US: GOP tries to undercut nuclear deal with warning to Iran

[Publicus]

Just wait until Obama tries to stop the sanctions without Congress.

EU and UN sanction relief to an even limited degree and with other liftings put into a schedule and checklist will be fine for Iran, even though the ayatollah is hollering for all sanctions to be lifted the moment he signs on the dotted line and even though he and everyone else know isn't going to happen.

The single killer sanction, the unique one that brought Iran back to the negotiating table in 2012 was the EU severing Iran from the SWIFT global electronic banking system, to include the Iran Central Bank. The SWIFT system does $6 Trillion of transactions daily at its base in Belgium, thus making it subject to EU laws. The EU lifting the unique and killer SWIFT sanction would put Iran back in global business enough to make a huge difference almost immediately.

The US Treasury Department enforces the crucial financial sanctions that are among the US imposed sanctions, so if every bank around the globe knows the Treasury got busy with other things after an agreement, a lot of stuff can happen for Iran, provided the mullahs are and remain in compliance with any agreement that may come out in the next few daze as the March 30th interim deadline is upon us, then the June 30th date for a conclusive agreement.

Yes yes, Congress and only congress can remove the US sanctions congress voted to impose against Iran, so yes the US sanctions can remain in place eternally. In politics however eternity often means until the next Congress, which takes us to January, 2017 which is just a short couple of weeks before the new prez takes the oath Jan 20th.

[chuckd]

Any of you Islamic firsters care to tell us exactly how many US servicemen or women have lost their lives in defense of Israel?

How many have been killed in any or all of the wars Israel has had to fight in defense of their nation?

All these nonsensical allegations that the US is being led down the primrose path to a war with ??? are going nowhere.

Israel doesn't need the US to fight their wars. They can handle things very well by themselves, as they have proven since gaining Statehood.

What they don't need is being thrown under the bus because the President has had his feelings hurt.

Well if you think the 241 Americans who died in Beirut in 1983 were there just to help out Lebanon, then I've learned something astonishing about you today.

Please explain yourself.

[thaibeachlovers]

The Obama agreement with Iran is how you give everything away to the enemy and claim to have won something.

Reminds me of Chamberlain with his "piece of paper". That didn't turn out so well either.

[Publicus]

It is boring in the extreme to hear the same voices that during the Cold War said of every treaty between the US and the USSR that the US got taken to the woods shaking their rattled and pounding their same drums again.. That was always false. Also look at which country is still here and which is not.

The is more of the same concerning the P5+1 and Iran. The US is having the wool pulled down over its eyes etc etc etc.

These declaratory statements from the right offer nothing new, better, different. It's the same banal statements now as then.

[chuckd]

It is boring in the extreme to hear the same voices that during the Cold War said of every treaty between the US and the USSR that the US got taken to the woods shaking their rattled and pounding their same drums again.. That was always false. Also look at which country is still here and which is not.

The is more of the same concerning the P5+1 and Iran. The US is having the wool pulled down over its eyes etc etc etc.

These declaratory statements from the right offer nothing new, better, different. It's the same banal statements now as then.

The difference between the Cold War and now is that now we have Obama and Kerry negotiating on behalf of the US.

They are racing to see which one of them gets to raise the white flag.

Following is an interesting EDITORIAL that sheds some new light on the negotiations.

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

U.S. Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together

BY: Adam Kredo

March 26, 2015 2:00 pm

LAUSSANE, Switzerland—The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.

U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.

Until recently, the Obama administration had maintained that it would guarantee oversight on Tehran’s program well into the future, and that it would take the necessary steps to ensure that oversight would be effective. The issue has now emerged as a key sticking point in the talks.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-caves-to-key-iranian-demands-as-nuke-deal-comes-together/

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

If Obama/Kerry permit Iran to get away with this, IAEA inspectors will have no benchmark to check against in future inspections.

My guess is we will cave.

[arjunadawn]

And this is why "Israel Firsters" could justifiably be labeled as treasonous.

If anyone but anti-Semitic conspiracy nuts believed in such a thing, but would the Zionist Occupied Government - ZOG - be willing to try them in a court of law? It might blow their cover

If there were some mechanism whereby an agreed standard existed that effectively could label another as an "Israeli Firster" one would still then have to define by who's definition would they then be "treasonous?" New Zealand? UK? America? UAE? Seems to me those who disagree with the above poster constitute those who would be "Israeli Firsters" and who's views are therefore "treasonous" to the poster alone. The mountain necessary to otherwise climb and make sense of such a statement is absurdly vertical, impossible to scale!

[Scott]

Some off-topic, inflammatory posts have been removed along with replies. I'll give you a clue. Call or directly insinuate that someone is a liar and you will get suspended. Talking about how many brain cells a person is using is derogatory, inflammatory and will earn suspensions.

If you can't discuss in a civil manner, then please leave the topic.

You have been warned.

[Chicog]

Any of you Islamic firsters care to tell us exactly how many US servicemen or women have lost their lives in defense of Israel?

How many have been killed in any or all of the wars Israel has had to fight in defense of their nation?

All these nonsensical allegations that the US is being led down the primrose path to a war with ??? are going nowhere.

Israel doesn't need the US to fight their wars. They can handle things very well by themselves, as they have proven since gaining Statehood.

What they don't need is being thrown under the bus because the President has had his feelings hurt.

Well if you think the 241 Americans who died in Beirut in 1983 were there just to help out Lebanon, then I've learned something astonishing about you today.

Please explain yourself.

No Chuck I'm not going down another of your sidetracks again.

If you want the simple answer to your first question:

At least 241.

Added: I forgot the 34 that died on the Liberty. But Israel killed them. Can I include them?

Edited March 27, 2015 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

Israel knows it can't defeat Hezbollah

Amazing that Hezbollah does not just march in and take over the country then. It must be Christian charity that stops them.

I'm a bit amazed at you posting that, you being an ex-marine.

You clearly know there's a difference between offence and defence. No one is of the opinion that Hezbollah have the manpower or hardware to march into Israel and seize the country, and that's not what I posted.

You said "Israel knows it can't defeat Hezbollah". That is present tense and that is what I replied to. You did not mention that you were talking about a war almost 10 years ago, before Israel (allegedly) got around to assassinating their leader who started the whole mess.

Something like ten times more Lebanese than Israelis were killed and entire towns in South Lebanon were completely destroyed. Is that a victory? Nasrallah himself, had to apologize to the Lebanese for the death and destruction he brought down on their heads, before Israel put him out of his misery.

Hezbollah was driven 30 miles from the Israel border and the Lebanese border has been mostly quiet ever since.THAT (and getting back the kidnapped soldiers), was the point of the operation in the first place.

If your REAL point is that the 2006 war was pretty much a draw, you MIGHT have a point.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[arjunadawn]

During the evolution of this thread, from the byline in news to the commentary today, it is easy to see how shortsighted the topic was "GOP undercuts..."

Obama will undercut the senate in regard to the executive prerogatives embedded in the law itself; moreover, Obama will use ancillary vehicles to further undermine and undercut anything that could remotely be constituted as an American prerogative, a Western Ideal, a long standing position, etc. Undercut? Obama just released a document on NATO and Israeli nuclear capabilities that redacted the NATO countries; this can hardly be declared anything other than an undercut. In so doing, Obama seeks to take from Israel first strike options by permitting fortified bunker enrichment, under whatever fantastical rationales they employ. The only thing being undercut in this whole process is the possibility of any peace in the mid term.

Obama's plan is a bipolar middle-east and he is trying to force the sunni and Israeli into an alliance because of a shared threat, Iran. This nonsensical limited value analysis that is the result of JFK's Freedom from War analysis in the 60's seeks to rebrand the glue that binds nations and regions to war and nationalism. By attempting to redefine this glue Obama hopes he can more locally exact concessions in the Israeli/Local Arab situation. His reasoning is maddening and truly apocalyptic.

In this savage, uneducated perspective, Obama believes regional parity will be achieved. It is among the most blind actions any leader can take. Fewer things could provoke war with as much certainty.

[Chicog]

Israel knows it can't defeat Hezbollah

Amazing that Hezbollah does not just march in and take over the country then. It must be Christian charity that stops them.

I'm a bit amazed at you posting that, you being an ex-marine.

You clearly know there's a difference between offence and defence. No one is of the opinion that Hezbollah have the manpower or hardware to march into Israel and seize the country, and that's not what I posted.

You said "Israel knows it can't defeat Hezbollah". That is present tense and that is what I replied to. You did not mention that you were talking about a war almost 10 years ago, before Israel (allegedly) got around to assassinating their leader who started the whole mess.

Something like ten times more Lebanese than Israelis were killed and entire towns in South Lebanon were completely destroyed. Is that a victory? Nasrallah himself, had to apologize to the Lebanese for the death and destruction he brought down on their heads, before Israel put him out of his misery.

Hezbollah was driven 30 miles from the Israel border and the Lebanese border has been mostly quiet ever since.THAT (and getting back the kidnapped soldiers), was the point of the operation in the first place.

If your REAL point is that the 2006 war was pretty much a draw, you MIGHT have a point.

It's a nice bit of spin, but it doesn't detract from the fact that it got Hezbollah a huge amount of kudos and support as the Lebanese saw them as the only people fighting back against the Israelis.

Militarily it might eve have been a victory, politically it was a disaster.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been removed along with replies.

There are a number of off-topic, side topics being discussed. Members need to get back to the main topic. Continued off-topic posts will be removed.

[Chicog]

If you are going to take the piss out of the 47, I can't think of a better way to do it than in a style to which they have become accustomed.

This woman has a brilliant sense of humour! Submitting an amendment....

“PURPOSE: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to prohibiting the purchase of stationary [sic] or electronic devices for the purpose of members of Congress or congressional staff communicating with foreign governments and undermining the role of the President as Head of State in international nuclear negotiations on behalf of the United States.”

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/StabenowvCotton.pdf

[Publicus]

It is boring in the extreme to hear the same voices that during the Cold War said of every treaty between the US and the USSR that the US got taken to the woods shaking their rattled and pounding their same drums again.. That was always false. Also look at which country is still here and which is not.

The is more of the same concerning the P5+1 and Iran. The US is having the wool pulled down over its eyes etc etc etc.

These declaratory statements from the right offer nothing new, better, different. It's the same banal statements now as then.

The difference between the Cold War and now is that now we have Obama and Kerry negotiating on behalf of the US.

They are racing to see which one of them gets to raise the white flag.

Following is an interesting EDITORIAL that sheds some new light on the negotiations.

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

U.S. Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together

BY: Adam Kredo

March 26, 2015 2:00 pm

LAUSSANE, Switzerland—The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.

U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.

Until recently, the Obama administration had maintained that it would guarantee oversight on Tehran’s program well into the future, and that it would take the necessary steps to ensure that oversight would be effective. The issue has now emerged as a key sticking point in the talks.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-caves-to-key-iranian-demands-as-nuke-deal-comes-together/

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

If Obama/Kerry permit Iran to get away with this, IAEA inspectors will have no benchmark to check against in future inspections.

My guess is we will cave.

The difference between the Cold War and now is that now we have Obama and Kerry negotiating on behalf of the US.

They are racing to see which one of them gets to raise the white flag.

Following is an interesting EDITORIAL that sheds some new light on the negotiations.

My guess is we will cave.

Sure, of course, the difference between the Cold War series of nuclear negotiations and now is no difference as far as the Cold Warriors in their present incarnation are concerned. Whomever is negotiating on the behalf of the United States and the United Nations automatically arrives trudging forth amidst a platoon of white flags whipping in the headwinds of a brazen and always superior enemy, which is complete bullshit.

Of course that is the "guess" of the hard-line right that is against any deal at all under any circumstances because youse guyz want no deal.

UK says failure to reach Iran nuclear deal could lead to Middle East arms race

Failure to reach a deal on Iran's nuclear programme would mean a "fundamentally" more unstable Middle East and the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the region, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said.

"No deal means no restrictions on enrichment, no restrictions on research and development, and no independent monitoring or verification. It means a fundamentally more unstable Middle East, with the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the region."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/26/uk-iran-nuclear-britain-idUKKBN0MM01120150326?rpc=401

If the Cold Warriors presently carrying on as hard-liners and opponents of an Iran nuclear weapons agreement had prevailed during the Cold War against Russia, we'd all still be digging out of the mass of rubble. Well, not all of us...

Negotiations over anything involves give and take. The opposition to nuclear weapons limitations and controls will always denounce the normal and natural give and take as sellouts, capitulations, giving up ground, caving, giving in, conceding some kind of nasty advantage to the other side, a whitewash, making the enemy stronger, being taken to the woods by sly and crafty enemy negotiators etc etc.

Neither side in this is being taken to the woods. These are adults who have identified specific interests held by each respective side concerning nuclear weapons. The negotiators and the negotiations are in fact the United Nations Security Council making demands of the ayatollahs of Iran. So I know who is on my side in this and I feel good about it. I know who is not on my side and based on historical experience I feel even better about that because that side are proven losers, and long term losers besides.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

During the evolution of this thread, from the byline in news to the commentary today, it is easy to see how shortsighted the topic was "GOP undercuts..."

Obama will undercut the senate in regard to the executive prerogatives embedded in the law itself; moreover, Obama will use ancillary vehicles to further undermine and undercut anything that could remotely be constituted as an American prerogative, a Western Ideal, a long standing position, etc. Undercut? Obama just released a document on NATO and Israeli nuclear capabilities that redacted the NATO countries; this can hardly be declared anything other than an undercut. In so doing, Obama seeks to take from Israel first strike options by permitting fortified bunker enrichment, under whatever fantastical rationales they employ. The only thing being undercut in this whole process is the possibility of any peace in the mid term.

Obama's plan is a bipolar middle-east and he is trying to force the sunni and Israeli into an alliance because of a shared threat, Iran. This nonsensical limited value analysis that is the result of JFK's Freedom from War analysis in the 60's seeks to rebrand the glue that binds nations and regions to war and nationalism. By attempting to redefine this glue Obama hopes he can more locally exact concessions in the Israeli/Local Arab situation. His reasoning is maddening and truly apocalyptic.

In this savage, uneducated perspective, Obama believes regional parity will be achieved. It is among the most blind actions any leader can take. Fewer things could provoke war with as much certainty.

seeks to rebrand the glue that binds nations and regions to war and nationalism

Some people use glue while other people sniff it. The Sunnis and the Shia are moving decidedly into a condition of some extent of a war between them. This is an ages old conflict. In its present circumstance, it needs to be kept at the level of conventional conflict, which requires controls, limits, restrictions on all things nuclear, to include especially and in particular any first strike capability of a nation that is presently under the absolute control of the extreme right sector of politics and government, to include the right sector's approach to regional issues and conflicts in the most volatile region of the world.

The approach of the government of the United States is to override, limit, restrict, control, rather than to undercut. If in the presently increasing chaos a dirty bomb might explode in a certain country, what then. An all out nuclear response? A one warhead response? And in either response, what then? The extremely volatile developing situation in the ME needs control, tight restrictions, limitations, a rational balance and limitations. The right sector there poses an inherent imbalance in its thinking, approaches, actions, which means riding herd over it is an absolute necessity.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Publicus

[chuckd]

"restrictions on all things nuclear, to include especially and in particular any first strike capability of a nation that is presently under the absolute control of the extreme right sector of politics and government, to include the right sector's approach to regional issues and conflicts in the most volatile region of the world."

...And what country might that be?

[Publicus]

"restrictions on all things nuclear, to include especially and in particular any first strike capability of a nation that is presently under the absolute control of the extreme right sector of politics and government, to include the right sector's approach to regional issues and conflicts in the most volatile region of the world."

...And what country might that be?

Pardon?

[snarky66]

Patriots are hoping that the only adults in the room, the French will talk barry back off the ledge.

[Jai Dee]

One troll post has been removed from this thread.