hamas is originaly(!) a freedom orginisation that went military

 

An excerpt from the original Hamas charter (highlighting by me):

 

Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.

 

[...] the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.

 

Is this what a peace-loving freedom movement sounds like to you?

 

And it´s not the bulk, it´s Israel and noone else.

 

Nope, Jordan and the gulf states too.

 

Even though they consider Israel an enemy, they never felt the need to do something about the fact that it has nuclear weapons. Because they know that it has them as a deterrent only, i.e. it would never use them except as a last resort when faced with imminent annihilation itself.

 

Whereas Iran's nuclear program is getting the Arab nations quite worried, and they're now suddenly starting to think that they may need the bomb too, to balance the scales.

 

And that's because:

 

this hatred/isolation against one of the biggest, oldest and most peacfull civilization is idiotic -.-

 

No, it's not hatred of Iran's people and ancient civilization.

 

It's apprehension of a (quite young) revolutionary regime whose leaders are all bat-sh*t crazy religious fanatics who literally believe that their regime's purpose on earth is to prepare the way for the impending return of the Mahdi, who according to them will kill every last "infidel" in the world and establish a global dictatorship under (Shiite) Sharia law.

 

I mean seriously, you don't see any legitimate reason to be worried about such a regime getting its hands on nuclear bombs?

 

A lot more so than in the case of a liberal democracy like Israel, which has no geopolitical aspirations beyond ensuring its own people's safety and prosperity?

Edited July 15, 2015 by Ineth

[BruceVC]

@Bruce

 

Insulting? nah, i can be insulting, and you are being insulting too. So what?

 

The internet shoudl give you a thick skin. ;P I would lead you to the links but i´m almost off to bed *yawn* tired as hell...Arab spring was very benefinital  to the us, even if you don,t believe in anything fishy, which is ok, always ask WHY. always question things.

I don't think I am insulting ...I am more condescending apparently ? 

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

short term benefits to the iran deal is obvious. potential long term problems will be an issue for future administrations here and abroad.  isn't particular fair to those future folks, but such is life, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

What are you worried about? That Republicans if they win the election next year will change the negotiations terms...or something else ?

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-emerging-iran-nuclear-deal-raises-major-concerns-in-congress-and-beyond/2015/02/05/4b80fd92-abda-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/arab-states-fear-dangerous-iranian-nuclear-deal-will-shake-up-region/2015/07/14/96d68ff3-7fce-4bf5-9170-6bcc9dfe46aa_story.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-blasts-iran-deal-as-dark-day-in-history/2015/07/14/feba23ae-0018-403f-82f3-3cd54e87a23b_story.html

 

so, a number o' arab nations is concerned about an emboldened and enriched iran in the middle-east, and israel, the only dependable US ally in the middle-east (ever) is also concerned and angry. but hey, at least obama got guarantees that iran would not develop its nuclear capacity, right? no?  so, we got what amounts to a capitulation to demands by tehran while playing hardball with Congress? huh?  

 

but hey, before the next election, oil prices is likely to drop and a new market will be opened up for a multitude o' american businesses.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Wow...those links are full of doom and gloom. But Gromnir maybe you are letting your dislike of Obama, or rather his policies ,  cloud your judgement on this development ? I noticed that  very few  of the American members on this forum seem supportive of this initiative. I predicted that as I know the general view of Obama on these forums and thats fine, we are all entitled to our views

 

Now back to the links, yes of course Israel and the Sunni countries in the ME will be opposed to this. The latter are obviously concerned with the domination of any Shia power and I know Netanyahu's views. I don't know how accurate the first link is, I just know I watched several interviews with really qualified people who have been involved in these negotiations and they were all supportive of the terms and what Iran agreed to. We need to accept that the people involved in the talks weren't there just to rubber stamp anything Iran asked for because the intention is to ensure that the agreement does ensure that Iran isn't able to develop a nuclear weapon. So I believe they would have taken this seriously

 

Also lets see the strategic picture in the ME. Iran is still very influencial in the region and there government does consist of hardliners and moderates. The West can understand what the Iranian moderates want and the reality is the sanctions have been very effective at getting  Ayatollah Khamenei to at least consider the proposals because we know he dislikes the West. So this was the perfect time to reach an agreement. If the West has refused to negotiate what would that have done for the region...the moderates in Iran would become marginalized as the hardliners would have gained more  popular support as they would have used the usual rhetoric " the West wants to destroy us ..down with the USA" and appealed to the pride of the average Iranian. Now you have a victory for the moderate Iranian view. This is a good thing

 

Forget the links, whats your personal issue with this agreement ?

 

has nothing to do with obama dislike or like.  and we don't have a personal issue.  as we noted, the short term benefits is obvious, but whether you like obama or dislike him, you gotta see the potential future problems, no?  the articles we link is hardly the most cynical examples o' dire portents.  iran's leaders has offered up rather alarming rhetoric as recent as a few weeks ago, and you not need look hard to find images o' "average iranians" burning USA and Israeli flags as recent as Days ago.  

 

again, the goal, s'posed, were to put the kibosh on the iranian nuclear program.  that ain't what we got.  to make the deal work, the President made a unilateral decision to end the sanctions imposed by Congress, and he had to know that his decision would anger our one actual ally in the middle-east: israel.  am not certain how we view this as any kinda a victory o' diplomacy... 'less you are speaking from tehran's perspective. but again, there will be obvious short term benefits and the problems may never become more than hypothetical.  however, given the history o' the region, that kinda optimism strikes us as dangerously naive. 

 

is not about like or dislike o' obama and am not sure what kinda personal stake you might imagine us having.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

short term benefits to the iran deal is obvious. potential long term problems will be an issue for future administrations here and abroad.  isn't particular fair to those future folks, but such is life, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

What are you worried about? That Republicans if they win the election next year will change the negotiations terms...or something else ?

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-emerging-iran-nuclear-deal-raises-major-concerns-in-congress-and-beyond/2015/02/05/4b80fd92-abda-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/arab-states-fear-dangerous-iranian-nuclear-deal-will-shake-up-region/2015/07/14/96d68ff3-7fce-4bf5-9170-6bcc9dfe46aa_story.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-blasts-iran-deal-as-dark-day-in-history/2015/07/14/feba23ae-0018-403f-82f3-3cd54e87a23b_story.html

 

so, a number o' arab nations is concerned about an emboldened and enriched iran in the middle-east, and israel, the only dependable US ally in the middle-east (ever) is also concerned and angry. but hey, at least obama got guarantees that iran would not develop its nuclear capacity, right? no?  so, we got what amounts to a capitulation to demands by tehran while playing hardball with Congress? huh?  

 

but hey, before the next election, oil prices is likely to drop and a new market will be opened up for a multitude o' american businesses.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Wow...those links are full of doom and gloom. But Gromnir maybe you are letting your dislike of Obama, or rather his policies ,  cloud your judgement on this development ? I noticed that  very few  of the American members on this forum seem supportive of this initiative. I predicted that as I know the general view of Obama on these forums and thats fine, we are all entitled to our views

 

Now back to the links, yes of course Israel and the Sunni countries in the ME will be opposed to this. The latter are obviously concerned with the domination of any Shia power and I know Netanyahu's views. I don't know how accurate the first link is, I just know I watched several interviews with really qualified people who have been involved in these negotiations and they were all supportive of the terms and what Iran agreed to. We need to accept that the people involved in the talks weren't there just to rubber stamp anything Iran asked for because the intention is to ensure that the agreement does ensure that Iran isn't able to develop a nuclear weapon. So I believe they would have taken this seriously

 

Also lets see the strategic picture in the ME. Iran is still very influencial in the region and there government does consist of hardliners and moderates. The West can understand what the Iranian moderates want and the reality is the sanctions have been very effective at getting  Ayatollah Khamenei to at least consider the proposals because we know he dislikes the West. So this was the perfect time to reach an agreement. If the West has refused to negotiate what would that have done for the region...the moderates in Iran would become marginalized as the hardliners would have gained more  popular support as they would have used the usual rhetoric " the West wants to destroy us ..down with the USA" and appealed to the pride of the average Iranian. Now you have a victory for the moderate Iranian view. This is a good thing

 

Forget the links, whats your personal issue with this agreement ?

 

has nothing to do with obama dislike or like.  and we don't have a personal issue.  as we noted, the short term benefits is obvious, but whether you like obama or dislike him, you gotta see the potential future problems, no?  the articles we link is hardly the most cynical examples o' dire portents.  iran's leaders has offered up rather alarming rhetoric as recent as a few weeks ago, and you not need look hard to find images o' "average iranians" burning USA and Israeli flags as recent as Days ago.  

 

again, the goal, s'posed, were to put the kibosh on the iranian nuclear program.  that ain't what we got.  to make the deal work, the President made a unilateral decision to end the sanctions imposed by Congress, and he had to know that his decision would anger our one actual ally in the middle-east: israel.  am not certain how we view this as any kinda a victory o' diplomacy... 'less you are speaking from tehran's perspective. but again, there will be obvious short term benefits and the problems may never become more than hypothetical.  however, given the history o' the region, that kinda optimism strikes us as dangerously naive. 

 

is not about like or dislike o' obama and am not sure what kinda personal stake you might imagine us having.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

We had a similar debate before and I'm sure you were critical of some of Obama's foreign policy decisions, like not attacking Syria after the red line was crossed when Assad used chemical weapons. The majority of Republicans are also critical of most of his foreign policy decisions. But my bad if I assumed incorrectly

 

I agree Israel is an ally to the USA but how to deal with Iran is a point of real and fundamental disagreement because Netanyahu wants to use a military option and I can completely understand the objection to that. But I am not ignoring the Israel relationship just because I suddenly like Iran, I know Israel is a real and historical friend for numerous reasons

 

The whole burning of USA flags and anti-USA comments from the Iranian hardliners during the negotiations is appalling but not surprising. I actually have even more respect for Kerry, he had to be subjected to this during the negotiations and that must have annoyed him. The only consolation is thousands of Iranians were celebrating in the streets when they realised an agreement had been reached and they weren't burning USA flags 

 

I am of the opinion that people like Kerry could have taken offense to the personal attacks on the USA and had a legitimate reason to stop the negotiations. But you know the way it works, the USA would have still had to get involved if things started getting bad....like when the USA had to return to Iraq to deal with ISIS. So I can also understand the view " lets influence the narrative so there are no surprises " 

 

And all I can say is " Well Done USA " for all your efforts ...I wasn't sure we would get this result 

[Gromnir]

oh, there is no question that we believe this administration has been a complete joke insofar as middle-east/north africa foreign policy is concerned.  you mischaracterize our responses regarding syria but am admitting that Gromnir has been highly critical o' the obama administration in its handling o' libya, syria, israel-gaza, and iraq.  yeah, there is now a possibility that iran will be less hostile towards the US, but our relationship with regional powers such as egypt and saudi arabia has gotten worse.   

 

"As part of their investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme, IAEA inspectors will also be able to request visits to military sites. However, access is not guaranteed and could be delayed. Iran will have the right to challenge the IAEA request and an arbitration panel will then decide on the issue." --from bbc 

 

...

 

uh... so inspectors can request access, and such requests may be challenged.  well, isn't that just swell?  to guarantee that iran is complying with the terms o' the deal, we got inspectors that need request access and can be denied? tell you what, why not save those overworked inspectors headaches and leave inspections up to the iranians themselves? is gonna end up with functional the same result as self-regulation, so why the pretense o' inspections?

 

sorry bruce, but unless there is details we ain't privy to, this deal looks like the most recent in a long line o' administration middle-east foreign policy blunders. but personal?  is nothing personal 'bout it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

oh, there is no question that we believe this administration has been a complete joke insofar as middle-east/north africa foreign policy is concerned.  you mischaracterize our responses regarding syria but am admitting that Gromnir has been highly critical o' the obama administration in its handling o' libya, syria, israel-gaza, and iraq.  yeah, there is now a possibility that iran will be less hostile towards the US, but our relationship with regional powers such as egypt and saudi arabia has gotten worse.   

 

"As part of their investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme, IAEA inspectors will also be able to request visits to military sites. However, access is not guaranteed and could be delayed. Iran will have the right to challenge the IAEA request and an arbitration panel will then decide on the issue." --from bbc 

 

...

 

uh... so inspectors can request access, and such requests may be challenged.  well, isn't that just swell?  to guarantee that iran is complying with the terms o' the deal, we got inspectors that need request access and can be denied? tell you what, why not save those overworked inspectors headaches and leave inspections up to the iranians themselves? is gonna end up with functional the same result as self-regulation, so why the pretense o' inspections?

 

sorry bruce, but unless there is details we ain't privy to, this deal looks like the most recent in a long line o' administration middle-east foreign policy blunders. but personal?  is nothing personal 'bout it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Don't get me wrong, I admit that the Iranians could renege on there  commitments but I am of the opinion that getting access to the international community again and sanctions being lifted will convince them that this is the better option. I also believe that the work of the inspectors will be enforced because if its always ignored we are back to square one and I dont think the Iranians are that myopic or stupid...but lets see 

[Enoch]

Well, Iran been an ascendant power since the fall of Saddam.  The U.S. didn't have a particularly strong hand in negotiations, and the two nations badly needed an avenue to a new way to dealing with one another.  Yes, the agreement acknowledges what the last decade has wrought-- the replacement of Iran's traditional rival with a failed state with no military capability has made it a power to be seriously reckoned with in the region.   Plus, the rest of the world is losing its appetite for the maintaining the sanctions regime.  They're getting something out of the removal of the sanctions this way.  Is it "enough"?  Who knows? 

 

The best medium-term geopolitical benefit of the agreement probably doesn't come from the Middle-East at all.  The fall of the sanctions allows foreign investment to bring modern technology into the Iranian oil industry.  (Something, by the way, that only American and Western European companies can do.)  Letting that production boost come on-line on top of the recent global price drops (shale oil, sagging Chinese demand) should further cripple the income streams of the mobsters running Russia. 

[BruceVC]

Well, Iran been an ascendant power since the fall of Saddam.  The U.S. didn't have a particularly strong hand in negotiations, and the two nations badly needed an avenue to a new way to dealing with one another.  Yes, the agreement acknowledges what the last decade has wrought-- the replacement of Iran's traditional rival with a failed state with no military capability has made it a power to be seriously reckoned with in the region.   Plus, the rest of the world is losing its appetite for the maintaining the sanctions regime.  They're getting something out of the removal of the sanctions this way.  Is it "enough"?  Who knows? 

 

The best medium-term geopolitical benefit of the agreement probably doesn't come from the Middle-East at all.  The fall of the sanctions allows foreign investment to bring modern technology into the Iranian oil industry.  (Something, by the way, that only American and Western European companies can do.)  Letting that production boost come on-line on top of the recent global price drops (shale oil, sagging Chinese demand) should further cripple the income streams of the mobsters running Russia. 

Enoch I am very glad you see this Iran event in a positive light. If all the American forum members had shared Gromnirs reservations I would have had to change my view as I'm not so arrogant to think I know better than the combined views of all the actual US folk here

 

You always make your posts about politics  in such a reasonable and informed way and people respect your opinion    So having you agree with me can only improve the credibility of my original point 

[HoonDing]

If not for the Holy Land, the entire place should've been turned into a glass crater long ago.

[Enoch]

Which, by the way, isn't to say that Iran is in great shape.  They are bellicose because it get results in their internal politics, and they want a nuclear weapon because it's the best insurance there is against "regime change" being forced from the outside.  The sanctions did hurt-- Iranian domestic infrastructure, governance, and economy are pretty dire.  They just didn't hurt the right people enough that they came to the negotiating table as hungry for a deal as the other side was. 

 

 

@Bruce, "positive" might be too strong a term.  I'm just trying my best to understand what was reasonable to expect coming out of negotiations like this, and expressing my skepticism that there was much opportunity to do better.  Gromnir is not far off in his assessment of this Administration's diplomatic record, particularly with regard to Assad, so some skepticism on that ground is perfectly understandable.  Ultimately, nobody will know enough to assess how the whole thing went down until the memoirists and historians start getting access to the good documents in a decade or three. 

Edited July 15, 2015 by Enoch

[Gromnir]

Well, Iran been an ascendant power since the fall of Saddam.  The U.S. didn't have a particularly strong hand in negotiations, and the two nations badly needed an avenue to a new way to dealing with one another.  Yes, the agreement acknowledges what the last decade has wrought-- the replacement of Iran's traditional rival with a failed state with no military capability has made it a power to be seriously reckoned with in the region.   Plus, the rest of the world is losing its appetite for the maintaining the sanctions regime.  They're getting something out of the removal of the sanctions this way.  Is it "enough"?  Who knows? 

 

The best medium-term geopolitical benefit of the agreement probably doesn't come from the Middle-East at all.  The fall of the sanctions allows foreign investment to bring modern technology into the Iranian oil industry.  (Something, by the way, that only American and Western European companies can do.)  Letting that production boost come on-line on top of the recent global price drops (shale oil, sagging Chinese demand) should further cripple the income streams of the mobsters running Russia. 

were never any question that short-term gains exist.  drop in oil, particularly before the next elections, will make many folks happy. being able to sell coca-cola and happy meals in iran will look good on cnn news bites, but many other businesses in the west will be thrilled at the chance to get a piece o' the new market.  that being said, it is tough to sell anybody on the notion that the current investigation scheme is anything other than bad joke.  unfreeze assets, lift sanctions and oh that nuke program that is worrisome to israel, the west and other arab nations... well, we will actual help develop that program w/o any genuine method o' enforcement o' deal terms or investigation to guarantee that yesterday's threat ain't today's reality.  given the stated goals o' the administration as recent as february, we cannot help but see the deal as more a matter o' capitulation than any kinda successful negotiation as bruce suggests.  

 

for appropriate obsidian board context, lando calrissian would be embarrassed for john kerry and his... deal.

 

you are correct that the west didn't have much o' a bargaining position, but the influence o' the US in the region has taken a serious nose dive in recent years, so we have less sympathy for the tough position the administration were in vis a vis iran. 

 

"short term benefits to the iran deal is obvious. potential long term problems will be an issue for future administrations here and abroad.  isn't particular fair to those future folks, but such is life, eh?"

 

gonna stand by that observation.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 15, 2015 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

Which, by the way, isn't to say that Iran is in great shape.  They are bellicose because it get results in their internal politics, and they want a nuclear weapon because it's the best insurance there is against "regime change" being forced from the outside.  The sanctions did hurt-- Iranian domestic infrastructure, governance, and economy are pretty dire.  They just didn't hurt the right people enough that they came to the negotiating table as hungry for a deal as the other side was. 

 

 

@Bruce, "positive" might be too strong a term.  I'm just trying my best to understand what was reasonable to expect coming out of negotiations like this, and expressing my skepticism that there was much opportunity to do better.  Gromnir is not far off in his assessment of this Administration's diplomatic record, particularly with regard to Assad, so some skepticism on that ground is perfectly understandable.  Ultimately, nobody will know enough to assess how the whole thing went down until the memoirists and historians start getting access to the good documents in a decade or three. 

Sorry Enoch but this is one of those times where you can't change your original post     You are too clever to have used such an inappropriate adjective ...people like you, me and Gromnir we don't get to change our foundation argument 

 

Look at Gromnir, do you see him ever retract his original argument? Very seldom, and why should he? He knows exactly what he is saying and he is prepared to defend it. And I'm not being obsequious to him. This is the expected behavior from intelligent adults and I consider both of you very bright.So lets just keep your first post the authoritative one ...remember our first opinions on matters are normally the right ones 

 

And the best part about your first post is that its  also an accurate assessment of the situation....yes it appears its just you and me on our ship and everyone else is on Gromnirs but that's fine. I know you aren't haughty and don't feel the need to prove you are right and thats an admirable quality I haven't quite learnt to master. But to be fair I enjoy debating and who thinks they are wrong in debate ? Anyway my point is bask in your glory of your original post 

[Wrath of Dagon]

[BruceVC]

CJ-hBFQWsAABeSb.jpg

Yeah that made me laugh, it may seem relevant but the two countries aren't the same 

[Gromnir]

http://www.henryakissinger.com/articles/wsj040715.html

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

Peace for our time...

 

[Monte Carlo]

Obama show-boating, trying to leave a foreign policy legacy.

 

And leaving it for the next schmuck to clean-up. I know Dubya left him a boatload of crap to shovel, but this one has the potential to be even more toxic.