Landmark deal reached on Iran nuclear program

[JoeBags7277 734]

4. It's always better to give peace a chance than to march into unnecessary or avoidable war.

That line is probably gonna earn the scorn of the Fox News/PNAC crowd, but its an eternal truth that it appears we're finally returning to after nearly a generation of paranoia.

For me, its like this. Whatever prevents me having to resist by any means necessary being drafted into a stupid war in a foreign land over &^%* that doesn't concern me, and/or prevents my unborn children from having to make the same dreadful decision in this age of perpetual war, I'm in favor of. If it turns out that this deal does that, its a good deal. Its time the war pigs were put out to pasture for good.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Sad Bibi is sad. Can anyone confirm the whereabouts of Lil' McCain? (Tom Cotton)

And what do you say of the entire Knesset ? Those strongly opposed to Bibi, on virtually every issue, save this one ?

What do you say to those in the opposition parties who also think this is a very bad deal ?

Got any childish things to say about them as well ? Or do you only save that for those who challenge your dear and fluffy leader, Obama ?

[AUUSN 823]

Silly Iranians. How dare they want a better life for them and their families. We got defense contractors to feed...

But much Iranian public opinion, while positive, is more nuanced and guarded. Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor of international relations at Rutgers University (who was one of the individualstargeted for NSA spying), has devoted most of his career to advocating for a normalization of U.S./Iran relations and the lifting of the sanctions regime. To the extent this deal accomplishes that, he said today in an interview with The Intercept, he supports it, though if it ends up confined only to nuclear issues, “then it will be very bad for both countries.” Amirahmadi added that the mood in Tehran is, in general, “very happy.” Ordinary Iranians, he said, “obviously like what has happened” primarily because “they expect money to arrive, which will help the economy and create jobs.”

But he noted several critical caveats. To begin with, expectations among ordinary Iranians are very high: they expect substantial economic improvement, and if that fails to materialize, Amirahmadi sees a likelihood of serious political instability, which “could go in a terrible direction for Iran.” He pointed out that for many years, the Iranian government has, with some good reason, blamed the U.S., Europe and their sanctions regime for the economic suffering of Iranians. “They no longer have that pretext, which means they have to deliver,” he said. He argued that the 1979 revolution was driven primarily by the Shah’s devotion to distributing wealth to a tiny elite at the expense of most Iranians, and that any repeat of that with this new flow of money would exacerbate wealth inequality even further and risk serious domestic unrest.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/14/iranian-view-nuclear-deal/

[Weegle777 78]

Thank you for making us and the world safer Bil......Wait..what happened?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

[AUUSN 823]

Poor Weegs...Facebook has failed you again.

The Facts

In 1994, the Bill Clinton administration negotiated an agreement with North Korea to essentially freeze its nascent nuclear program in exchange for the eventual construction of two light-water reactors. North Korea’s program was clearly created to churn out nuclear weapons; the reactor at Yongbyon was not connected to the power grid and appeared only designed to produce plutonium, a key ingredient for nuclear weapons. The theory of the deal was that, with the plant shuttered and the plutonium under the close watch of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), North Korea would not be able to produce a bomb.

The deal was hugely controversial in Congress. Just as with Obama’s Iran negotiations, Clinton structured the agreement so that it was not considered a treaty that would have required ratification by the Senate. As with Iran, there was also an international component, with South Korea, Japan and a European agency joining with the United States to create an organization to implement the accord.

As Iowa State University professor Young Whan Kihl noted in an articleexploring the political ramifications:

Since the “Agreed Framework” took the form of a presidential “executive agreement,” rather than a formal treaty (such as SALT I & II), the U.S. Senate did not need to give “advise and consent” under the U.S. Constitution. However, the terms of the agreement are controversial and subject to scrutiny by the Republican-dominant U.S. Congress that began a series of congressional hearings in mid-January 1995. Some congressmen and senators demanded that the “agreed framework” be treated as a formal treaty; this move was resisted by the Clinton Administration but, because of the budgetary and appropriation clauses of the agreement, the U.S. Congress was inevitably drawn into the process of implementation and verification of the agreement.

Interestingly, a key policymaker on North Korea at the time was Wendy R. Sherman — who is now negotiating the agreement with Iran. (Sherman did not negotiate the North Korea deal but was closely involved in its implementation during Clinton’s second term.)

So how did North Korea get its hands on the nuclear material? George W. Bush became president in 2001 and was highly skeptical of Clinton’s deal with North Korea. The new administration terminated missile talks with Pyongyang and then spent months trying to develop its own policy.

Then intelligence agencies determined that North Korea was cheating on the agreement by trying to develop nuclear material through another method — highly-enriched uranium. The Bush administration sent an envoy who confronted North Korea — and the regime was said to have belligerently confirmed it.

In response, the Bush administration terminated a supply of fuel oil that was essential to the agreement — and then North Korea quickly kicked out the U.N. inspectors, restarted the nuclear plant and began developing its nuclear weapons, using the material in radioactive fuel rods that previously had been under the close watch of the IAEA. Japan and South Korea, the key partners in the accord, were not happy with the decision to terminate the Agreed Framework, but there was little they could do about it.

After North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in 2006, the Bush administration tried desperately to negotiate a new accord with Pyongyang, including offering new concessions, but those efforts ultimately failed. The nuclear genie by then was out of the bottle. The issue was considered such a loser that the Obama administration has barely bothered to restart disarmament talks.

Questions have since been raised about whether the Bush administration misinterpreted North Korea’s supposed confirmation — and doubts also emerged about the quality of U.S. intelligence that inspired the confrontation. But Bush’s later efforts to negotiate a new accord were hampered by fresh evidence that North Korea actually did have an undisclosed uranium-enrichment program.

Nevertheless, contrary to Cotton’s statement, North Korea obtained the bomb not because of the agreement, but because the agreement failed. Presumably, North Korea would have gotten its hands on the plutonium sooner if not for the original agreement.

Yet the North Korean example also provides support for Cotton’s key point in his letter — that a future president would not necessarily be compelled to support a deal negotiated with Iran. Bush’s administration was stocked with people who were vehemently opposed to the Agreed Framework, and that certainly affected the pace of the diplomacy. The president himself was a key skeptic. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was even slapped down when he suggested the administration would follow the path set by the Clinton administration.

[Weegle777 78]

Poor innocent child, it must be fun living in sunshine and rainbows land.

[autigeremt 6,600]

If you think this deal will stop Iran from acquiring a nuke you are smoking crack!

If you think more sanctions would stop them you are smoking crack!

If you think a war with Iran is the right move you are a fool....high on crack!

Well as a minimum , how about pushing it down the road for a decade or so?

Wouldn't that be worthwhile?

This deal doesn't slow feces....but it does give politicians a feather in their faux cap. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken........

[Weegle777 78]

And what makes me laugh is that some people really believe that,

"Hey, now that obama made this deal, Iran won't want nuclear weapons!"

"We are all safe now!"

Surely these people aren't that naive. A country like Iran will tell you whatever you want to hear to get what you are offering. Do these people really believe that their hearts and minds have just taken a 180? You can blame Bush for the North Korea deal falling through all you want, but to believe that they had a change of heart because of Clinton is lunacy.

[WarTim 3,456]

Prepare to defend yourself Israel.

Make no mistake. Israel Will, if forced, take out Iran nuke program. Hope that is not required...

[AUUSN 823]

And what makes me laugh is that some people really believe that,

"Hey, now that obama made this deal, Iran won't want nuclear weapons!"

"We are all safe now!"

Surely these people aren't that naive. A country like Iran will tell you whatever you want to hear to get what you are offering. Do these people really believe that their hearts and minds have just taken a 180? You can blame Bush for the North Korea deal falling through all you want, but to believe that they had a change of heart because of Clinton is lunacy.

Please provide the quote from anyone here that has written "we are all safe now."

[homersapien 11,367]

If you think this deal will stop Iran from acquiring a nuke you are smoking crack!

If you think more sanctions would stop them you are smoking crack!

If you think a war with Iran is the right move you are a fool....high on crack!

Well as a minimum , how about pushing it down the road for a decade or so?

Wouldn't that be worthwhile?

This deal doesn't slow feces....but it does give politicians a feather in their faux cap. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken........

That's simply false. Whatever the merits of the deal, it does delay Iran's nuclear program. Hell, even if they try to cheat we are better off than with no deal.

[homersapien 11,367]

And what makes me laugh is that some people really believe that,

"Hey, now that obama made this deal, Iran won't want nuclear weapons!"

"We are all safe now!"

Surely these people aren't that naive. A country like Iran will tell you whatever you want to hear to get what you are offering. Do these people really believe that their hearts and minds have just taken a 180? You can blame Bush for the North Korea deal falling through all you want, but to believe that they had a change of heart because of Clinton is lunacy.

Please provide the quote from anyone here that has written "we are all safe now."

You know you don't have a good argument when you have to create things to rail against.

[AUUSN 823]

And what makes me laugh is that some people really believe that,

"Hey, now that obama made this deal, Iran won't want nuclear weapons!"

"We are all safe now!"

Surely these people aren't that naive. A country like Iran will tell you whatever you want to hear to get what you are offering. Do these people really believe that their hearts and minds have just taken a 180? You can blame Bush for the North Korea deal falling through all you want, but to believe that they had a change of heart because of Clinton is lunacy.

Please provide the quote from anyone here that has written "we are all safe now."

You know you don't have a good argument when you have to create things to rail against.

Indeed. Those of us who have life experiences know Iran is still a threat. I have good friends currently drilling holes in the Persian Gulf on the USS ROOSEVELT ensuring Iran stays in their place. These fools are partisan hacks through and through at the expense of sound and rational approaches and our national security.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

All the same things were said about the deal with Korea. The progressives said not to worry. Now they try to ignore the Korea deal gone bad and try like heck to spin a terrible deal with iran.

[AUUSN 823]

Well look

All the same things were said about the deal with Korea. The progressives said not to worry. Now they try to ignore the Korea deal gone bad and try like heck to spin a terrible deal with iran.

Pakistan...

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Korea....

[WarTim 3,456]

We should have kept sanctions in place. JMHO

[homersapien 11,367]

We should have kept sanctions in place. JMHO

Do you understand that the sanctions involved a lot more countries than the US?

[AUUSN 823]

We should have kept sanctions in place. JMHO

[JoeBags7277 734]

Prepare to defend yourself Israel.

Make no mistake. Israel Will, if forced, take out Iran nuke program. Hope that is not required...

It continues to bewilder me that the thought of a strong, prosperous nation nuclearly armed to the hilt having to defend itself is trotted out as some sort of doomsday scenario.

[Strychnine 1,802]

All the same things were said about the deal with Korea. The progressives said not to worry. Now they try to ignore the Korea deal gone bad and try like heck to spin a terrible deal with iran.

The situation with North Korea was, and is, very different. It was an agreement that we never intended to fully honor ourselves, and we didn't. Given the death of Kim Il-sung, and the terrible state of affairs in North Korea following the collapse of the Soviet Union (North Korea depended on them greatly), we were more interested in a short-term freeze of North Korea's nuclear program while they collapsed under the severe famine they experienced in the mid to late 90's. We gambled on what was basically considered an issue of inevitability, but the stubborn evil that is North Korea's Kim family won out.

Moving along to Iran, why is this deal terrible exactly?

[AUUSN 823]

All the same things were said about the deal with Korea. The progressives said not to worry. Now they try to ignore the Korea deal gone bad and try like heck to spin a terrible deal with iran.

Moving along to Iran, why is this deal terrible exactly?

Because...Obama!

[Strychnine 1,802]

We should have kept sanctions in place. JMHO

Do you understand that the sanctions involved a lot more countries than the US?

More importantly, the sanctions are not lifted until Iran has met its commitments in the deal, which include the removal of the Arak core and shipping their stockpiles of uranium abroad.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

I am a bit confused regarding the "access" piece for inspection. I've heard 30 days after request, 24 days, wherever/whenever, etc. What is the truth?

[WarTim 3,456]

Prepare to defend yourself Israel.

Make no mistake. Israel Will, if forced, take out Iran nuke program. Hope that is not required...

It continues to bewilder me that the thought of a strong, prosperous nation nuclearly armed to the hilt having to defend itself is trotted out as some sort of doomsday scenario.

Do you think Iran would hesitate to nuke Israel? Really?