Iran nuclear deal

[clear thinker]

Obama needs some foreign policy "achievement" (if you can call this deal that) because he came into office 6 years ago riding on the waves of foreign policy utopia and now he's on his way out and he's accomplished nothing and bungled everything.

That's just simply not true!
Wasn't his "arab spring" approach a solid success??
Oh well...

[Aj3042]

That's just simply not true!
Wasn't his "arab spring" approach a solid success??
Oh well...

You're right! It was a huge success but these American ingrates just don't appreciate it!

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Both. For Israel it's obvious so i assume you're asking about the US.
It is furthering alienating regimes in the area that ate more friendly to American interests.  Makes US look weak and naive in foreign policy and it will embolden or enemies especially Iran. It will allow Iran to gain even greater influence in the weaker nations in the region. ...

Do you feel Iran will have to bomb sooner or later because of this deal?

[elit]

Do you feel Iran will have to bomb sooner or later because of this deal?

Not sure but even if the answer is later its a bad deal bc the sanctions were working enough to get them to the table and they are letting them get away which wastes all this time they put into sanctions

[clear thinker]

Do you feel Iran will have to bomb sooner or later because of this deal?

I don't think it's gonna be a difference in time, rather they can go about their business of getting their bombs without worrying about the USA overlooking them and without worrying about sanctions, so that the Iranian people don't riot ie 2009.

[Aj3042]

I don't think it's gonna be a difference in time, rather they can go about their business of getting their bombs without worrying about the USA overlooking them and without worrying about sanctions, so that the Iranian people don't riot ie 2009.

But...but...they promised they wouldn't!

[elit]

[Aj3042]

Wow great stuff.

[avremie]

But if in 10 years Iran has the bomb, everyone will blame Obama. So that argument is ridiculous.

You really think it won't be somebody else fault?

[clear thinker]

You really think it won't be somebody else fault?

It's definitely Bush's fault.

[zale]

This question is for the left or center-left-leaning members of this forum:

(I'm not going to site sources. Feel free to use Google.)

• Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism. This is not up for debate, it is a cold, hard fact.
• Not two days ago, there was a massive rally in the streets of Tehran with thousands of Iranians shouting "death to Israel" and "death to America".
• Iran is controlled by fanatic Mullahs who have openly stated that their goal is to destroy Israel.
• Top intelligence agencies from all over the world, headed by the CIA and the Mossad, have reported that Iran has been lying about their "peaceful" motives, and that they are enriching uranium at a level which is only used for weapons.
• It has been proven that Iran has lied to international inspectors
• Iran has blocked inspectors from entering some of their production facilities

My question is as follows:

Considering the facts above, how can anything a state sponsor of terrorism signs be trusted?

[Aj3042]

As Obama so intelligently stated, this deal is not about trust but about verification. Of course we don't trust them but if we get suspicious of them all we need to do to find out the truth is
A. Take a few weeks to cut through bureaucratic red tape to convene the signers of the deal
B. Take a few more weeks of talks to get a majority of the signers to agree to inspections.
C. Take a few weeks politely arranging with our buddies the Iranians when and where it is most convenient for the inspectors to go.
D. If we do find activity, take a few weeks arguing over the implications and convincing the world it true.
E. Take an eternity of regret that they got the bomb while we did what we live doing-"talking" and "sitting around the table".
So that's it. Very easily verified. No need for trust at all.

[clear thinker]

This question is for the left or center-left-leaning members of this forum:

(I'm not going to site sources. Feel free to use Google.)

• Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism. This is not up for debate, it is a cold, hard fact.
• Not two days ago, there was a massive rally in the streets of Tehran with thousands of Iranians shouting "death to Israel" and "death to America".
• Iran is controlled by fanatic Mullahs who have openly stated that their goal is to destroy Israel.
• Top intelligence agencies from all over the world, headed by the CIA and the Mossad, have reported that Iran has been lying about their "peaceful" motives, and that they are enriching uranium at a level which is only used for weapons.
• It has been proven that Iran has lied to international inspectors
• Iran has blocked inspectors from entering some of their production facilities

My question is as follows:

Considering the facts above, how can anything a state sponsor of terrorism signs be trusted?

I couldn't manage to find it, but didn't one of the top Iranian officials (maybe the revolutionary guard general) say that Iranians must not forget that America will always be their enemy even after the deal.

[clear thinker]

As Obama so intelligently stated, this deal is not about trust but about verification. Of course we don't trust them but if we get suspicious of them all we need to do to find out the truth is
A. Take a few weeks to cut through bureaucratic red tape to convene the signers of the deal
B. Take a few more weeks of talks to get a majority of the signers to agree to inspections.
C. Take a few weeks politely arranging with our buddies the Iranians when and where it is most convenient for the inspectors to go.
D. If we do find activity, take a few weeks arguing over the implications and convincing the world it true.
E. Take an eternity of regret that they got the bomb while we did what we live doing-"talking" and "sitting around the table".
So that's it. Very easily verified. No need for trust at all.

But I do like the fact that sanctions can just be "snapped" right back.
Are these people really sooo stupid or they just think we are??

[Aj3042]

But I do like the fact that sanctions can just be "snapped" right back.
Are these people really sooo stupid or they just think we are??

Well yes it's we are stupid-the Iranians are the smart ones.
And isn't this "Snapback" clause effective only after 65 days notice? So after we find evidence of their violation of the deal we give them 2 months until we put it back into effect.

[elit]

This question is for the left or center-left-leaning members of this forum:

(I'm not going to site sources. Feel free to use Google.)

• Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism. This is not up for debate, it is a cold, hard fact.
• Not two days ago, there was a massive rally in the streets of Tehran with thousands of Iranians shouting "death to Israel" and "death to America".
• Iran is controlled by fanatic Mullahs who have openly stated that their goal is to destroy Israel.
• Top intelligence agencies from all over the world, headed by the CIA and the Mossad, have reported that Iran has been lying about their "peaceful" motives, and that they are enriching uranium at a level which is only used for weapons.
• It has been proven that Iran has lied to international inspectors
• Iran has blocked inspectors from entering some of their production facilities

My question is as follows:

Considering the facts above, how can anything a state sponsor of terrorism signs be trusted?

Here's a liberal perspective for you
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/14/the-iran-deal-s-missing-ingredient.html

[zale]

Here's a liberal perspective for you
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/14/the-iran-deal-s-missing-ingredient.html

That's a perspective? I just read it, looks like a pile of crap written by an uber-liberal Obama shill.

Let me summarize that article:

"We get nothing out of this deal, and they get everything. But let's not look at it that way, because I trust in Obama, and I trust that this is the best deal we could ever get."

[ilherman]

I'm not into politics but here are my 2 questions.

1. As far as Iran is concerned why are they not allowed to have nuclear weapons? Why can the USA have nuclear bombs and they may not? If I would be Iran I would say "before we start ANY deal, I want all you big guys to get rid of all your nuclear weapons.  (of course WE know that Iran supports terrorism, still China and a lot of other countries consider Iran as a normal country, so here is my question)

2. Honestly speaking, there is no way that this is a concern for Israel and not as much for the US. IF Chas Veshulem Iran decides to send a nuclear bomb to Israel, then without a question world war 3 will be in place which means ...I don't want to proceed - So we the US people and the entire world should be as concerned.  Again, I am not talking to the people who think that this deal is a great thing and it will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but the people here in the US who think that this IS a bad deal should be concerned as well.

[AsherO]

But if in 10 years Iran has the bomb, everyone will blame Obama. So that argument is ridiculous.

+1, it's a short-term play, disastrous in the long-term.

Well yes it's we are stupid-the Iranians are the smart ones.

Of course, if "they" learn from their mistakes and "we" don't learn from ours, their intelligence will eventually exceed ours.

[lubaby]

I'm not into politics but here are my 2 questions.. What exactly is this "nuclear deal" we speak of? Does it have anything to do with the war between Amazon and Walmart tomorrow?

FTFY