Historic US-Iran nuclear deal could be taking shape

[inbangkok]

t>

Please stop the silly spin. You just said that the program in 2003 was a "complete lie" a few posts back. The Israeli strike DID stop Iraq's nuclear program. You have outwitted yourself.

Two conditionals at once can be real tricky for some folks.

The 1981 strike by Israel prevented Iraq from ever developing a successful nuclear weapons program - which is all that matters. Is that clear enough for you?

1981 was more than 30 years ago.

Attacking Iran's nuclear facilities at this point in time and developments would likely unleash a global fury of reactions as a direct response, from an overt military response to a proliferation of sustained terrorist attacks. Diplomacy would be shattered and smashed, as would the existing tenuous and fragile peace that does exist.

Everyone knows this.

The United States would need to go to Defcon 3 or 2. What would Russia do? China? India, Pakistan?

Anyone who doubts it or would actually deny the reality of it must speak now or forever hold his peace.

It would have to be Defcon 2 on the off chance that Iran actually already has a functioning nuclear weapon with an ICBM (regardless of how unlikely that is). The chance of the US, Israel...no matter how big the coalition is.....being able to successfully destroy every one of Iran's facilities and centrifuges would also be highly unlikely.

[Publicus]

In spite of the hype, there is no definitive evidence Iran is working to develop a nuclear weapon.

There is TONS of circumstantial evidence and that is enough to convict in a court of law. This agreement would most likely allow Iran enough centrifuges to make nuclear weapons, but not enough to provide power.

One element that’s fully expected in a long-term arrangement is a limit on the number and kinds of centrifuges Iran can use to enrich uranium. Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell said there’s an irony in that.

"If you are going to have a nuclear weapons program, 5,000 is pretty much the number you need," Morell, now a CBS analyst, said on Charlie Rose. "If you have a power program, you need a lot more. By limiting them to a small number of centrifuges, we are limiting them to the number you need for a weapon."

Our ruling

Morell said that it takes fewer centrifuges to make bomb-grade nuclear material than it does to supply fuel for a nuclear power plant and argued that the focus on centrifuges can go too far.

That argument aside, experts agreed that Morrell has his facts right. A power plant requires tons of fuel each year. A bomb requires about 25 kilograms of U-235 enriched to the 90 percent level. If an agreement limits Iran to about 9,000 centrifuges, that would be sufficient to produce enough bomb-grade material but would leave Iran well short of the capacity to generate fuel to power nuclear power plants.

We rate Morrell’s claim True.

To make uranium fuel rods the 9,000 would be the minimum but the Joint Action Plan signed by the P5+1 and Iran late last year reduces Iran's centrifuges to 5000 from its 20,000 and counting.

The suxtet virus specifically targets centrifuges and it destroyed an entire building of centrifuges by spinning 'em all so fast they burst and flooded the building with radioactive shards and goo.

Iran can't generate fuel or power without raw ore which it must import and Iran's imports of raw ore whether above ground or on the black market are readily identifiable and traceable.

Further posts in this vein will require nuclear scientists and engineers instead of ordinary posters so why don't the pretenders just chill.

[chuckd]

Au contraire. 59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only 23 percent oppose it.

It is no surprise the poll cited in the post was done by a Republican who also consulted on the Netanyahu election campaign.

GOP pollster: Most Americans support Benjamin Netanyahu speech

A poll found that 59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only 23 percent oppose it

The poll — conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, a pollster that worked for former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) — found that 59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only 23 percent oppose, according to results obtained by POLITICO. McLaughlin & Associates CEO John McLaughlin has also advisedNetanyahu during his current reelection campaign

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/benjamin-netanyahu-congress-speech-poll-115305.html#ixzz3SzihNM6E

CNN/ORC poll: Majority of Americans oppose Netanyahu invite

We've been down this road before at this thread and I pointed this out before, but the energizer bunnies of the far right keep repeating themselves which all the same must be addressed.

"We've been down this road before at this thread and I pointed this out before, but the energizer bunnies of the far right keep repeating themselves which all the same must be addressed."

Then perhaps you might like to address these points from the poll itself.

Or perhaps you might even remain silent and let the readers decide for themselves just how biased (or not) this poll actually was.

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

Demographics of those polled:

1. Party affiliation

Republican -- 32%

Democrat ---- 38%

Independent - 31%

2. Ideology

Liberal ------- 32%

Moderate ---- 34%

Conservative 34%

3. Age

18-29 ----- 15%

30-40 ----- 18%

41-55 ----- 27%

56-65 ----- 21%

Over 65 -- 19%

4. Race

African-American - 12%

Hispanic ------------ 12%

White -----------------71%

Asian ------------------ 3%

5. Gender

Male ----- 47%

Female - 53%

Spin away.

[BKKBobby]

Au contraire. 59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only 23 percent oppose it.

It is no surprise the poll cited in the post was done by a Republican who also consulted on the Netanyahu election campaign.

GOP pollster: Most Americans support Benjamin Netanyahu speech

A poll found that 59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only 23 percent oppose it

The poll — conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, a pollster that worked for former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) — found that 59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only 23 percent oppose, according to results obtained by POLITICO. McLaughlin & Associates CEO John McLaughlin has also advisedNetanyahu during his current reelection campaign

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/benjamin-netanyahu-congress-speech-poll-115305.html#ixzz3SzihNM6E

CNN/ORC poll: Majority of Americans oppose Netanyahu invite

We've been down this road before at this thread and I pointed this out before, but the energizer bunnies of the far right keep repeating themselves which all the same must be addressed.

"We've been down this road before at this thread and I pointed this out before, but the energizer bunnies of the far right keep repeating themselves which all the same must be addressed."

Then perhaps you might like to address these points from the poll itself.

Or perhaps you might even remain silent and let the readers decide for themselves just how biased (or not) this poll actually was.

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

Demographics of those polled:

1. Party affiliation

Republican -- 32%

Democrat ---- 38%

Independent - 31%

2. Ideology

Liberal ------- 32%

Moderate ---- 34%

Conservative 34%

3. Age

18-29 ----- 15%

30-40 ----- 18%

41-55 ----- 27%

56-65 ----- 21%

Over 65 -- 19%

4. Race

African-American - 12%

Hispanic ------------ 12%

White -----------------71%

Asian ------------------ 3%

5. Gender

Male ----- 47%

Female - 53%

http://images.politico.com/global/2015/02/18/national_omnibus_-_february_2015_-_san_-_memo.html

Spin away.

Who cares about these domestic polls regarding this issue?

Its not an US domestic issue.

Its the UN security council that are negotiating with Iran.

What if 99% of the US citizens vote that US should attack Iran tomorrow without any regards to what the UN security council says?

It doesnt make the attack legitimate.

[Publicus]

Au contraire. 59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only 23 percent oppose it.

It is no surprise the poll cited in the post was done by a Republican who also consulted on the Netanyahu election campaign.

GOP pollster: Most Americans support Benjamin Netanyahu speech

A poll found that 59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only 23 percent oppose it

The poll — conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, a pollster that worked for former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) — found that 59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only 23 percent oppose, according to results obtained by POLITICO. McLaughlin & Associates CEO John McLaughlin has also advisedNetanyahu during his current reelection campaign

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/benjamin-netanyahu-congress-speech-poll-115305.html#ixzz3SzihNM6E

CNN/ORC poll: Majority of Americans oppose Netanyahu invite

We've been down this road before at this thread and I pointed this out before, but the energizer bunnies of the far right keep repeating themselves which all the same must be addressed.

"We've been down this road before at this thread and I pointed this out before, but the energizer bunnies of the far right keep repeating themselves which all the same must be addressed."

Then perhaps you might like to address these points from the poll itself.

Or perhaps you might even remain silent and let the readers decide for themselves just how biased (or not) this poll actually was.

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

Demographics of those polled:

1. Party affiliation

Republican -- 32%

Democrat ---- 38%

Independent - 31%

2. Ideology

Liberal ------- 32%

Moderate ---- 34%

Conservative 34%

3. Age

18-29 ----- 15%

30-40 ----- 18%

41-55 ----- 27%

56-65 ----- 21%

Over 65 -- 19%

4. Race

African-American - 12%

Hispanic ------------ 12%

White -----------------71%

Asian ------------------ 3%

5. Gender

Male ----- 47%

Female - 53%

Spin away.

The post forgot to include the winding whopper of a question the pollster McLaughlin & Associates asked the respondents (see below).

The post also excluded the fact the pollster McLaughlin is on the advisory team for Netanyahu in the upcoming election.

The post further failed to point out that McLaughlin & Associates has received the "Hired Gun" award from mediaethics.com, which noted in its hilairous presentation, "Some critics argue that polls do not reflect so much what the public is thinking, but what pollsters want the public to think. Well, the Hart and McLaughlin polling organizations are here to prove the critics right." Media Ethics placed McLaughlin & Associates in its category of Top 10 Dubious Polling Awards given annually.

From the Jerusalem Post to cite but one report on the dis extinguished Mr. McLaughlin and his Associates....

GOP Pollster, with Likud link, suggests majority of Americans support PM's congress speech

A new poll by a Republican pollster with links to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's campaign suggests that a majority of Americans support his speech before Congress on the issue of Iranian nuclear negotiations.

According the poll, which was conducted by McLaughlin & Associates and obtained by Politico, 50 percent said they support Netanyahu's controversial speech before Congress, 23% opposed it and 18% said they don't know.

Furthermore, 67% of those polled said they believed that if the Iranians obtain a nuclear weapon, they would use it against Israel or the US.

The poll has received some criticism for its question framing. For example, the main question of the poll is: "President Obama and some Democrats think it should be cancelled because it is 2 weeks before an Israeli election. Israeli Prime Minister wants to speak to the American Congress to try to stop a deal that would give Iran a nuclear weapon. These negotiations are set to conclude 3 weeks after the Prime Minister’s speech. Knowing all of this is true, do you support or oppose Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking to Congress on March 3rd?”

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/GOP-Pollster-with-Likud-link-shows-majority-of-Americans-support-PMs-congress-speech-391507

McLaughlin & Associates' terrible polling track record

Updated to include Eric Cantor's disastrous 2014 GOP primary poll

https://storify.com/DKElections/mclaughlin-and-associates-terrible-2012-polling

Edited February 28, 2015 by Publicus

[chuckd]

"We've been down this road before at this thread and I pointed this out before, but the energizer bunnies of the far right keep repeating themselves which all the same must be addressed."

Then perhaps you might like to address these points from the poll itself.

Or perhaps you might even remain silent and let the readers decide for themselves just how biased (or not) this poll actually was.

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

Demographics of those polled:

1. Party affiliation

Republican -- 32%

Democrat ---- 38%

Independent - 31%

2. Ideology

Liberal ------- 32%

Moderate ---- 34%

Conservative 34%

3. Age

18-29 ----- 15%

30-40 ----- 18%

41-55 ----- 27%

56-65 ----- 21%

Over 65 -- 19%

4. Race

African-American - 12%

Hispanic ------------ 12%

White -----------------71%

Asian ------------------ 3%

5. Gender

Male ----- 47%

Female - 53%

http://images.politico.com/global/2015/02/18/national_omnibus_-_february_2015_-_san_-_memo.html

Spin away.

Who cares about these domestic polls regarding this issue?

Its not an US domestic issue.

Its the UN security council that are negotiating with Iran.

What if 99% of the US citizens vote that US should attack Iran tomorrow without any regards to what the UN security council says?

It doesnt make the attack legitimate.

What does the UN Security Council have to do with the Iranian negotiations? The Security Council isn't involved in the least with the negotiations.

Since when do US citizens vote for or against war and since when has the Constitution of the United States been abrogated to the rules of the UN?

It is rather amazing that in your self proclaimed 32 years of life, you have managed to learn so much that is so wrong.

[Chicog]

What does the UN Security Council have to do with the Iranian negotiations? The Security Council isn't involved in the least with the negotiations.

The "P5" in "P5+1" stands for the five Permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Just sayin' like.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Chicog

[BKKBobby]

"We've been down this road before at this thread and I pointed this out before, but the energizer bunnies of the far right keep repeating themselves which all the same must be addressed."

Then perhaps you might like to address these points from the poll itself.

Or perhaps you might even remain silent and let the readers decide for themselves just how biased (or not) this poll actually was.

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

Demographics of those polled:

1. Party affiliation

Republican -- 32%

Democrat ---- 38%

Independent - 31%

2. Ideology

Liberal ------- 32%

Moderate ---- 34%

Conservative 34%

3. Age

18-29 ----- 15%

30-40 ----- 18%

41-55 ----- 27%

56-65 ----- 21%

Over 65 -- 19%

4. Race

African-American - 12%

Hispanic ------------ 12%

White -----------------71%

Asian ------------------ 3%

5. Gender

Male ----- 47%

Female - 53%

http://images.politico.com/global/2015/02/18/national_omnibus_-_february_2015_-_san_-_memo.html

Spin away.

Who cares about these domestic polls regarding this issue?

Its not an US domestic issue.

Its the UN security council that are negotiating with Iran.

What if 99% of the US citizens vote that US should attack Iran tomorrow without any regards to what the UN security council says?

It doesnt make the attack legitimate.

What does the UN Security Council have to do with the Iranian negotiations? The Security Council isn't involved in the least with the negotiations.

Since when do US citizens vote for or against war and since when has the Constitution of the United States been abrogated to the rules of the UN?

It is rather amazing that in your self proclaimed 32 years of life, you have managed to learn so much that is so wrong.

Chuck D,

Im just saying that polls showing if the US public should negotiate or attack Iran and etc. is unimportant.

USA attacked Iraq going against the opinion of UN.

Do you know the meaning of P5+1?

[Publicus]

Who cares about these domestic polls regarding this issue?

Its not an US domestic issue.

Its the UN security council that are negotiating with Iran.

What if 99% of the US citizens vote that US should attack Iran tomorrow without any regards to what the UN security council says?

It doesnt make the attack legitimate.

What does the UN Security Council have to do with the Iranian negotiations? The Security Council isn't involved in the least with the negotiations.

Since when do US citizens vote for or against war and since when has the Constitution of the United States been abrogated to the rules of the UN?

It is rather amazing that in your self proclaimed 32 years of life, you have managed to learn so much that is so wrong.

Missed the boat again soo let's try to lay out the record here for all to see....

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has adopted six resolutions as part of international efforts to address Iran’s nuclear program. The central demand by the council is that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program, as well as undertake several confidence-building measures outlined in a February 2006 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors resolution - including reconsidering the construction of its heavy-water reactor and ratifying the IAEA Additional Protocol. The council initially laid out these calls in a nonbinding Security Council presidential statement adopted in March 2006. (See ACT, April 2006.)

Almost all the resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, making most of the provisions of the resolutions legally binding on Iran, or all UN member states. Four of them include a series of progressively expansive sanctions on Iran and or Iranian persons and entities. The sanctions represent one track in a “dual-track approach” pursued by the permanent five members of the council and Germany (the so-called P5+1), to address Iran’s nuclear program. The other track involves a June 2006 proposal for comprehensive negotiations with Iran which was updated in June 2008. (See History of Proposals on the Iranian Nuclear Issue.)

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Security-Council-Resolutions-on-Iran

In 2006 the United States, China, Russia joined the EU-3 of UK, Germany, France to engage Iran in negotiations over its nuclear program

Some people live twice as long yet they keep missing the boat, soo here's this too.......

What Would An Effective Comprehensive Nuclear Deal With Iran Look Like?

http://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2015-02-09/What-Would-An-Effective-Comprehensive-Nuclear-Deal-With-Iran-Look-Like%3F

Iran Nuclear Negotiations: Separating Myth from Reality

As the United States and its P5+1 negotiating partners (China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom) move closer to a comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran, myths and misperceptions about Iran's nuclear program, its intentions, and U.S. policy goals in the negotiations cloud discussion of this important international security priority.

An effective, verifiable comprehensive nuclear agreement is in the best interest of the U.S. national security and the stability of the Middle East. Such an important issue deserves discussion and debate based on facts, not myths.

This issue brief seeks to dispel some of the most commonly held and articulated misconceptions about Iran's nuclear activities and the negotiations.

http://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2015-01-23/Iran-Nuclear-Negotiations-Separating-Myth-from-Reality

[BKKBobby]

Who cares about these domestic polls regarding this issue?

Its not an US domestic issue.

Its the UN security council that are negotiating with Iran.

What if 99% of the US citizens vote that US should attack Iran tomorrow without any regards to what the UN security council says?

It doesnt make the attack legitimate.

What does the UN Security Council have to do with the Iranian negotiations? The Security Council isn't involved in the least with the negotiations.

Since when do US citizens vote for or against war and since when has the Constitution of the United States been abrogated to the rules of the UN?

It is rather amazing that in your self proclaimed 32 years of life, you have managed to learn so much that is so wrong.

Missed the boat again soo let's try to lay out the record here for all to see....

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has adopted six resolutions as part of international efforts to address Iran’s nuclear program. The central demand by the council is that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program, as well as undertake several confidence-building measures outlined in a February 2006 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors resolution - including reconsidering the construction of its heavy-water reactor and ratifying the IAEA Additional Protocol. The council initially laid out these calls in a nonbinding Security Council presidential statement adopted in March 2006. (See ACT, April 2006.)

Almost all the resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, making most of the provisions of the resolutions legally binding on Iran, or all UN member states. Four of them include a series of progressively expansive sanctions on Iran and or Iranian persons and entities. The sanctions represent one track in a “dual-track approach” pursued by the permanent five members of the council and Germany (the so-called P5+1), to address Iran’s nuclear program. The other track involves a June 2006 proposal for comprehensive negotiations with Iran which was updated in June 2008. (See History of Proposals on the Iranian Nuclear Issue.)

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Security-Council-Resolutions-on-Iran

In 2006 the United States, China, Russia joined the EU-3 of UK, Germany, France to engage Iran in negotiations over its nuclear program

Some people live twice as long yet they keep missing the boat, soo here's this too.......

What Would An Effective Comprehensive Nuclear Deal With Iran Look Like?

http://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2015-02-09/What-Would-An-Effective-Comprehensive-Nuclear-Deal-With-Iran-Look-Like%3F

Iran Nuclear Negotiations: Separating Myth from Reality

As the United States and its P5+1 negotiating partners (China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom) move closer to a comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran, myths and misperceptions about Iran's nuclear program, its intentions, and U.S. policy goals in the negotiations cloud discussion of this important international security priority.

An effective, verifiable comprehensive nuclear agreement is in the best interest of the U.S. national security and the stability of the Middle East. Such an important issue deserves discussion and debate based on facts, not myths.

This issue brief seeks to dispel some of the most commonly held and articulated misconceptions about Iran's nuclear activities and the negotiations.

http://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2015-01-23/Iran-Nuclear-Negotiations-Separating-Myth-from-Reality

Here is someone that has a memory that holds a lot of sources that is food for thought (Requires using your brain. Instead of only reciting what you read/watched, which backs up your dogmatic views).

In contrast to some people who only throws out whatever source to make it seem like a nonsense post proves anything.

I recommend "you" to click on the link about seperating myth from reality.

Edited February 28, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Scott]

Please stay on topic and refrain from making personal remarks aimed at other members.

The topic is about the US-Iran nuclear situation.

[JDGRUEN]

This article - link below - is very revealing of obama's many equivocal positions on terrorism and his counter intuitive position on Iran ...

Obama’s Failure

The problem in each of these instances wasn’t just that the descriptions were incorrect. It’s that the administration knew they were wrong and made the false claims anyway.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obama-s-failure_867714.html

[chuckd]

The following article released yesterday on the Israel-Iran standoff, and Obama's possible contribution to the effort.

Denial is more than a river in Egypt.

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

Administration denies Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli warplanes

By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro - The Washington Times - Sunday, March 1, 2015

President Obama threatened last year, according to Middle Eastern news outlets Sunday, to use the U.S. military to shoot down Israeli fighter jets if they attempted to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities — reports the administration denounced later Sunday as flatly untrue.

Mr. Obama’s threat reportedly deterred Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from dispatching warplanes into Iran after Israel discovered that the U.S. had entered into secret talks with Tehran and that the two countries had signed an agreement, according to Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.

In a statement to The Washington Times early Sunday evening, a senior administration said “that report is totally false.”

Al-Jarida also reported Sunday that “well placed” sources confirmed an unnamed Israeli minister disclosed the plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Mr. Obama replied by warning that he would foil the plan by shooting down Israeli jets before they could reach their target destinations.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/1/report-obama-threatened-shoot-down-israeli-warplan/#ixzz3TCMYuG8l

[joesanunu]

The following article released yesterday on the Israel-Iran standoff, and Obama's possible contribution to the effort.

Denial is more than a river in Egypt.

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

Administration denies Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli warplanes

By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro - The Washington Times - Sunday, March 1, 2015

President Obama threatened last year, according to Middle Eastern news outlets Sunday, to use the U.S. military to shoot down Israeli fighter jets if they attempted to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities — reports the administration denounced later Sunday as flatly untrue.

Mr. Obama’s threat reportedly deterred Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from dispatching warplanes into Iran after Israel discovered that the U.S. had entered into secret talks with Tehran and that the two countries had signed an agreement, according to Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.

In a statement to The Washington Times early Sunday evening, a senior administration said “that report is totally false.”

Al-Jarida also reported Sunday that “well placed” sources confirmed an unnamed Israeli minister disclosed the plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Mr. Obama replied by warning that he would foil the plan by shooting down Israeli jets before they could reach their target destinations.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/1/report-obama-threatened-shoot-down-israeli-warplan/#ixzz3TCMYuG8l

"That report is totally false" according to the party allegedly involved so why bother posting when it has already been denied?

"Some people say Obama will shoot down the Israeli jets..."

That is a technique that FOX "journalists" use to spread false info. Some people say....blah blah blah.

Thats the kind of journalism we have to tolerate?

[Ulysses G.]

"That report is totally false" according to the party allegedly involved so why bother posting when it has already been denied?

The same party that said you can keep your doctor and your health plan? They are not known for their honesty.

[chuckd]

The following article released yesterday on the Israel-Iran standoff, and Obama's possible contribution to the effort.

Denial is more than a river in Egypt.

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

Administration denies Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli warplanes

By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro - The Washington Times - Sunday, March 1, 2015

President Obama threatened last year, according to Middle Eastern news outlets Sunday, to use the U.S. military to shoot down Israeli fighter jets if they attempted to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities — reports the administration denounced later Sunday as flatly untrue.

Mr. Obama’s threat reportedly deterred Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from dispatching warplanes into Iran after Israel discovered that the U.S. had entered into secret talks with Tehran and that the two countries had signed an agreement, according to Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.

In a statement to The Washington Times early Sunday evening, a senior administration said “that report is totally false.”

Al-Jarida also reported Sunday that “well placed” sources confirmed an unnamed Israeli minister disclosed the plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Mr. Obama replied by warning that he would foil the plan by shooting down Israeli jets before they could reach their target destinations.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/1/report-obama-threatened-shoot-down-israeli-warplan/#ixzz3TCMYuG8l

"That report is totally false" according to the party allegedly involved so why bother posting when it has already been denied?

"Some people say Obama will shoot down the Israeli jets..."

That is a technique that FOX "journalists" use to spread false info. Some people say....blah blah blah.

Thats the kind of journalism we have to tolerate?

You have a problem with my post, take it up with the Washington Post.

It has absolutely nothing to do with your Fox driven brain waves.

[BKKBobby]

"That report is totally false" according to the party allegedly involved so why bother posting when it has already been denied?

The same party that said you can keep your doctor and your health plan? They are not known for their honesty.

Your post is a only a low-level try to deflect from the fact you were presented.

[Grouse]

What does the UN Security Council have to do with the Iranian negotiations? The Security Council isn't involved in the least with the negotiations.

The "P5" in "P5+1" stands for the five Permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Just sayin' like.

Ha! Ha! Love the subtle approach!

[chuckd]

What does the UN Security Council have to do with the Iranian negotiations? The Security Council isn't involved in the least with the negotiations.

The "P5" in "P5+1" stands for the five Permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Just sayin' like.

Ha! Ha! Love the subtle approach!

Yeah, that was a good one.

[Grouse]

What does the UN Security Council have to do with the Iranian negotiations? The Security Council isn't involved in the least with the negotiations.

The "P5" in "P5+1" stands for the five Permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Just sayin' like.

Ha! Ha! Love the subtle approach!

I love it when a clueless smug individual gets cornered in a subtle smooth way.

Wish I could think of a subtle smooth response to that......

[harryfrompattaya]

Netanyahu is a warmongerer and Obama is right to show him the door. Boehner on the other hand is a gibbering orange glove puppet.

When Iran and America sign a treaty America shall sell a million of tons of Rice per Year

The Rice Company's are behind this treaty Netanyahu wants part of the rice trade

[Chicog]

What time is BlaBla's big speech by the way? For comedic value it might merit a late night (or an early start). I've got Fox at home so I'm pretty certain I can watch it.

[Publicus]

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal?

Target and completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done it twice and stopped two different nuclear weapons programs in their tracks.

The demand that no deal is better than what is invariably called a "bad" deal means any deal is a bad deal so there should be no deal whatsoever.

Is there such a thing as a good deal? And why is any or every possible nuclear deal with Iran a "bad" deal ?

[BKKBobby]

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal?

Target and completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done it twice and stopped two different nuclear weapons programs in their tracks.

The demand that no deal is better than what is invariably called a "bad" deal means any deal is a bad deal so there should be no deal whatsoever.

Is there such a thing as a good deal? And why is any or every possible nuclear deal with Iran a "bad" deal ?

Sanctions will not stop Irans nuclear program.

Only option if theres no deal is military action against Iran.

Then I would like to ask people that advocate military action this question:

What will happen after Irans nuclear facilities gets bombed?

Iran is not afraid of nuclear weapons. It will not be a deterrent cause they know nuclear weapons wont be used in a way as to kill people or destroy cities.

Edited March 3, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Publicus]

What time is BlaBla's big speech by the way? For comedic value it might merit a late night (or an early start). I've got Fox at home so I'm pretty certain I can watch it.

The Israeli Bubba will address the joint session of the Congress held in the House chamber at 10:45 a.m. Tuesday, March 3rd Eastern Standard Time, which in this instance means Washington DC time.

For reference, that is 5:50 pm Tuesday in Israel (five minute delay).

C-SPAN will carry it live so anyone with tv or online access to C-SPAN can watch it. There are probably some other media that will carry it but I'm not chasing after it, that's for sure.

Here anyway is what I have happened upon so far in the course of today: WATCH BENJAMIN NETANYAHU'S ADDRESS TO CONGRESS ON ABC ACTION NEWS NOW ON TUESDAY (Speech to start between 10 and 11 a.m.): wfts.tv/1jGWUtl

The link to wfts.tv/1jGWUtl is to a direct online streaming of a live television news feed at a Florida tv station affiliated with the American Broadcasting Corp (ABC News).

The ABC News direct broadcast link itself for viewing the ABC originated feed live is: http://www.abcactionnews.com/video/abc-action-news-now.

Bangkok time for the speech is 10:45 pm Tuesday.

I'd say this info is reliable however no one should take these times and links as gospel.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Publicus

[BKKBobby]

What time is BlaBla's big speech by the way? For comedic value it might merit a late night (or an early start). I've got Fox at home so I'm pretty certain I can watch it.

The Israeli Bubba will address the joint session of the Congress held in the House chamber at 10:45 a.m. Tuesday, March 3rd Eastern Standard Time, which in this instance means Washington DC time.

For reference, that is 5:50 pm Tuesday in Israel (five minute delay).

C-SPAN will carry it live so anyone with tv or online access to C-SPAN can watch it. There are probably some other media that will carry it but I'm not chasing after it, that's for sure.

Here anyway is what I have happened upon so far in the course of today: WATCH BENJAMIN NETANYAHU'S ADDRESS TO CONGRESS ON ABC ACTION NEWS NOW ON TUESDAY (Speech to start between 10 and 11 a.m.): wfts.tv/1jGWUtl

The link to wfts.tv/1jGWUtl is to a direct online streaming of a live television news feed at a Florida tv station affiliated with the American Broadcasting Corp (ABC News).

The ABC News direct broadcast link itself for viewing the ABC originated feed live is: http://www.abcactionnews.com/video/abc-action-news-now.

Bangkok time for the speech is 10:45 pm Tuesday.

I'd say this info is reliable however no one should take these times and links as gospel.

Thanks. A bit late for me, will have to catch up on what will be said tomorrow.

Hopefully his speech wont make any difference. Because he dont want any kind of deal. No compromise at all will make Iran go solo with its nuclear program.

There must be some sort of compromise.

Hes fishing for a future reason to use military action against Iran at some point. Or make the sanctions harder and harder (collective punishment) which only hits the population. Which he hopes leads to a rebellion/revolution. History shows us that a bad leadership usually gets replaced by some equally bad leadership when your meddling in the ME/Africa

A deal is needed. Lifting of sanctions in trade of a transparent nuclear program that keeps within the limits of only being a peaceful nuclear program and not be used to make nuclear weapons.

Edited March 3, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Ulysses G.]

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal?

Target and completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done it twice and stopped two different nuclear weapons programs in their tracks.

The demand that no deal is better than what is invariably called a "bad" deal means any deal is a bad deal so there should be no deal whatsoever.

Is there such a thing as a good deal? And why is any or every possible nuclear deal with Iran a "bad" deal ?

Sanctions will not stop Irans nuclear program.

They might have if Obama had not eased them just when Iran was getting really desperate, but reinstating them would be very difficult. This guy does not make good choices when it comes to foreign policy.

[Publicus]

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal?

Target and completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done it twice and stopped two different nuclear weapons programs in their tracks.

The demand that no deal is better than what is invariably called a "bad" deal means any deal is a bad deal so there should be no deal whatsoever.

Is there such a thing as a good deal? And why is any or every possible nuclear deal with Iran a "bad" deal ?

Sanctions will not stop Irans nuclear program.

Only option if theres no deal is military action against Iran.

Then I would like to ask people that advocate military action this question:

What will happen after Irans nuclear facilities gets bombed?

Iran is not afraid of nuclear weapons. It will not be a deterrent cause they know nuclear weapons wont be used in a way as to kill people or destroy cities.

Indeed and there is a central point about superpower and mega-state total war in the 21st century that needs to be stated openly. The reference is to countries such as the US, Russia, China and Iran if Iran might at some point sooner or later produce nuclear weapons (apart from whether or not there is an agreement).

No state with nuclear weapons wants to initiate use of them even in the most dire of circumstances. Retaliation is another matter as it by definition is not first use.

The initiator of a World War III does not want to inherit a nation or a continent of radiated and glazed over rubble, which is what they'd get if they initiated a nuclear war. Never mind the sanity of it, look at the gaming of it at the Pentagon and in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran.

Initiator of a WWIII wants to kill people but not destroy infrastructure that can be used immediately after conquest. Which is why the CCP Boyz in Beijing are developing genetic biological warfare. It is genetically possible to develop biological agents that affect people of a certain race or ethnicity only. It is far from perfect and still being developed and refined, but it has a definite efficacy.

Chemicals are not discrete but biological agents get very discreet. The trick is simply to commit enough unlimited budget and resources to make it work, eventually, sooner or later. Beijing has made this commitment.

The CCP Boyz in Beijing figure if they can manage and control the killing of 250 million Americans by genetic biological warfare, they can leave the infrastructure throughout the vast country intact while reducing the population to the point it could not resist assault and attack. That would occur after the Chinese military would incapacitate US satellite and cyber war capabilities...a high tech power outage which could be done by any number of means.

Russia and the US on the other hand give a low priority to biological (or chemical) warfare. The US is bound by a biological and chemical warfare treaty and would suffer greatly if it were producing such agents and were somehow Snowdened to the world on such a policy or doctrine. Russia sees no point to it.

The US and Russia instead do rely on cyber warfare and the US relies on cyber warfare and satellite hi-tech warfare. Beijing knows that during the invasion of Iraq the US used more than 80% of all US satellites in space to include those owned privately, the latter being commandeered instantly without appeal or recourse, on the basis of national security statutes. That confirmed to Beijing the US hi-tech cyber and satellite war strategy and doctrine.

The Russian invasion of Georgia confirmed to everyone Moscow's cyber warfare strategy and doctrine which is formidable. Russia's plans are to win its all out war using its very hi-tech and highly developed cyber capabilities to clear the way for heavy ground forces and powerful air forces.

The US is well aware of Beijing's focused knockout strategy against US high tech warfare capabilities, so the Pentagon has developed the doctrine of withstanding a knockout cyber attack against its highly sophisticated capabilities on land, sea, in the air, in cyberspace, and for its satellites in earth orbit. After withstanding a first electro-magnetic and hi-tech cyber assault and missile blows against its military capabilities, the US would then launch an integrated and devastatingly sophisticated "star wars" counterattack. Neither side would go nuclear however.

The point being none of the existing three big state nuclear actors -- the US, Russia, China -- ever plan to use their nuclear arsenal except possibly all or more likely in part as a retaliatory strike force.

So regardless of whether Iran might at some point develop ten nuclear weapons or 200+ of them, civilian and military policy makers together among the major powers and of course in Israel would need to determine how the ayatollahs might think of an all out war (and a lower intensity use of a nuclear weapon). Would the ayatollahs regard a nuclear arsenal as their first strike preference and in fact doctrine? Or would Iran take one of the other approaches used variously by China, or Russia, or the US? Or something else yet again that might be uniquely Persian in its nature?

The doctrine of using nuclear weapons as a first strike offensive line of deterrence and defense is actually so very Cold War, so un-21st century.

[Chicog]

According to the Fox News website it is 11:00ET/16:00GMT/19:00AST/23:00 Thailand.

About 15 minutes from now.

[up-country_sinclair]

According to the Fox News website it is 11:00ET/16:00GMT/19:00AST/23:00 Thailand.

About 15 minutes from now.

Let the choreographed ovations begin.

By the way, what's the over/under on the number of phony ovations? I'd say it will be about 30.