Details of deal:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655

Poll question: Iran Nuclear Deal

Poll result (25 votes) Bold & courageous. Had to at least attempt a good will diplomatic solution (1 votes) Vote "One of the darkest days of history" ~Netanyahu (1 votes) Vote I trust whatever the House of Saud says, so it's a bad deal. (1 votes) Vote France & Germany's opinion > Israel & Saudi Arabia's feelings (4 votes) Vote Obama's 2nd term is bout that life (18 votes) Vote I'm Ron Dermer (crank that NeoCon Boy) (0 votes) Vote

I have thought that for about 10 years. Now whether or not the provisions here are adequate, the monitoring is effective and Iran complies in a relative way, that all remains to be seen.

isn't this how we got into a war with Iraq in the first place

i.e. they wouldn't comply with inspections

suprised the GOP hawks are so adamant about rejecting the deal

even before it's done

other than DEM/Barry O hate

couldn't this outline a clear path to war with Iran

that they seem so fixated on

I was listening to an interview the other day

with a former government employee

who said something along the lines...

every year of my employment we are told Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon

and when it doesn't happen

they are 3-5 years away from going nuclear

(c) since 93'

Iran basically has a nuke right now but theres not much we can do without flattening the whole place.

>Iran basically has a nuke right now but theres not much we
>can do without flattening the whole place.


Iran is not the big bad boogeyman the news had led you to believe.

Iran funded shia uprisings all around the world in an attempt to shore up against sunni islamic hegemony funded by the Saudis.

They've killed assloads of americans and do NOT have our interest at hands.

And what other nations do you mean? North Korea? The people who used the stolen information from AQ Khan who helped Pakistan with information he stole from the dutch while working at a nuclear facility?

Iran IS an absolute shit country in dire need of reform and nuclear ambitions only entrench them into more legitimacy and not the liberalism that place is in dire need of.

>They've killed assloads of americans and do NOT have our
>interest at hands.

But they do have their own self interest.

The idea they are gonna start stockpiling and launching nukes at Israel/S.Arabia and the US is myopic at best. As of 2015 S.Arabia has MUCH more US blood on their ends then Iran and that's a fact, and we are BFF.

>Iran funded shia uprisings all around the world in an attempt
>to shore up against sunni islamic hegemony funded by the
>Saudis.

so you're in favor of sunni islamic hegemony?


>They've killed assloads of americans and do NOT have our
>interest at hands.

and the Saudis do?


>And what other nations do you mean? North Korea? The people
>who used the stolen information from AQ Khan who helped
>Pakistan with information he stole from the dutch while
>working at a nuclear facility?

not sure what relevance this has to anything.


>Iran IS an absolute shit country in dire need of reform and
>nuclear ambitions only entrench them into more legitimacy and
>not the liberalism that place is in dire need of.

then maybe we shouldn't have overthrown the liberal democracy they already had.

>Iran funded shia uprisings all around the world in an attempt
>to shore up against sunni islamic hegemony funded by the
>Saudis.

So? They're a brutally persecuted minority within the Islamic World. They did what they thought they had to do, to ensure survival.

Iran (& India) are really the only safe haven for Shia muslims on this planet.


>They've killed assloads of americans and do NOT have our
>interest at hands.



lol, you typing like a NeoCon. "We" killed thousands of Iranians by selling weapons to Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. A little nuance in your views would go a long way.


>And what other nations do you mean? North Korea? The people
>who used the stolen information from AQ Khan who helped
>Pakistan with information he stole from the dutch while
>working at a nuclear facility?

I'm Indian. Trust, I know all about Abdul Qadeer Khan and his stolen nukes.


>Iran IS an absolute shit country in dire need of reform and
>nuclear ambitions only entrench them into more legitimacy and
>not the liberalism that place is in dire need of.

lol ok.

apparently obama just kicked off the second jewish holocaust.

Iran has by many accounts been on the cusp of a middle class revolution (revolution might be too extreme a word) which threatened an end to theocracy, but international sanctions were definitely holding them back from achieving the sort of economic independence required... if the middle classes really can burgeon then they could become a very popular/influential nation, very quickly... and hopefully you can then see some sort of positive Domino effect radiating out.

Or something shady comes to light in the next year or so and we all go to war again anyway...

and those dudes were DEF. more responsible for Western terrorist attacks then Iran.

And Pakistan has nukes.

We can always use another ally, and on some fucked up shit game of Risk shit, another major player in the region can only be good for us and Israel; other countries in the region have no love for Iran and having them move up in ranks means less heat for Israel and ultimately us when they need to stir up their populace.

Pakistan only got nukes because AQ Khan was working as a metallurgist in Europe at this nuclear plant and saw Pakistan was getting its ass kicked in the war vs India so he decided to "help" his homeland.

Long story short he got Pakistan the bomb then started selling the damn plans to other nations including meetings with Iran, the Saudis, Libya, Iraq and North Korea.

Fill in the blanks.

Pakistan holds the USA hostage because India is a much better ally but pakistan is so unstable they need massive amounts of aid yet they burned us in Afghanistan

I mean, Ill let you rock with your 'FUCK PAKISTAN' rant(is that what you are saying?), and I agree that one of the reasons why we are so close is because without us it would their entire state would dissolve, but it doesn't change what I wrote above. At the end of the day

1)Having more allies in the region helps us
2)Furthermore, having a slightly more antagonistic ally in the region will help us also since we haven't been able to reign in our 'friends'.

>Pakistan only got nukes because AQ Khan was working as a
>metallurgist in Europe at this nuclear plant and saw Pakistan
>was getting its ass kicked in the war vs India so he decided
>to "help" his homeland.
>
>Long story short he got Pakistan the bomb then started selling
>the damn plans to other nations including meetings with Iran,
>the Saudis, Libya, Iraq and North Korea.
>
>Fill in the blanks.
>
>Pakistan holds the USA hostage because India is a much better
>ally but pakistan is so unstable they need massive amounts of
>aid yet they burned us in Afghanistan

believing folks who argue either this is the best thing ever or the worst thing ever.

My greatest hope is that this delays their nuclear weapon ambitions long enough for the middle class to throw out the fundamentalist.

I think engagement is a superior policy than trying to isolate folks we don't like.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

fillers? botox? what's up?

http://surgerystars.com/john-kerry-plastic-surgery/

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

Nixon and Reagan negotiated with our worst enemies and in the first case, opened to us what would turn out to be the world's biggest market and the second, reduced the nuclear arsenal of a country that was committed to our destruction. For their efforts, they went down in history as the greatest foreign policy presidents ever. (Yes they were scumbags at home, but that's another post)

Love him or hate him, you have to respect Obama at this point. Straight not giving a fuck and stomping all over his enemies (Cuba, Obamacare, and now Iran) is making Repubs MAD and I can clap to that. He was running the long con on them for years and it's now bearing fruit. Fox news and their lemmings kept on underestimating him and now they can stay MAD. Repubs at this point are Jay-Z the day after Ether dropped status. Obama: making their souls burn slow.

>Nixon and Reagan negotiated with our worst enemies and in the
>first case, opened to us what would turn out to be the world's
>biggest market and the second, reduced the nuclear arsenal of
>a country that was committed to our destruction. For their
>efforts, they went down in history as the greatest foreign
>policy presidents ever. (Yes they were scumbags at home, but
>that's another post)
>
>Love him or hate him, you have to respect Obama at this point.
> Straight not giving a fuck and stomping all over his enemies
>(Cuba, Obamacare, and now Iran) is making Repubs MAD and I can
>clap to that. He was running the long con on them for years
>and it's now bearing fruit. Fox news and their lemmings kept
>on underestimating him and now they can stay MAD. Repubs at
>this point are Jay-Z the day after Ether dropped status.
>Obama: making their souls burn slow.
>

And then start up again?

This is probably going to make the proxy wars in that region only more intense

obviously at the end of the term we will re-evaluate and re-negotiate.

i don't know about the effect on proxy wars in the region. the overall stability there is not exactly ideal so that's a mixed bag, but i do acknowledge they could flare up.

...then continually ostracizing them, to the point they have nothing to lose. We are never going to see eye to eye on certain core issues, but giving them a taste of a better world gives them a stake in maintaining it.

======================================
http://www.zuitomedia.com/

more liberal populace, they have the Ayatollah but also have a parliament and some other semblance of a checks and balance system, and they even have provisions for gays to live peacefully
most of the riff was agenda shit from existing allies (SA, israel)

other part of iran getting more friendly with US is it could help us deal with the sunni extremists in the proxy war(s)
it's much easier to arm shiite opposition groups in yemen, syria, and iraq if you dead (or minimize) the evil america narrative by having relations with the country supplying them with dough and weapons

>more liberal populace, they have the Ayatollah but also have
>a parliament and some other semblance of a checks and balance
>system, and they even have provisions for gays to live
>peacefully
>most of the riff was agenda shit from existing allies (SA,
>israel)
>
>other part of iran getting more friendly with US is it could
>help us deal with the sunni extremists in the proxy war(s)
>it's much easier to arm shiite opposition groups in yemen,
>syria, and iraq if you dead (or minimize) the evil america
>narrative by having relations with the country supplying them
>with dough and weapons

Sadly, I've heard multiple people (whom many consider to be authorities in business and/or politics) equate Iran with ISIS, which is so egregiously uninformed and ignorant that it discounts anything else that person has to say about the MidEast.

I agree that we have more in common with Iran than Saudi Arabia - particularly with the people. 70% of Iranian population is under 35 years old, and they are lightyears more progressive than the Ayatollah simps who are holding on to a decaying, archaic system. If we can hold off this regime for another 10-15 years, they will be cycled out and a new governing class will modernize and improve upon Iranian society. You can't say the same thing about Saudi Arabia or even Israel's youth. The House of Saud is one of the most corrupt dictatorships on Earth, and their brand of extremism is responsible for more terrorism (by proxy) than Iran, yet never called out on it like Iran.


-->

Barry O' on that Luther the last month

The Iran Deal Must Be Shielded From Hyperbole

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/82184a3e-3511-11e5-b05b-b01debd57852.html#axzz3hKijoPPC

There are still seven weeks before Congress votes on the Iran deal but opponents’ rhetoric is already past boiling point. Mike Huckabee, the Republican presidential hopeful, said this week that Barack Obama’s deal would “march Israel up to the doors of the oven” — a grotesque reference to the Holocaust. Mr Huckabee has refused to disown his analogy.
Ted Cruz, another White House hopeful, said Mr Obama had made himself into the leading state sponsor of terrorism by agreeing to unfreeze $100bn or more in Iran’s assets. Tom Cotton, a senator from Arkansas, likened John Kerry, the secretary of state, to Pontius Pilate, for having “washed his hands” of the deal’s compliance regime. The International Atomic Energy Agency is separately negotiating the rules of inspection with Iran.

The list goes on. Supporters are bracing for a long, hot August of more such invective. But critics should beware. The more they holler, the harder it will be for America’s partners to keep unity on the world’s best shot in years at bottling Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The deal’s more sober opponents risk being drowned out by the hyperbole. They have two objections. The first is that the deal will replenish the coffers of Al-Quds and other arms of the Iranian revolution. Far from restraining the mullahs, it would nourish a new bout of regional adventurism. Hizbollah, Syria’s Assad regime, and Yemen’s Houthi rebels would benefit most.

Such collateral damage is indeed one possibility. Yet the deal itself conveys advantages. Mr Obama is betting the boost to economic engagement that flows from the agreement will bolster the reformers who negotiated it — not least Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, and the country’s best hope of steering it in a more moderate direction. It is the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (Isis), rather than Hizbollah and its Shia offshoots, that poses the greater threat to US national interests. The same applies to Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, argues otherwise. But he has built his career, and a shaky new coalition government, on ginning up the existential threat from Iran.

Second, critics complain that the deal postpones, rather than dismantles, Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They are right. The agreement is set to last a minimum of 10 years after which all bets are off. But they fail to spell out any better alternative. Should Congress reject the deal in September, and override Mr Obama’s veto, Iran would be free of virtually all constraint. It would almost certainly accelerate its nuclear programme. The US, and Israel, would just as assuredly step up threats of military action to stop it. It is hard to overstate how destabilising that would be.

It is also very hard to see how this would improve US, or Israeli, national security. In addition, Washington’s move would be unilateral. America’s partners, notably the Europeans, China and Russia, have made it clear they will lift Iranian sanctions regardless of what the US does. Rejection by Capitol Hill would thus bring about the worst of both worlds. Iran’s assets would be unfrozen and it would be far more disposed to put them to bad use.

None of these arguments has any chance of winning over the deal’s
diehard critics, such as Mr Huckabee and Mr Cruz. Their aim is to gain attention in a crowded Republican race increasingly dominated by Donald Trump. All the more reason to ignore them. Mr Trump cannot be the standard by which serious diplomacy is measured. The pros and cons of Mr Obama’s Iran agreement deserve the closest scrutiny. The rhetorical bomb throwers are no Greek chorus. They should exit, stage right.

-->

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa-congress-idUKKBN0UL29K20160107

-->

if you don't have proper protection you will get got (internationally)

I'm sure they have something up their proverbial sleeves and I don't blame them.

Just days after Iran released our sailors within 24 hours of their inadvertent breach into Iranian water space off of Farsi Island.

The Deal is already reaping positive results.

Obeezy w/ another W.

-->

and now it's dead - after years of bullying and the U.S. sabotaging the JCPOA - Iran finally said enough is enough:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51001167
-->

>