Obama's Delusion With Iran

[Kathianne]

A bit long, but gets at the heart of what one hope's is just 'unintended consequences' that the Iran agreement may mean. I don't know how 'unintended,' but I'm cynical when it comes to this administration:

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/iran-delusion-primer-perplexed


The Iran Delusion: A Primer for the Perplexed Michael J. Totten (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/users/michael-j-totten)


The chattering class has spent months bickering about whether or not the United States should sign on to a nuclear deal with Iran, and everyone from the French and the Israelis to the Saudis has weighed in with “no” votes. Hardly anyone aside from the Saudis, however, seems to recognize that the Iranian government’s ultimate goal is regional hegemony and that its nuclear weapons program is simply a means to that end.

The Middle East has five hot spots—or “shatter zones,” as Robert D. Kaplan called them in his landmark book, The Revenge of Geography—which are more prone to conflict than others, where borders are either unstable or porous, where central governments have a hard time keeping everything wired together, and where instability is endemic or chronic.

Gaza, where Hamas wages relentless rocket wars against Israel, is one such shatter zone. The Lebanese-Israeli border, where Hezbollah does the same on a much more terrifying scale, is another. Yemen, which is finally falling apart on an epic scale, has been one for decades. Syria and Iraq have merged into a single multinational shatter zone with more armed factions than anyone but the CIA can keep track of.

What do these shatter zones have in common? The Iranian government backs militias and terrorist armies in all of them. As Kaplan writes, “The instability Iran will cause will not come from its implosion, but from a strong, internally coherent nation that explodes outward from a natural geographic platform to shatter the region around it.”

That’s why Iran is a problem for American foreign policy makers in the first place; and that’s why trading sanctions relief for an international weapons inspection regime will have no effect on any of it whatsoever.

...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A bit long, but gets at the heart of what one hope's is just 'unintended consequences' that the Iran agreement may mean. I don't know how 'unintended,' but I'm cynical when it comes to this administration:

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/iran-delusion-primer-perplexed

The obama is under no delusion, what he is doing is deliberate. He wants Iran nuked up, he wants Israel destroyed. EVERYTHING POINTS TO THAT ! -Tyr

[Russ]

I agree that Obama is delusional, but I think even more so that he is Obsessed - with creating a legacy for himself. He wants his name in the history books as "the President that negotiated with Iran", and he's willing to sellout America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the Kurds, and anybody else he can sellout, just to get his historical footnote. Of course, that gets back to delusional because he's stupid enough to think that coming to an agreement with Iran will end up being a good thing. If he does get an agreement with Iran, the history books won't end up saying "the President that negotiated with Iran" - they will say "the Chump who caved in to Iran on every single point and destabilized the entire Middle East". (I realize the Middle East is not known for its stability, but after Obama is done, forget about it)

[LongTermGuy]

The obama is under no delusion, what he is doing is deliberate. He wants Iran nuked up, he wants Israel destroyed. EVERYTHING POINTS TO THAT ! -Tyr



​*Yup...we will find out shortly...on just how "deliberate"

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

​*Yup...we will find out shortly...on just how "deliberate"


Sadly we will....
If a deal is finally inked we will see he gave away the bank and tossed in the vault too!!!

SOB is a damn traitor , plain and simple yet gets by with it. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[LongTermGuy]

Sadly we will....
If a deal is finally inked we will see he gave away the bank and tossed in the vault too!!!

SOB is a damn traitor , plain and simple yet gets by with it. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:


Tomorrow morning we should find out...I understand....then we will see how much more damage we "Americans" will have to contend with...and the low-info will praise ...



http://breakingbrown.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Obama_black-community-600x400.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Idiots that follow the Pied Piper. What was once just a story is now a reality. We got what we deserved when we failed to correct these traitorous people(leftists/libs/dems) by force decades ago. Should have ran them out of town on a rail three decades ago and tarred and feathered them.
Instead we closed our eyes and thought they'd go away. Evil never just goes away!!!
Not unless its defeated and that means by use of greater force being applied--example = Nazis etc.
obama is no different that a Nazi- in fact he is much worse, as he keeps his hidden, at least they operated openly for the most part but not that stinking, lying maggot! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: -Tyr

[Kathianne]

Kruthammer:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/worse-than-we-could-have-imagined/2015/07/16/aa320b42-2bf0-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html



Worse than we could have imaginedWhen you write a column, as did I two weeks ago, headlined “The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-worst-agreement-in-us-diplomatic-history/2015/07/02/960e8cf2-20e8-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html),” you don’t expect to revisit the issue. We had hit bottom. Or so I thought. Then on Tuesday the final terms of theIranian nuclear deal (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/)were published. I was wrong.

Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations?

When asked Wednesday at his news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the American hostages being held by Iran (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/world/middleeast/families-tell-lawmakers-of-americans-held-hostage-in-iran.html?_r=0), President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks.

Are conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by definition, means non-nuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes?

Because Iran, joined by Russia — our “reset” partner — sprung the demand at the last minute, calculating that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were so desperate for a deal that they would cave. They did. And have convinced themselves that they scored a victory by delaying the lifting by five to eight years. (Ostensibly. The language is murky. The interval could be considerably shorter.)

...

Moreover, the most serious issue is not Iranian exports but Iranian imports — of sophisticated Russian and Chinese weapons. These are untouchable. We are not going to attack Russian and Chinese transports.


The net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but also to endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Imagine how Iran’s acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship missiles would threaten our control over the gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways we have kept open for international commerce for a half-century.
...

The action now shifts to Congress. The debate is being hailed as momentous. It is not. It’s irrelevant.

Congress won’t get to vote on the deal until September. But Obama is taking the agreement to the U.N. Security Council for approval within days . Approval there will cancel all previous U.N. resolutions outlawing and sanctioning Iran’s nuclear activities.
Meaning: Whatever Congress ultimately does, it won’t matter because the legal underpinning for the entire international sanctions regime against Iran will have been dismantled at the Security Council. Ten years of painstakingly constructed international sanctions will vanish overnight, irretrievably.
Even if Congress rejects the agreement, do you think the Europeans, the Chinese or the Russians will reinstate sanctions? The result: The United States is left isolated while the rest of the world does thriving business with Iran.

...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Kruthammer:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/worse-than-we-could-have-imagined/2015/07/16/aa320b42-2bf0-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

Great post and article. I hope the naysayers here remember my prediction about how much worse the obama second term would be if/when he got it. I hope some actually do wake up to the solid fact he is a traitor and is a puppet for foreign entity.

What he just did was insure Iran gets nukes, Israel has to attack Iran and he can and likely will oppose Israel despite America not desiring that.
I suspect he has now sent Israel direct "orders" that its not to attack Iran. And likely tied our foreign aid money to Israel and other threats along with that folly.
The bastard simply must be impeached! -Tyr

[Kathianne]

Obama should pay a bit of attention to history, (Kerry too):

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-u.n.-plan-backfires/article/2568447


Obama's U.N. plan backfires in Congress



By SUSAN CRABTREE (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/susan-crabtree)
•
7/16/15 6:54 PM

President Obama's attempt to outmaneuver Congress and win quick United Nations approval for the Iran nuclear agreement is backfiring on him in Congress, and could further erode support among key players.

Key senators were already outraged that the administration was taking the lead in negotiating a deal and sidelining Congress' traditional role of being directly involved in haggling the finer points of arms control agreements. They were resigned to let the administration handle the negotiations in return for the promise that they would have ample opportunity to review the deal and vote on it.

But Kerry this week moved to exert the maximum global leverage on Congress by circulating a legally binding draft of the deal to the United Nations Security Council. A vote at the U.N. is expected early next week to end the international body's sanctions against Iran in return for Tehran curbing its nuclear program.

He made the move before Congress had received the full documents related to the deal and before the Senate's 60-day review period began. And he even seemed to dare Congress to try to reject the deal, which he said would make the U.S. the non-compliant country.

...

Call it hubris, call it karma, payback seems to always come.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch15-4.htm


Wilson Loses His Treaty and League of Nations

When Wilson returned from the Paris Conference in mid-1919, the Republicans held a slight majority in the Senate. A two-thirds vote in the Senate was needed for ratification of the treaty signed in Paris, and Wilson needed to win to his side a minority of Senators who were inclined to oppose ratification. A few Republican senators wished to deny Wilson any glory he had won during his trip to Paris, and some were still disappointed that he had not included any prominent Republicans in his mission. A few Republican senators feared that ratifying the treaty would forever embroil the United States in Europeans affairs. Sounding like Mussolini, Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana saw the treaty as raising "the motley flag of internationalism," and he described the treaty as a plan to "denationalize America and denationalize the nation's manhood." A few Senators were opposed to that part of the treaty involving the League of Nations. They spoke of the US losing its sovereignty by joining the League, and they were opposed to the US being drawn into a war in behalf of the League.

On the opposite side of the treaty issue, only a few senators believed that the treaty was excessively harsh with Germany. One of them was the courageous Senator Robert LaFollette, who was under attack for being pro-German. He described the Versailles Treaty as preparation for a future bloodbath and as a mockery of self-determination.

In an effort to gain the needed two-thirds vote in the Senate, Wilson turned to the public for support. On September 3, he began traveling across the nation by train, fighting for his grand alliance, the League of Nations. He grew weary, and by the end of the month he was back in the White House, a victim of a stroke. He remained bedridden for the remainder of his presidency.

...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Obama should pay a bit of attention to history, (Kerry too):

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-u.n.-plan-backfires/article/2568447



Call it hubris, call it karma, payback seems to always come.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch15-4.htm

They have allowed this stinking worm to do this for most of his time in office. So why now pretend to finally see when they've been so cowardly all along? I think its all for show now and he will yet again get his way!
If so , this action, is very likely to end up being the cause of WW3 IMHO. A sad prediction my friend but one I firmly believe.Tyr

[Kathianne]

They have allowed this stinking worm to do this for most of his time in office. So why now pretend to finally see when they've been so cowardly all along? I think its all for show now and he will yet again get his way!
If so , this action, is very likely to end up being the cause of WW3 IMHO. A sad prediction my friend but one I firmly believe.Tyr

That certainly seems to be the majority opinion.

[Gunny]

The obama is under no delusion, what he is doing is deliberate. He wants Iran nuked up, he wants Israel destroyed. EVERYTHING POINTS TO THAT ! -Tyr

I have to disagree. The idiot's completely delusional. He thinks this trainwreck he has created is somehow going to cement his legacy. Well, congrats. O-blah-blah. You just shook Carter out of the worst President EVER spot. William Henry Harrison was better. 90 days in office and most of it in a coma.

[Rat]

The obama is under no delusion, what he is doing is deliberate. He wants Iran nuked up, he wants Israel destroyed. EVERYTHING POINTS TO THAT ! -Tyr

I no think Obama wants Israel destroyed. He doesn't treat them well but big difference between no having respect and wanting harm come to them. I think Obama want this deal so he can claim he did good thing in foreign policy. He done nothing overseas in presidency and need something significant for legacy. Problem is it will no be looked at as good deal decade from now. We give Iran everything and get nothing in return. Bad deal. I was angry he no even demand American hostages be returned. That would been easy. Iran no going to say no to deal over a few hostages. I think Obama wanted deal so bad he gave Iran everything they want. I would like to see him be tough. We had leverage. Sanctions were hurting Iran bad. If Obama would have stay firm we could have everything we wanted. Instead he showed his hand and let everyone know how much he wanted deal and let Iran bully us in negotiations. No deal would be better than what Obama agreed to.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I no think Obama wants Israel destroyed. He doesn't treat them well but big difference between no having respect and wanting harm come to them. I think Obama want this deal so he can claim he did good thing in foreign policy. He done nothing overseas in presidency and need something significant for legacy. Problem is it will no be looked at as good deal decade from now. We give Iran everything and get nothing in return. Bad deal. I was angry he no even demand American hostages be returned. That would been easy. Iran no going to say no to deal over a few hostages. I think Obama wanted deal so bad he gave Iran everything they want. I would like to see him be tough. We had leverage. Sanctions were hurting Iran bad. If Obama would have stay firm we could have everything we wanted. Instead he showed his hand and let everyone know how much he wanted deal and let Iran bully us in negotiations. No deal would be better than what Obama agreed to.


Far less about any legacy(as in how the media describes it) and far, far more about his advancing Islam .
Tis why he wants Iran nuked up!!! -Tyr




http://www.youngcons.com/40-mind-blowing-quotes-barack-obama-islam-christianity/

Screen Shot 2015-02-25 at 8.47.50 PM
40 mind-blowing quotes from Barack Obama about Islam and Christianity

Joshua Riddle
February 25, 2015 9:49 pm

Obama is when it comes to Islam and Christianity.

20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Islam and Mohammed

#1 “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

#2 “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”

future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-slander-prophet-islam-mohammad-barack-hussein-obama-muslim

#3 “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”

#4 “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”

#5 “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

#6 “Islam has always been part of America”

#7 “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities”

#8 “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

#9 “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

#10 “I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.”

#11 “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

#12 “So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”

#13 “In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.”

#14 “Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

#15 “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality”

#16 “The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’”

#17 “I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.”

#18 “We’ve seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants – farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe.”

#19 “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

#20 “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Christianity and the Bible

#1 “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation”

#2 “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”

#3 “Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?”

#4 “Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages – the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity – are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.”

#5 “The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.”

obama-farrakhan

Over the past 5 years, Obama has never one time refuted any claims or comments made about him
being the liberal savior.

#6 From Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope: “I am not willing to have the state deny American
citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital
visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the
same sex—nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure
line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”

#7 Obama’s response when asked what his definition of sin is: “Being out of alignment with my
values.”

#8 “If all it took was someone proclaiming I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins,
and that was all there was to it, people wouldn’t have to keep coming to church, would they.”

#9 “This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about.
I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some
level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some
quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going
to hell.”

#10 “I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.
I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts
with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious
makeup.”

#11 “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly
that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my
faith and my values is a good thing.”

#12 “I’ve said this before, and I know this raises questions in the minds of some evangelicals.
I do not believe that my mother, who never formally embraced Christianity as far as I know …
I do not believe she went to hell.”

#13 “Those opposed to abortion cannot simply invoke God’s will–they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths.”

#14 On his support for civil unions for gay couples: “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount.”

#15 “You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

#16 “In our household, the Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology”

#17 “On Easter or Christmas Day, my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites.”

#18 “We have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own”

#19 “All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra— (applause) — as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)”

#20 “I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

#1 “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

Everybody (ALL INFIDELS) should consider exactly what that statement means= it means no future, as in death to ALL THAT OPPOSES ISLAM.

He got by with saying that and also saying United States is no longer a Christian nation.
He hates Christians and Jews. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?50576-Obama-s-Delusion-With-Iran&p=749065#post749065



07-13-2015, 08:55 PM #5 Tyr-Ziu Saxnot's Avatar Tyr-Ziu Saxnot Tyr-Ziu Saxnot is online now
I've just begun to fight!

Join Date
May 2012
Location
USA, Southern
Posts
15,648
Thanks
11,834
Thanked 7,784 Times in 4,293 PostsRep Power
5936671

Default
Quote Originally Posted by LongTermGuy View Post
​*Yup...we will find out shortly...on just how "deliberate"


Sadly we will....
If a deal is finally inked we will see he gave away the bank and tossed in the vault too!!!

SOB is a damn traitor , plain and simple yet gets by with it.-Tyr
^^^^^
Remember this post by me from a week ago. My, my just how right was I ?????
He gave away the bank , vault and all. -Tyr

We should be asking why , not making excuses for the damn traitor!-Tyr

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this from two weeks ago!-- Tyr




07-09-2015, 10:41 AM #2 Tyr-Ziu Saxnot's Avatar Tyr-Ziu Saxnot Tyr-Ziu Saxnot is online now
I've just begun to fight!

Join Date
May 2012
Location
USA, Southern
Posts
15,649
Thanks
11,834
Thanked 7,788 Times in 4,295 PostsRep Power
5936671
Default

Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
A bit long, but gets at the heart of what one hope's is just 'unintended consequences' that
the Iran agreement may mean.
I don't know how 'unintended,' but I'm cynical when it comes to this administration:

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/a...imer-perplexed


The obama is under no delusion, what he is doing is deliberate. He wants Iran nuked up,
he wants Israel destroyed. EVERYTHING POINTS TO THAT ! -Tyr

[Drummond]

I agree that Obama is delusional, but I think even more so that he is Obsessed - with creating a legacy for himself. He wants his name in the history books as "the President that negotiated with Iran", and he's willing to sellout America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the Kurds, and anybody else he can sellout, just to get his historical footnote. Of course, that gets back to delusional because he's stupid enough to think that coming to an agreement with Iran will end up being a good thing. If he does get an agreement with Iran, the history books won't end up saying "the President that negotiated with Iran" - they will say "the Chump who caved in to Iran on every single point and destabilized the entire Middle East". (I realize the Middle East is not known for its stability, but after Obama is done, forget about it)

Hello Russ, and welcome to the forum !

Regarding the above .. I'd like to understand why you've thought 'delusion' was involved. Just a quick consideration of basic historical facts, fact which Obama should know probably BETTER than us, should be instructive. Facts which his own Intelligence people will know about the extent Iran supports and funds terrorism across the world .... funding which a relaxation of sanctions will boost !! Also, consider the DECADE it's taken to get Teheran to move at all 'significantly' (if that's even the right word) in all its various talks !!! How about the nuclear facility discovered in 2009, which Iran tried to hide .. evidence of trustworthiness ?? What if this deal had been done - and the world had remained ignorant of it ?? THAT ALONE would have made accountability efforts useless.

Obama's unaware of all this ? SERIOUSLY ???

If Obama's 'delusional', IT'S DELIBERATE !!

So I'm afraid 'delusion' is a non-starter. Obama's betrayed Israel, and the wider world's security concerns.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hello Russ, and welcome to the forum !

Regarding the above .. I'd like to understand why you've thought 'delusion' was involved. Just a quick consideration of basic historical facts, fact which Obama should know probably BETTER than us, should be instructive. Facts which his own Intelligence people will know about the extent Iran supports and funds terrorism across the world .... funding which a relaxation of sanctions will boost !! Also, consider the DECADE it's taken to get Teheran to move at all 'significantly' (if that's even the right word) in all its various talks !!! How about the nuclear facility discovered in 2009, which Iran tried to hide .. evidence of trustworthiness ?? What if this deal had been done - and the world had remained ignorant of it ?? THAT ALONE would have made accountability efforts useless.

Obama's unaware of all this ? SERIOUSLY ???

If Obama's 'delusional', IT'S DELIBERATE !!

So I'm afraid 'delusion' is a non-starter. Obama's betrayed Israel, and the wider world's security concerns.


How about the secret nuke site we only found out about a few weeks ago while the negotiations were going on??

They were cheating while negotiating! And obama instead of walking away as any other president would have done instead gave them even more! Thats either 1. absolute insanity or 2. else deliberate treason.
Number two it is.. --Tyr

[Drummond]

How about the secret nule site we only found out about a few weeks ago while the negotiations were going on??

They were cheating while negotiating! And obama instead of walking away as any other president would have done instead gave them even more! Thats either 1. absolute insanity or 2. else deliberate treason.
Number two it is.. --Tyr:clap::clap::clap:

.... and also ... haven't Iran even won a provision that they can resist, and delay, inspections ?!??

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/nuclear-deal-gives-iran-license-resist-inspections


This morning at the White House, President Obama made his first sales pitch for the nuclear deal negotiated in Vienna. Those who have read through the full 159-page text of the agreement will quickly notice that Mr. Obama employed a good bit of strategic language to downplay pivotal concessions that may undermine all future inspections of covert nuclear sites.

According to the president, “this deal is not built on trust. It is built on verification. Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran’s nuclear facilities.” That means access to the facilities Iran has officially declared, a point Obama did not clarify. There is no 24/7 access for undeclared sites, nor anything close to it.

As Obama would have it, “inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location — put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary.” Yet necessity is an exceptionally difficult thing to define. And the process for gauging necessity basically provides Iran with a license to stall, evade, and cover its tracks while inspectors wait for weeks or months to get the go ahead from diplomats. Regrettably, even when the diplomats say “yes,” there is no means of enforcing their request.

The rules for access to suspicious sites can be found in Section Q of the first annex to the agreement. If inspectors have concerns about undeclared sites, they must submit to Iran a request in writing that explains their concerns. Iran may counter with a proposal for “alternative means” of resolving the issue without actually allowing inspectors to inspect anything. If the inspectors and the regime can’t agree to a solution within two weeks, the dispute gets kicked up to a higher level. In other words, Iran has a license to stall for two full weeks whenever it does something suspicious.

After two weeks, the problem gets handed over to the Joint Commission, a new body whose membership and responsibility is defined in Annex IV to the agreement. Basically, the commission has eight members, one for each of the countries who are party to the agreement, plus the EU. A majority of five commission members may “advise” Iran on how to resolve the inspectors’ concerns. The commission has seven days to address the inspectors’ concerns, after which Iran has three days to implement any recommended measures. So, at minimum, Iran will have 24 days to clean up any suspicious sites before inspectors get a first look.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:clap::clap::clap:

.... and also ... haven't Iran even won a provision that they can resist, and delay, inspections ?!??

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/nuclear-deal-gives-iran-license-resist-inspections

He lies like a damn rug. No Americans are allowed to ever inspect any of Iran's nuke sites and a 24 day advance notice must be given if any inspection is to be allowed. They broke their sites down to smaller units so none are so big that they can not be "cleaned up for inspection " in less than 10 to 14 days.
Thus Iran has built in cheating time at every site.
What the bambastard did was give Iran 150 billion dollars and clean sailing to make nuke bombs. I am sure he has now issued warnings to Israel not to even try to hit Iran's nukes sites.
The slimy bastard is a damn traitor that should be impeached and tried for his treason. -Tyr

[FearandLoathing]

I agree that Obama is delusional, but I think even more so that he is Obsessed - with creating a legacy for himself. He wants his name in the history books as "the President that negotiated with Iran", and he's willing to sellout America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the Kurds, and anybody else he can sellout, just to get his historical footnote. Of course, that gets back to delusional because he's stupid enough to think that coming to an agreement with Iran will end up being a good thing. If he does get an agreement with Iran, the history books won't end up saying "the President that negotiated with Iran" - they will say "the Chump who caved in to Iran on every single point and destabilized the entire Middle East". (I realize the Middle East is not known for its stability, but after Obama is done, forget about it)

Good post, and he is obsessed, with himself.

He is the only president to have ever compared himself to previous presidents, plural, being Lincoln, FDR and at one point Kennedy, so we know he has his nervous eye on his "historical" place in things.

About a month before he took the oath of office I related that Barack Hussein Obama used the word "I" or it's derivatives, me, me mine, twice as much as any other president. I maintain that he has only ever had two goals, to get re-elected and his legacy. First was Obamacare, what the rest of the world is laughing at, then to be the "peace president". He did not retaliate on the dead in Benghazi because you see, it had been "pacified" with Hilary's grand Budapest Hotel idea of regime change.

Now, he has already compared giving nukes to Iran with Nixon's visit to China. From day one it has been "**** America, this is about me".

[Jeff]

Obama took office to destroy white America, yes he is paying whitey back for the abuse the poor blacks have felt from our hands :rolleyes: Put any other Black thug in office and he/she will do the same thing, Obama is a racist of the worst kind. Every time this so called president opened his mouth was against the white police force or to advance blacks in general, and yes it is a fact blacks consider Jews the worst of the crackers ( hell they own everything ) Obama made this deal to put his name in the history books, I agree, but I think for all the reason I have read and some, yes he gave a Muslim nation Nukes to take out Israel ( remember Jews are most hated ) After Israel is done then all those Muslim countries Unite and they come after anyone that isn't a Muslim, so now we have a complete rebellious war going on while back on the home front he is pushing for a race war, yup lets stir the black thugs up, Which he has done, and now lets fire up Whitey, which is happening rather quickly now. And in case that doesn't work lets throw the entire country in a tail spin and let fags marry each other, and for good measure from now on a marriage is a Union and will no longer be called Husband and Wife.

So lets see, he has a religious war right around the corner, a race war well on it's way, and absolutely no morals what so ever in this country ( where as if folks had some morals they might actually smarten up and ban together ) yup he has pretty much destroyed the country, Now his name will go into the history books and the Blacks will have the entire country a Ghetto ( if that good ) yup one hell of a legacy, but it is what he wanted.

[Balu]

Obama took office to destroy white America, yes he is paying whitey back for the abuse the poor blacks have felt from our hands :rolleyes: Put any other Black thug in office and he/she will do the same thing, Obama is a racist of the worst kind. Every time this so called president opened his mouth was against the white police force or to advance blacks in general, and yes it is a fact blacks consider Jews the worst of the crackers ( hell they own everything ) Obama made this deal to put his name in the history books, I agree, but I think for all the reason I have read and some, yes he gave a Muslim nation Nukes to take out Israel ( remember Jews are most hated ) After Israel is done then all those Muslim countries Unite and they come after anyone that isn't a Muslim, so now we have a complete rebellious war going on while back on the home front he is pushing for a race war, yup lets stir the black thugs up, Which he has done, and now lets fire up Whitey, which is happening rather quickly now. And in case that doesn't work lets throw the entire country in a tail spin and let fags marry each other, and for good measure from now on a marriage is a Union and will no longer be called Husband and Wife.

So lets see, he has a religious war right around the corner, a race war well on it's way, and absolutely no morals what so ever in this country ( where as if folks had some morals they might actually smarten up and ban together ) yup he has pretty much destroyed the country, Now his name will go into the history books and the Blacks will have the entire country a Ghetto ( if that good ) yup one hell of a legacy, but it is what he wanted.
I see that too many of you do not like your President. I wonder why you elected him for the second period? Or, it were not you who have done this? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dntknw.gif

[Drummond]

I see that too many of you do not like your President. I wonder why you elected him for the second period? Or, it were not you who have done this? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dntknw.gif

You've found something we can agree on, Balu. Seeing Obama elected for another term was a phenomenon that baffled the hell out of me, too ...

[Drummond]

I've just had this sent to me. I'm sure you'll agree with me that it is instructive ..

http://unitedwithisrael.org/iran-steps-back-from-nuclear-deal-commitments/?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Iran+Backs+Away%3B+Shocking+US+Contrad iction%3B+Watch+How+Iran%3DNorth+Korea&utm_campaign=20150721_m126656681_Iran+Backs+Away%3 B+Shocking+US+Contradiction%3B++Watch+How+Iran+%3D +North+Korea&utm_term=Iran+Backs+Away+from+Nuclear+Deal+Commitm ents


Iran appears to be already stepping back from its commitment in the nuclear agreement for transparency in the development of ballistic missiles. Its Foreign Ministry, the Defense Minister, and the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps all objected to a UN Security Council resolution, which expressed approval of the nuclear deal, for not removing limits to Iran’s ballistic missile program. They also indicated that they did not intend to grant IAEA nuclear inspectors access to conventional military sites.

The Security Council resolution Monday noted that another resolution will be necessary in order to lift the restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program after eight years. The Iranian Foreign Ministry responded in a statement, saying, “Iran’s military capacities, especially ballistic missiles, are strictly defensive and, as they have not been conceived to carry nuclear weapons, they are outside the scope and competence of the Security Council resolution"

Iran’s Foreign Ministry also insisted that there would be no need for nuclear inspectors to examine the facilities used to develop its ballistic missile program, claiming that “since there has never been nuclear activity at any military site, Iran is certain there will not be any request to inspect such sites.”

The nuclear agreement with the P5+1 obligates Iran to allow nuclear inspectors into purportedly conventional military sites if the IAEA finds evidence of nuclear activities taking place. Iran is also prohibited from developing ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

“Tehran will not allow any foreigner to discover Iran’s defensive and missile capabilities by inspecting the country’s military sites,” Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghanhe told Fars news agency.

For his part, IRGC head Maj. Gen. Mohammed Ali Jafari told the Tansim news agency that “some points inserted in the draft [UN resolution] have clearly crossed the Islamic Republic of Iran’s red lines and violate them, especially regarding Iran’s arms capabilities. We will never accept it.”

Iran is heavily invested in its ballistic missiles program, including developing missiles capable of hitting Israel. Iran is also the primary supplier of missiles to Israel’s enemies – the Hamas and Hezbollah terror groups.

The obvious point to make is that if they've nothing to hide, then inspections would be of no consequence to Iran. But .. the prospect of them seems to worry them greatly.

Who's to say that their missile sites wouldn't also double as sites housing nuclear facilities ? Perhaps THIS is the way (or part of the way) Iran intended to dupe the world as to its true capabilities ?

Even I'm surprised that Iran chose to start its backsliding quite this quickly. I expected nothing until an actual inspection request was made, THEN for Iran to start its antics ....

[Kathianne]

Dr Strangelove:

http://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2015/07/22/iran-deal-the-return-of-dr-strangelove/?singlepage=true


Iran Deal: The Return of Dr. Strangelove

by Roger L Simon
JULY 22, 2015 - 9:44 PM

(10)


Two articles concerning the Iran deal that appeared in the Wall Street Journal recently should be mandatory reading for all 2016 candidates and all media covering them, because they raise so many difficult questions. And I include in this Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders because every plausible candidate from either side should be questioned in detail directly on the specifics because they concern nuclear war. What, pray tell, is more important?

The first article is “Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close (http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-inspections-in-24-days-not-even-close-1437521911),” by Hillel Fradkin and Lewis Libby (yes, the unfairly-incarcerated (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/04/18/judith_miller_recants_wheres_the_media_126289.html ) ”Scooter” is back). They demonstrate how the already-excessive 24-day window for the Iranians to respond to accusations against the Islamic Republic is not even close to the real window actually being given the Iranians. That is several months or more.

Is this surprising? Not to anyone paying the slightest attention to how this deal was negotiated. But Fradkin and Libby have done a superb job in laying it out.

Yet more disturbing, if that’s possible, is this report by Jay Solomon in the Wall Street Journal –“Sanctions to be Lifted on Iranians Suspected of Nuclear Weapons Work”: (http://www.wsj.com/articles/sanctions-to-be-lifted-on-iranians-suspected-of-nuclear-weapons-work-1437520905)


The Obama administration and European Union agreed as part of the accord last week to lift sanctions over eight years on a network of Iranian scientists, military officers and companies long suspected by the U.S. and United Nations as central players in a covert nuclear weapons program.

The U.S. also agreed to remove a German engineer from its financial blacklist by late 2023 after he was targeted by sanctions for his alleged role in a global black market in nuclear weapons technology run by the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan.

The decision to roll back sanctions on these individuals and organizations is detailed in more than 100 pages of documents released last week as part of the landmark nuclear accord reached between Iran and six world powers.
...

What are these folks supposed to be doing after the sanctions are lifted? Twiddling their thumbs? In celluloid terms — Mein Führer, I can walk! Dr. Strangelove is back!

The lifting of sanctions on these hugely-dangerous individuals and groups is all the more disgusting (that’s the only word I can think of…. immoral?… suicidal? … well, maybe. Think Slim Pickens! (http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2012/10/truckers-are-leery-of-new-85-mph-highway-texas-tribune-reports.html/)), considering Obama, Kerry and company have been doing cartwheels to explain why they had to take the release of innocent Americans held in Iran off the table. Can some so-called “liberal” or “progressive” explain this to me? Forget the “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” nonsense or Benghazi was caused by some video no one saw, when it comes to the “bright, shining lies” of the Obama administration, the Iran deal will lap the field. Can you imagine someone in Saudi Arabia reading the articles linked above — and they assuredly do — and thinking Iran will not get the bomb.

Where do we go from here? Candidates?

[FearandLoathing]

You've found something we can agree on, Balu. Seeing Obama elected for another term was a phenomenon that baffled the hell out of me, too ...

Yes, but easily understood.

No other president has exhibited the skills and savvy as Mr. Obama in the delivery of his message.

As above, the campaign to reelect Obama began the Thursday following the election. His entire administration consisted of buying votes, promising a new tomorrow, and taking the fight to Republicans in the most ugly and divisive manner in modern history. By the time the "campaign" was on, he had successfully labelled Republicans "enemies", and "obstructionist" among other things, even once complaining that he, a sitting president, should have to meet with leaders, as if Clinton, Bush, Reagan, et al never had. And then of course the Republican candidate was a "tax cheat"....they said so on the senate floor...

He had convinced America there was peace, he "ended" the war in Iraq, forced a regime change in Libya and Egypt, played hi with Arab Spring, so, really, there was no terrorists threat.

Then the Republicans came to the fore with a collection of misfits, choosing the weakest candidate possible, a guy who can close boardroom deals, but can't get his message to the public, and having taken the lead in debates, gave up that lead like the Toronto Maple Leafs in the playoffs.

It's all propaganda. The majority of citizens in the US were convinced all was well, and Obama was still the man to lead them to that wonderful socialist utopia.......then the world learned, no way can you keep your plan, and that $2,500 average savings? Well, that was an "accounting error"......

In short, he won because more people believed his bullshit than saw through it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I see that too many of you do not like your President. I wonder why you elected him for the second period? Or, it were not you who have done this? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dntknw.gif

Damn sure was not me either time. I would not elect that bastard to be city dog catcher. In fact, the damn traitor should be rotting in prison for his treason IMHO.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes, but easily understood.

No other president has exhibited the skills and savvy as Mr. Obama in the delivery of his message.

As above, the campaign to reelect Obama began the Thursday following the election. His entire administration consisted of buying votes, promising a new tomorrow, and taking the fight to Republicans in the most ugly and divisive manner in modern history. By the time the "campaign" was on, he had successfully labelled Republicans "enemies", and "obstructionist" among other things, even once complaining that he, a sitting president, should have to meet with leaders, as if Clinton, Bush, Reagan, et al never had. And then of course the Republican candidate was a "tax cheat"....they said so on the senate floor...

He had convinced America there was peace, he "ended" the war in Iraq, forced a regime change in Libya and Egypt, played hi with Arab Spring, so, really, there was no terrorists threat.

Then the Republicans came to the fore with a collection of misfits, choosing the weakest candidate possible, a guy who can close boardroom deals, but can't get his message to the public, and having taken the lead in debates, gave up that lead like the Toronto Maple Leafs in the playoffs.

It's all propaganda. The majority of citizens in the US were convinced all was well, and Obama was still the man to lead them to that wonderful socialist utopia.......then the world learned, no way can you keep your plan, and that $2,500 average savings? Well, that was an "accounting error"......

In short, he won because more people believed his bullshit than saw through it.

Some of that is true, he did start second term campaigning in his first acceptance speech. Yet credit for both catastrophic wins goes to the sad state of our public education system , the sold out media and allowing tens of millions in (illegal) foreign campaign money to give him even more of an edge !


In short, he won because more people believed his bullshit than saw through it
^^^^ Dead on accurate! Bravo! Tyr

[Drummond]

Some of that is true, he did start second term campaigning in his first acceptance speech. Yet credit for both catastrophic wins goes to the sad state of our public education system , the sold out media and allowing tens of millions in (illegal) foreign campaign money to give him even more of an edge !


^^^^ Dead on accurate! Bravo! Tyr

We have to hope that there's enough obvious evidence out there -- of the type that people just can't ignore -- to prove to people that they'd have to be nuts to vote the Dems back in again.

Russ mentions Iraq. Well, Iraq 'and the neighbourhood' have learned what much-publicised premature troop withdrawals led to. Hello ISIS, and a new and especially pernicious round of Islamist thuggery. BBC, take note: they're called TERRORISTS.

So much for peace.

[Jeff]

I see that too many of you do not like your President. I wonder why you elected him for the second period? Or, it were not you who have done this? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dntknw.gif

It wasn't due to my vote my little commie buddy, he was elected because of his skin color and because we have Dumb asses called Liberals, they like everything that isn't the norm, put the black vote and the liberal vote plus the immigrants , and of course we can't forget the dead vote ( and the other ways he cheated ) now that is how he got in.

[LongTermGuy]

It wasn't due to my vote my little commie buddy, he was elected because of his skin color and because we have Dumb asses called Liberals, they like everything that isn't the norm, put the black vote and the liberal vote plus the immigrants , and of course we can't forget the dead vote ( and the other ways he cheated ) now that is how he got in.

:clap::clap::clap:
http://www.politifake.org/image/political/small/1108/dying-to-vote-obama-liberals-democrats-voter-fraud-politics-1312586780.jpg#liberal%20voter%20fraud%20336x266

https://andelino.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/chicago-even-the-dead-can-vote.jpg
http://www.politifake.org/image/political/small/1111/dead-democrats-in-ohio-upset-dead-voters-politics-1320840078.jpg

[revelarts]

.Do you folks think a war with IRAn is the best course of action at this point?

[Jeff]

.Do you folks think a war with IRAn is the best course of action at this point?

Rev I don't think it is the best plan at all, I just believe that Obama has set the stage for it. Unless of course we do as Obama wishes and sit back and watch Iran blow Israel off the face of the map and we don't do anything about it.

[jimnyc]

.Do you folks think a war with IRAn is the best course of action at this point?

At this point, and "war", no. But I wouldn't mind (that was prior to making this idiotic deal), if Israel or ANYONE would fly over and simply take out any of their nuclear plants and end the issue. These nitwits are still goading us and calling for death (rhetoric) and that other crap the day after this shitty deal was made.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

.Do you folks think a war with IRAn is the best course of action at this point?

The insane obama has laid the groundwork for WW3 with this deal if it stands and most likely it will stand despite it being the exact opposite of what this nation should do!
The bambastard has actually engaged in Treason with this deal and absolutely undercut Israel our Ally....
A habit he has of alienating our allies and pandering to our enemies, do you ever wonder why that is???-Tyr

[sundaydriver]

.Do you folks think a war with IRAn is the best course of action at this point?


For too many that can only view baffling problems in black & white, good or bad, with violence being the only solution, that answer is yes.

[jimnyc]

For too many that can only view baffling problems in black & white, good or bad, with violence being the only solution, that answer is yes.

It's not that violence is the only solution - but Iran doesn't want any other solution other than going forward. Their mocking of the USA the day after this "deal" proves their intent, IMO. Their denial of inspections in the past, and then the growth as predicted also shows their intent. This isn't about black or white or only solutions, but about a country who supports terrorism, even currently of course, building nuclear factories, reaching for nuclear weapons, laughing at the world as they do so, and being defiant AND having their leaders still calling for the death of America and Israel.

[sundaydriver]

I only see two options. War or negotiate. Judging from the outcome in Iraq I doubt war at least for now is not the better option. The sanctions, killing scientists, computer viruses didn't stop Iran from what they were doing. An air campaign will set them back but not stop them and occupying another ME country will only raise ire & determination against us.

I'm not suggesting we throw our hands and give up or that the deal BO wants is the best deal and we should just hope for the best. The Sunni monarchies won't deal with the Shia's themselves but want us to shed the blood and treasure and also take on the Sunni extremists that they cultivated and financed as long as they stayed outside of their countries but are now threatened themselves by.

The only thing that I can see the deal doing is lengthening the time for Iran to have a bomb if that is their intention. Bombing them will only shorten it less than the deal. And time and opening the world to the young Iranian people is a good possibility for change in the countries leadership.

[FearandLoathing]

I only see two options. War or negotiate. Judging from the outcome in Iraq I doubt war at least for now is not the better option. The sanctions, killing scientists, computer viruses didn't stop Iran from what they were doing. An air campaign will set them back but not stop them and occupying another ME country will only raise ire & determination against us.

I'm not suggesting we throw our hands and give up or that the deal BO wants is the best deal and we should just hope for the best. The Sunni monarchies won't deal with the Shia's themselves but want us to shed the blood and treasure and also take on the Sunni extremists that they cultivated and financed as long as they stayed outside of their countries but are now threatened themselves by.

The only thing that I can see the deal doing is lengthening the time for Iran to have a bomb if that is their intention. Bombing them will only shorten it less than the deal. And time and opening the world to the young Iranian people is a good possibility for change in the countries leadership.

The sanctions were working. Obama created a stupid-logic meme that Iran would get the bomb sooner if sanctions were left in place, and the "stupid voter" bought it. By doubling down on sanctions Iran would have been hamstrung; Obama, ever mindful of his peace prize did not want an all-out Iran-backed insurgency, content with the proxy war.

So with war off the table, what happens when Iran says "screw you, no more inspections"? Kind of late to re-impose sanctions when they have the bomb.

[Drummond]

I only see two options. War or negotiate. Judging from the outcome in Iraq I doubt war at least for now is not the better option. The sanctions, killing scientists, computer viruses didn't stop Iran from what they were doing. An air campaign will set them back but not stop them and occupying another ME country will only raise ire & determination against us.

I'm not suggesting we throw our hands and give up or that the deal BO wants is the best deal and we should just hope for the best. The Sunni monarchies won't deal with the Shia's themselves but want us to shed the blood and treasure and also take on the Sunni extremists that they cultivated and financed as long as they stayed outside of their countries but are now threatened themselves by.

The only thing that I can see the deal doing is lengthening the time for Iran to have a bomb if that is their intention. Bombing them will only shorten it less than the deal. And time and opening the world to the young Iranian people is a good possibility for change in the countries leadership.

It's my understanding that the crippling effect of sanctions, applied for so long a period, was what finally made them 'negotiate' seriously. Until the recent round of talks, all they did was play a delaying game.

As it is, and considering Obama's obsession with his international image, to say nothing of giving Iran a much-needed boost (!) -- Iran's come out it a clear winner. I've already posted a link which shows that Iran can delay any inspection request for up to 24 days before they have to defer to it. Perhaps more seriously, in the shorter term, is that any lifting of sanctions greatly boosts their capacity to support terrorism. Now, WHY would Obama be willing to allow such conditions to come about ?

Oh, and Iran forbids any inspections of missile bases ! They lost no time, AFTER the deal was signed, to make that clear. What if Iran chooses to make those bases dual-purpose .. part missile base, part nuclear facility ? And WHY would they effectively make it impossible for inspectors to see if Iranian missiles were nuclear warhead-capable, i.e could carry one over distances that could reach Israel, for example ?

THE DEAL STINKS - PURE & SIMPLE.

I honestly think the only way forward is for inspectors to make their demands for access. That's to say, both at all known nuclear facilities, AND at missile bases. It should be made clear to the Iranians that any refusals, or even protracted delaying tactics from Iran, risks 'serious consequences' ... reminiscent of those which Saddam Hussein so memorably experienced, in 2003.

If warfare has to happen, let it be Iran that insists upon it, by not playing ball.

[jimnyc]

I only see two options. War or negotiate.

Or the 3rd option - take out their nuclear capabilities and continue sanctions. I don't believe a full on war is necessary.

[Drummond]

Or the 3rd option - take out their nuclear capabilities and continue sanctions. I don't believe a full on war is necessary.

Granted, that would avert all-out war. Still, terrorist factions receiving support from Iran wouldn't be best pleased (especially if they thought they'd reap nuclear dividends of their own), not to mention Iran themselves ! I'm guessing that you'd see a massive ramping-up of terrorist activity perpetrated against the US, not to mention multiple attacks on US bases and embassies worldwide.

Oh, and the Left would be unhappy. Which is terribly sad .... :rolleyes::gives:

I think it's better, if draconian action is proven necessary, just to militarily crush Iran and be done with it.

[jimnyc]

Granted, that would avert all-out war. Still, terrorist factions receiving support from Iran wouldn't be best pleased (especially if they thought they'd reap nuclear dividends of their own), not to mention Iran themselves ! I'm guessing that you'd see a massive ramping-up of terrorist activity perpetrated against the US, not to mention multiple attacks on US bases and embassies worldwide.

I think it's better, if draconian action is proven necessary, just to militarily crush Iran and be done with it.

It would avert all out war - and set back their nuclear ambitions considerably. Of course then we can monitor for chatter and such, and no doubt they would seek retribution via terrorism, I have very little doubt of that.

[Drummond]

It would avert all out war - and set back their nuclear ambitions considerably. Of course then we can monitor for chatter and such, and no doubt they would seek retribution via terrorism, I have very little doubt of that.

It'd probably coincide with new and much ramped-up efforts from the Left, over here, to clamp down on GCHQ's activities. Even if I say so myself, GCHQ in Cheltenham has excellent monitoring facilities, and it's a well-known fact that GCHQ's material is regularly shared with the US ....

[Kathianne]

The sanctions were working. Obama created a stupid-logic meme that Iran would get the bomb sooner if sanctions were left in place, and the "stupid voter" bought it. By doubling down on sanctions Iran would have been hamstrung; Obama, ever mindful of his peace prize did not want an all-out Iran-backed insurgency, content with the proxy war.

So with war off the table, what happens when Iran says "screw you, no more inspections"? Kind of late to re-impose sanctions when they have the bomb.
Indeed. It's Obama that came up with the choice of 'war or deal.' What this 'deal' is really isn't all that different than what the UN could have brought to bear. Without a doubt, most of the ME countries that now are going to go into nuclear race, would have backed it.

Interesting that the admin went to UN after, not before.