Iran's Revolutionary Guards Commander Supports Nuclear Agreement

[cooltigger21 0]

10 Ways Recent Nuclear Deal with Iran Is Good News

1. This is a victory for the Iranian people and by the Iranian people. I’m glad because we made this happen. We went to the streets and protested. We forced them to let Rouhani be elected. We forced them to accept to deal with the west. We endured all the hardships. We went through fire and ice and it is our victory. I’m reading the deal for like the tenth time. All economic sanctions will be lifted. And with Rouhani’s powerful economic team – who have already reversed the economic disasters – soon Ahmadinejad years will be no more than a nightmare. Now my students will not have to see the bleak and dark years I have seen. Their life will not be defined by trauma and fear. I’m so glad to be alive and witness history. Rouhani acknowledged that in his speech addressing the nation.

2. Yes, this DOES stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb. Only one facility will enrich Uranium. Its purity will never go above 3.7%. Fordo and Arak (suspect facilities) will change functionality. The IAEA will be able to monitor Iran’s actions thoroughly. It will be physically impossible for Iran to build a bomb. The deal also meets the weird demands made by Khamenei. It’s truly win-win, and expertly crafted.

3. Iranian far-right say Iran has given up too much in this deal. Hossein Shariatmadari who’s possibly the most loathsome extremist I know of has said “We gave up the saddled horse and they gave us the torn tether instead”. American and Israeli right-wing says Iran hasn’t given up enough. I wonder how the same text can be interpreted so widely differently, it’s not even a scripture. (Spoiler: the enemies of the deal are lying or very ignorant).

4. This is a deal. Don’t be mistaken by buzzwords like “framework”, “outline”, or “parameters of a deal”. This is a deal. They’re not just calling it that because Khamenei wanted a deal in only one stage and not two, but originally March was supposed to be when the political deal happened and then in July the technical deal. This is the political deal rebranded. It’s much more important. This is a massive victory. And it is a historical.

5. This is a victory for Rouhani and the reformists. Khamenei did not block the deal while he could have, but I sincerely think he’s unhappy and he wouldn’t have if it wasn’t the pressure from the Iranian people. People went into the streets to clebrate the deal. Khamenei had given up already And if anyone but Rouhani was president this would have been very difficult or impossible. Simplistic readings of Iranian policy might not understand this but this truly is Rouhani’s achievement mainly.

6. This is the first step for Rouhani. In a speech addressed to Iranians after the deal, he said that this victory was a vindication of his pragmatic politics, that if we have cold relations with a country we must make it warmer, and if we are enemies with a country we must become friends. While conservatives were all emphatic “this is a nuclear deal and absolutely nothing else”. But Rouhani will push to make rational diplomacy dominant. And he might succeed. This is going to affect the upcoming parliamentary election much to Rouhani’s favor. Also Rouhani will be reelected with like a trillion percent of the votes.

7. The agreement is going to be ratified by the security council. It won’t be between two countries at all. So the congress oes not play a role and it will be internationally binding. If congress refuses to honor the deal USA will be considered a rogue state and since EU won’t coopeate their sanctons will be meaningless anyway. As you can see negotiators are much shrewder than what we all thought. They have tken congress out of equation. The congress can sabotage things until then, if they can get beyond Obama’s veto, but the next president won’t be able to make it null with the strike of a pen. (Sorry, Tom Cotton).

8. Iran and US will accuse each other of lying in the coming days. Truth is this is a win-win for both sides, but also both sides have given up huge parts of what they would ideally want. So Obama and co. will have to shine the turd for Republicans and Iranians for the conservatives, but it won’t mean much, and it’s just the sides interpreting things to their advantage.

9. Even if the deal is defeated in the next coming months, this is still a great development. People will most probably blame either Republicans or Iranian conservatives, but the energy is already injected into the society.

10. This might have very positive effects on human rights issues too. Listen, it’s as simple as this. A stronger Rouhani + more hopeful and energized people = more chances of actual reform through public activism and lobbying from Rouhani.

Overall: I’m happy, I’m hopeful, it was a historic event, and now the tides might turn to Iran’s better future much more possibly.

Great read, Bens. Thanks! Reaffirms my impression of the agreement.

Of course, since it goes against everything in the rightwing "party line", it must all be lies and bull###t, and I am being delusion if not downright treasonous!

Iran is already craw fishing on their end of the deal and demanding immediate sanction relief or no deal. You boys who are eager to get in bed with the largest state sponsors of terrorism really should be careful what you wish for. Not to worry though - this deal will never fly.....EVER.

The Ayatollah must just be finding out that Obama is a congenital liar.Where the hell has he been...the rest of the world has known for years!

http://www.weeklysta...ons_914336.html

I think he knew. Iran was never going to agree to all those terms. Obama is the one desperate to make a deal here. The Iranians know that.

[homersapien 11,367]

10 Ways Recent Nuclear Deal with Iran Is Good News

Thanks for providing that link Ben. Good stuff.

[homersapien 11,367]

[Great read, Bens. Thanks! Reaffirms my impression of the agreement.

Of course, since it goes against everything in the rightwing "party line", it must all be lies and bull###t, and I am being delusion if not downright treasonous!

Iran is already craw fishing on their end of the deal and demanding immediate sanction relief or no deal. You boys who are eager to get in bed with the largest state sponsors of terrorism really should be careful what you wish for. Not to worry though - this deal will never fly.....EVER.

The Ayatollah must just be finding out that Obama is a congenital liar.Where the hell has he been...the rest of the world has known for years!

http://www.weeklysta...ons_914336.html

Nice to see you are being objective about the prospect - much less proving quietfan's point.

[quietfan 233]

You boys who are eager to get in bed with the largest state sponsors of terrorism really should be careful what you wish for. Not to worry though - this deal will never fly.....EVER.

I am hoping to avoid a war with said sponsors of terrorism while also denying them nukes, and don't believe sanctions would accomplish the latter. That's why I support talking before shooting. Does that constitute "getting in bed with"? If so, I accept the accusation without shame.

For those who are so certain that Iran is incapable of change, remember that 10-20 years ago, the idea that Iran would even engage in talks was completely out of the question. Today we are "pseudo-"allies in the fight against a common enemy, ISIS. Again, I am not saying "trust Iran", I don't think anyone is. But a negotiated agreement with ironclad inspections/monitoring, with the endorsement of the EU and the UN Security Council, is better than war or the nuclear bomb they would have very soon under the status quo!

[TheBlueVue 177]

You boys who are eager to get in bed with the largest state sponsors of terrorism really should be careful what you wish for. Not to worry though - this deal will never fly.....EVER.

I am hoping to avoid a war with said sponsors of terrorism while also denying them nukes, and don't believe sanctions would accomplish the latter. That's why I support talking before shooting. Does that constitute "getting in bed with"? If so, I accept the accusation without shame.

For those who are so certain that Iran is incapable of change, remember that 10-20 years ago, the idea that Iran would even engage in talks was completely out of the question. Today we are "pseudo-"allies in the fight against a common enemy, ISIS. Again, I am not saying "trust Iran", I don't think anyone is. But a negotiated agreement with ironclad inspections/monitoring, with the endorsement of the EU and the UN Security Council, is better than war or the nuclear bomb they would have very soon under the status quo!

When you call Iran a pseudo ally I clearly recognize there is no sense in continuing a dialogue with you. There will be NO INSPECTIONS pal...Iran wont settle for that. You be Iran's ally, we'll see how that works out fer ya.

[homersapien 11,367]

You boys who are eager to get in bed with the largest state sponsors of terrorism really should be careful what you wish for. Not to worry though - this deal will never fly.....EVER.

I am hoping to avoid a war with said sponsors of terrorism while also denying them nukes, and don't believe sanctions would accomplish the latter. That's why I support talking before shooting. Does that constitute "getting in bed with"? If so, I accept the accusation without shame.

For those who are so certain that Iran is incapable of change, remember that 10-20 years ago, the idea that Iran would even engage in talks was completely out of the question. Today we are "pseudo-"allies in the fight against a common enemy, ISIS. Again, I am not saying "trust Iran", I don't think anyone is. But a negotiated agreement with ironclad inspections/monitoring, with the endorsement of the EU and the UN Security Council, is better than war or the nuclear bomb they would have very soon under the status quo!

Blue loves to "rephrase" your posts into something totally outrageous. It's his MO.

It's his way of avoiding the reality of an issue which he can't really address.

[alexava 6,973]

You boys who are eager to get in bed with the largest state sponsors of terrorism really should be careful what you wish for. Not to worry though - this deal will never fly.....EVER.

I am hoping to avoid a war with said sponsors of terrorism while also denying them nukes, and don't believe sanctions would accomplish the latter. That's why I support talking before shooting. Does that constitute "getting in bed with"? If so, I accept the accusation without shame.

For those who are so certain that Iran is incapable of change, remember that 10-20 years ago, the idea that Iran would even engage in talks was completely out of the question. Today we are "pseudo-"allies in the fight against a common enemy, ISIS. Again, I am not saying "trust Iran", I don't think anyone is. But a negotiated agreement with ironclad inspections/monitoring, with the endorsement of the EU and the UN Security Council, is better than war or the nuclear bomb they would have very soon under the status quo!

When you call Iran a pseudo ally I clearly recognize there is no sense in continuing a dialogue with you. There will be NO INSPECTIONS pal...Iran wont settle for that. You be Iran's ally, we'll see how that works out fer ya.

do you even know what pseudo means?

[Strychnine 1,802]

You boys who are eager to get in bed with the largest state sponsors of terrorism really should be careful what you wish for. Not to worry though - this deal will never fly.....EVER.

I am hoping to avoid a war with said sponsors of terrorism while also denying them nukes, and don't believe sanctions would accomplish the latter. That's why I support talking before shooting. Does that constitute "getting in bed with"? If so, I accept the accusation without shame.

For those who are so certain that Iran is incapable of change, remember that 10-20 years ago, the idea that Iran would even engage in talks was completely out of the question. Today we are "pseudo-"allies in the fight against a common enemy, ISIS. Again, I am not saying "trust Iran", I don't think anyone is. But a negotiated agreement with ironclad inspections/monitoring, with the endorsement of the EU and the UN Security Council, is better than war or the nuclear bomb they would have very soon under the status quo!

When you call Iran a pseudo ally I clearly recognize there is no sense in continuing a dialogue with you. There will be NO INSPECTIONS pal...Iran wont settle for that. You be Iran's ally, we'll see how that works out fer ya.

do you even know what pseudo means?

Definitions are irrelevant. We are Borg.

[cooltigger21 0]

You may not trust Iran but you trust the UN and the IAEA and, above all, you trust Obama. I don't trust any of these characters. I don't trust anyone that thinks that HE is the one that can bring this about. That kind of narcissism is dangerous.

[homersapien 11,367]

You may not trust Iran but you trust the UN and the IAEA and, above all, you trust Obama. I don't trust any of these characters. I don't trust anyone that thinks that HE is the one that can bring this about. That kind of narcissism is dangerous.

Good grief. Drop the "narcissism" already. :-\

Look up nihilistic.

[TheBlueVue 177]

You may not trust Iran but you trust the UN and the IAEA and, above all, you trust Obama. I don't trust any of these characters. I don't trust anyone that thinks that HE is the one that can bring this about. That kind of narcissism is dangerous.

Not trusting Iran is all that is necessary to be awfully wary about any kind of prospective nuclear deal with these maniacs. Iran is not a pseudo ally to America. Of course I know what the pseudo word means but, realizing they are destabilizing multiple govts in an effort to achieve regional hegemony in the ME preempts the use of the "pseudo" descriptor. The reason being because of their theocratic mission, their efforts to expand their influence will not strop there. We are not on their side nor are they on ours on any front and dont be naive enough to bring up Iraq. Iran is in Iraq for Iran and I fully expect them to make an effort to take over that that country in the not too distant future if they dont meet formidable resistance to the idea.

[quietfan 233]

I don't even know if 'pseudo-ally' is a pre-exiting expression or something I made up. In any case, I obviously meant it in the sense that any two countries fighting the same foe have something in common, even if they hate, despise, and refuse to speak to each other and regardless of their individual motives for fighting that foe.

...most of you got that.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I don't even know if 'pseudo-ally' is a pre-exiting expression or something I made up. In any case, I obviously meant it in the sense that any two countries fighting the same foe have something in common, even if they hate, despise, and refuse to speak to each other and regardless of their individual motives for fighting that foe.

...most of you got that.

It was a terrible choice of words and make no mistake about this, in the case of Iranian intervention into Iraq..the enemy of our enemy is our enemy..not a pseudo ally.

[cooltigger21 0]

You may not trust Iran but you trust the UN and the IAEA and, above all, you trust Obama. I don't trust any of these characters. I don't trust anyone that thinks that HE is the one that can bring this about. That kind of narcissism is dangerous.

Not trusting Iran is all that is necessary to be awfully wary about any kind of prospective nuclear deal with these maniacs. Iran is not a pseudo ally to America. Of course I know what the pseudo word means but, realizing they are destabilizing multiple govts in an effort to achieve regional hegemony in the ME preempts the use of the "pseudo" descriptor. The reason being because of their theocratic mission, their efforts to expand their influence will not strop there. We are not on their side nor are they on ours on any front and dont be naive enough to bring up Iraq. Iran is in Iraq for Iran and I fully expect them to make an effort to take over that that country in the not too distant future if they dont meet formidable resistance to the idea.

That is what baffles me about so many people loving the idea that they are fighting ISIS. Everybody wants to get rid of ISIS but if they are gone and then Iran takes their place, what have we accomplished?

[TheBlueVue 177]

You may not trust Iran but you trust the UN and the IAEA and, above all, you trust Obama. I don't trust any of these characters. I don't trust anyone that thinks that HE is the one that can bring this about. That kind of narcissism is dangerous.

Not trusting Iran is all that is necessary to be awfully wary about any kind of prospective nuclear deal with these maniacs. Iran is not a pseudo ally to America. Of course I know what the pseudo word means but, realizing they are destabilizing multiple govts in an effort to achieve regional hegemony in the ME preempts the use of the "pseudo" descriptor. The reason being because of their theocratic mission, their efforts to expand their influence will not strop there. We are not on their side nor are they on ours on any front and dont be naive enough to bring up Iraq. Iran is in Iraq for Iran and I fully expect them to make an effort to take over that that country in the not too distant future if they dont meet formidable resistance to the idea.

That is what baffles me about so many people loving the idea that they are fighting ISIS. Everybody wants to get rid of ISIS but if they are gone and then Iran takes their place, what have we accomplished?

Well we would have eliminated the JVs and allowed a nuclear armed maniacal theocracy to gain regional hegemony in the ME. Sounds great, huh? :-\

[homersapien 11,367]

I don't even know if 'pseudo-ally' is a pre-exiting expression or something I made up. In any case, I obviously meant it in the sense that any two countries fighting the same foe have something in common, even if they hate, despise, and refuse to speak to each other and regardless of their individual motives for fighting that foe.

...most of you got that.

It was a terrible choice of words and make no mistake about this, in the case of Iranian intervention into Iraq..the enemy of our enemy is our enemy..not a pseudo ally.

It was a perfectly appropriate way of expressing the reality of almost all of our relationship(s) in the Middle East.

Look up "pseudo".

Without exaggeration, hyperbole and extrapolation you'd have no arguments whatsoever. :-\

[homersapien 11,367]

You may not trust Iran but you trust the UN and the IAEA and, above all, you trust Obama. I don't trust any of these characters. I don't trust anyone that thinks that HE is the one that can bring this about. That kind of narcissism is dangerous.

Not trusting Iran is all that is necessary to be awfully wary about any kind of prospective nuclear deal with these maniacs. Iran is not a pseudo ally to America. Of course I know what the pseudo word means but, realizing they are destabilizing multiple govts in an effort to achieve regional hegemony in the ME preempts the use of the "pseudo" descriptor. The reason being because of their theocratic mission, their efforts to expand their influence will not strop there. We are not on their side nor are they on ours on any front and dont be naive enough to bring up Iraq. Iran is in Iraq for Iran and I fully expect them to make an effort to take over that that country in the not too distant future if they dont meet formidable resistance to the idea.

That is what baffles me about so many people loving the idea that they are fighting ISIS. Everybody wants to get rid of ISIS but if they are gone and then Iran takes their place, what have we accomplished?

That's an irrational premise.

Or perhaps you don't understand the nature of ISIS.

[alexava 6,973]

I don't even know if 'pseudo-ally' is a pre-exiting expression or something I made up. In any case, I obviously meant it in the sense that any two countries fighting the same foe have something in common, even if they hate, despise, and refuse to speak to each other and regardless of their individual motives for fighting that foe.

...most of you got that.

It was a terrible choice of words and make no mistake about this, in the case of Iranian intervention into Iraq..the enemy of our enemy is our enemy..not a pseudo ally.

It was a perfectly appropriate way of expressing the reality of almost all of our relationship(s) in the Middle East.

Look up "pseudo".

Without exaggeration, hyperbole and extrapolation you'd have no arguments whatsoever. :-\

exactly. if you are involved with anyone in the mideast you have back door allies. It is a complete disaster.