Historic Iran nuclear deal reached

[Seastallion]

Another little item our more bombastic posters seem to be missing are the US sanctions.

The US first placed sanctions on Iran in 1979 following the Embassy takeover. Those original sanctions are still in place while others have been added over the years.

Those sanctions were passed into law by both Houses of Congress and signed by whichever President was in office at the time.

They are the law of the US.

How does Obama propose getting around this simple fact? Will he add those laws to the ones he has ignored during his reign or will he approach Congress in an attempt to get them to ease the sanctions more to his liking?

My guess is he will issue an Executive Order trying to change existing law (think immigration), bypassing Congress completely.

It will then be up to the Courts to make the final decision.

I don't know the details, so this is just a guess.......The sanctions were passed into law making them legal...ok.

So, does the law state that the sanctions are legal, or does the law state that the sanctions must be enforced? If the former, then there is no prohibition on relaxing the sanctions.

[thaibeachlovers]

Obama desperately needed an agreement, no matter how flawed. He has nothing else to leave as his "legacy", as he has failed at everything else. Even Obamacare is under threat of being destroyed by the courts, and if the Republicans win the presidency it's toast.

[chuckd]

Another little item our more bombastic posters seem to be missing are the US sanctions.

The US first placed sanctions on Iran in 1979 following the Embassy takeover. Those original sanctions are still in place while others have been added over the years.

Those sanctions were passed into law by both Houses of Congress and signed by whichever President was in office at the time.

They are the law of the US.

How does Obama propose getting around this simple fact? Will he add those laws to the ones he has ignored during his reign or will he approach Congress in an attempt to get them to ease the sanctions more to his liking?

My guess is he will issue an Executive Order trying to change existing law (think immigration), bypassing Congress completely.

It will then be up to the Courts to make the final decision.

I don't know the details, so this is just a guess.......The sanctions were passed into law making them legal...ok.

So, does the law state that the sanctions are legal, or does the law state that the sanctions must be enforced? If the former, then there is no prohibition on relaxing the sanctions.

To forego any semantic back and forth, let me put it this way.

Sanctions as passed by Congress and signed into law by a President are both legal and enforceable. It is the duty of the President to insure that these laws are faithfully executed but I have little faith in the present administration in that regard.

Some sanctions have been put in place by Presidential Executive Orders. Those are also legal and enforceable but only temporary in nature. They are not binding on any future administrations. In other words, Sanctions put in place by a Clinton Executive Order can be rescinded by an equally legal Obama Executive Order.

Laws are written by Congress in somewhat twisted manners at times. I have no idea whether any of the laws give any leeway to future Presidents to alter their terms of enforcement and have neither the time nor the inclination to read each and every sanction that has been passed since 1979 to find out.

If there is any leeway, this administration will either find it or make one up if that is their desire. They, however, cannot change the laws to suit themselves without Congressional approval.

FYI: http://www.cfr.org/iran/lengthening-list-iran-sanctions/p20258

[thaibeachlovers]

Some here fail to realise there is more than just the US in the P5 +1 gang.

Bibi is out on his own along with the loony tunes right wingers on all sides. Good, they have done nothing but spread death,destruction and misery.

Most hope the deal is formalised and are looking/working for progress and peace, something Israel will have to deal with and suck up

Funny when something/anything moves towards a peaceful agreement the lunatic war supporters come out and cry foul.

Well, technically the US isn't involved. Its president is and he has no authority to speak for anyone but himself. Any deal he might make isn't binding on the next president. It isn't binding on Congress or the American people.

Everyone except a few posters on here knows that and the majority of Congress and the American people don't like this deal.

Debate the merits all you like but don't forget what it really is and who's behind it. It's a belligerent ego trip by Obama.

Indication is the American people are very much split in opinion, the rest of the P5 s population are very much in favour of a peaceful deal.

The mood my dear chap is towards peace and negotiations over bombs and wars ... the public is nearly as sick of war now as it was after ww2.

IF the deal goes through the threat here and in the press is a new president would just overturn any agreement because they can right ? F everyone else they are claiming it will be torn up .... its a clear bullying threat nothing more, it wont happen and i'll tell you why.

Its not just about the US but also the P5 and they will be expecting the US when it signs an agreement to stand by it, regardless of the name on the whitehouse after the fact.

The right is acting like a spoiled child, it is telling everyone they will go ahead and effectively commit what is international treachery, that wont go down well.

IF that were to happen the word and reputation of the US would become totally worthless around the globe, in one action the US trust, its standing, its word, its bond, its credibility and respect as an ally, all would be seriously and permanently damaged.

And the right know it... so they have to resort to panic and open threats. They are making a noise now hoping people will believe the BS and be scared that will happen, its scaremongering.... just shows them for what they are ..........treasonous talking, untrustworthy, unstable, war loving cowards.

The reality is the right wing hard liners on all sides are scared stiff about one thing more than anything else. PEACE

An outbreak of global peaceful negotiations resolving problems rather than war, they only understand war makes them a LOT of money and peace does not... they cant make as much money out of peace you see, it also makes the whole right political wing redundant.... THAT is the real reason behind the whining.

Peace, non violence and negotiation is the mortal enemy of the war loving, pro violence right wing haters... or if you prefer good vs evil

And before anyone says anything about Israel its held hostage by its own megalomaniac.. no he dosnt want peace, what he wants is instability and fear to remain in the region, peace is a major threat to Israels looney right because it encourages stability, competition and growth in the region, with that comes education, wealth and influence and so on, all of it is a threat to Israel in Bibis mind and to him of course Israel hates the idea of that .. same as the looney hardliners in the US and Iran, they dont want peace either...for them they know war pays and peace does not, they know war breeds fear and enables easier population control... peace means less fear and less control..... these looneys are NOT the future, they are parasites on humanity offering nothing but death and misery and they are scared stiff now the world is slowly but surely waking up to it..

Bottom line ? the world is watching this one, if the US president makes a deal the next had better honour it or everyone will see first hand a peaceful nuclear International agreement means absolutely nothing to the USA . Its future presidents credibility and standing would go right down the toilet and into the gutter.

The right Ignores the peoples mood at their peril.

Don't know your nationality, but this has little to do with right and left. This is Congress vs. the Executive branches. As, the Senate voted 100-0 to make the agreement nonbinding. The US has a system in place for negotiating treaties, and the Senate has full authority on that account.

A bit off topic, but you say good vs. evil. Anyone that says murdering unborn children is okay is evil. I've met many hawks, but none want war. However, I seen many leftist that thrive on violence. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, come to mind.

I seen many leftist that thrive on violence. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, come to mind.

Revise the history books, Hitler was a leftist .

[Jingthing]

Obama will still have a legacy. An economic recovery. Most progress in gay civil rights in US history. Even if Obamacare per se is scrapped Americans will never give up the concept that people with preexisting conditions need access to health care.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Scott]

Once again, I will remind posters this thread is about a nuclear deal with Iran. It isn't about Obamacare, it's not about carpets, it's not about a whole array of subjects being discussed. It's not about other posters either.

I would rather not give out suspensions, but it is fairly obvious that attempts to bring it back on topic have not been successful.

You have been warned.

[samran]

There have always been hidden dangers in over-selling during the demonization process. The Executive branch of the American government has information we as individual citizens will never see. In fact, the congress will not see much of it. Obama's handlers and henchmen know what they can sell and go with it. There are a bunch of very smart people who are dealing with real information, not the crap we get from the Mainstream Media.

I am sure the individuals involved in the negotiations were very much aware and were faced with what the American public would buy. The blow-back is simply part of the business.

There is no measurement by which to suggest that this "bunch" of people are "very smart." Perhaps you could provide some examples of where the President's team's brilliance has resulted in a better world? Can you point to any successes internationally? Can you point to any successes nationally? The Obama team are, however, keenly aware that Americans will eat a crap sandwich if given one bite at a time. Since Obama's sound thumping in 2014 he and his team have abused the notion that they care what the American people will buy- they are hoisting it upon America, and the world. Blow-back? If you realized what he was aiming for intermittent "blow-back" along the way would appear trivial.

I would take a cross section of pro and con opposite posters from Thai Visa and stack them up with the Kerry Team any day. For Obama, the negotiations are not an end in themselves but one more crown in inflicting his good upon the region. There is a reason Obama is seen as Iblis.

Edit: What is "the demonization process" and what are the "hidden dangers?"

Many of us have taken a loyalty oath to obey the orders of the President and are obligated. Treason is the other option.

We have supported the idea of the big bad Iranians for decades. They have been 2 years away from a nuclear bomb for 3 or 4 decades. That process of convincing the public is the demonization process which becomes the day job of pretty much every public official. In my lifetime it started with the soviets and communism and now is with the Islamic extreme countries/groups, but the Shias in particular.

I have never been an Obama fan. I don't really like his ways and ideas but I am obligated to his decisions. I guess I could forfeit my US citizenship and my commission but I can't imagine being pissed enough to do that.

I have the ideological luxury of not liking Israel and I clearly think Netanyahu is a nut job far worse than Obama and I have no obligation what-so-ever to Israel and its leadership. That may be a luxury you don't have and for that, you have my sympathies.

Allowing the Mainstream Media to demonize a country or a people to the extent we have done with Iran, sets the stage for blowback like we are seeing with this agreement. Agreeing to 3.67% enrichment is a good deal when it takes 90% for a nuclear weapon. Insisting on zero is not a negotiation, it is bullying.

Hiding behind your "commission" is kind o' lame. Your personal duties are completely irrelevant here, and not particularly impressive, if that's the effect you were going for. If you don't feel you can voice a sincere opinion that is your own, then don't voice one! Your oath of office, BTW, is to the Constitution of the U.S. Yes, you've sworn to obey the orders of those appointed over you, but it's not a Hitlerian "loyalty oath" to Obama personally. If you receive an order that conflicts with the Constitution, you're actually obligated to support and defend the Constitution, even against domestic enemies. whoever that might be... Yes, you have to carry out his policies if so ordered - as long as they remain Constitutional - but you don't have to agree with them. Again, if you feel your oath hobbles your freedom of expression (and I know the military has acted on occasion in what some see as suppression of free speech), then what business do you have posting here about this at all?

"Treason is the other option". Option to what exactly? "Loyalty oath". It's an oath of office. And you took it voluntarily. Forfeiting citizenship & commission? Who the heck is asking you to do either? Bit of a drama queen, aren't we?

Calling someone a drama queen after dog whistling 'Hitler', Domestic Enemies and Obama all in the same post is all a bit rich. Edited April 5, 2015 by samran

[Ulysses G.]

Obama desperately needed an agreement, no matter how flawed. He has nothing else to leave as his "legacy", as he has failed at everything else.

That is it it in a nutshell, but - IMO - he was perfectly happy to throw our allies under the bus and kill two birds with one stone. He has been kissing up to Iran and radical Islam since the Apology Tour in 2009.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

For the P5+1 this is "an astonishingly good deal".

It is "the best we could reasonably hope for."

The historic agreement "promises to lead to one of the most consequential and far-reaching nuclear nonproliferation achievements in recent decades."

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good

Well done, Secretary Kerry and other representatives of the P5+1.

[mania]

It is quite amazing even for hereto read such crazy apocalyptic predictions

at the mention of any move towards peace.

I am not sure if it is just Israel cheer leading or flat out fear/war mongering.

In any case it is nice for once to see cooler heads prevailing in a world on its last leg

[up-country_sinclair]

It is quite amazing even for hereto read such crazy apocalyptic predictions

at the mention of any move towards peace.

I am not sure if it is just Israel cheer leading or flat out fear/war mongering.

In any case it is nice for once to see cooler heads prevailing in a world on its last leg

192 out of 193 UN member states would choose peaceful negotiations over war. That is why the overwhelming majority of the world is rejoicing the news of this framework.

1 nation would choose war and only war. That is why it (and its bootlickers) are engaging in fear mongering and bribing US politicians with "campaign donations" to try and scuttle this chance at peace.

Edited April 5, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[snarky66]

The sanctions can never be reimposed. Because Russia and PRC are dying to do business with these murdering terrorists. The billions which will flow into the Iranian Treasury can be used in their ambitions of taking over the entire Middle East.

Edited April 5, 2015 by snarky66

[up-country_sinclair]

I am not sure if it is just Israel cheer leading or flat out fear/war mongering.

If you're still not sure, this might help clear it up for you:

Russia and PRC are dying to do business with these murdering terrorists. The billions which will flow into the Iranian Treasury can be used in their ambitions of taking over the entire Middle East.

[Publicus]

Obama and Kerry bring to my mind that they would be the ideal customers for an Iranian carpet dealer.

Iranian carpet dealers are notorious for being difficult salesmen. They will drive hard bargains, often giving up nothing to gain what they finally want to achieve.

If they sense you are really hot to buy a particular carpet, you are dead in the water. You will end up losing all your ready cash and they will have a mortgage on your first born. You will then go home with your new purchase only to find out, in the light of day, it wasn't really as attractive as you thought and, in the end, doesn't really suit your needs.

The only way to deal with them is to offer them half of what they ask when the negotiations begin. Then as they come down, and they invariably will, you go up until you reach the price you want to pay. If they refuse to get to your price, you must be prepared to get in your car and go home without the carpet. I have been stopped many times as I was getting in my car and invited back in to talk some more. I usually ended up with the carpet at my price, but it took a few losses in the beginning to learn my lesson.

My ex-wife now owns some 25 Iranian carpets, ranging from a 9 X 12 Nain silk and wool to some Qom silk wall hangers.

My point in all this?

Obama and Kerry are amateurs dealing with the sharpest carpet sellers in the market. They are in over their heads and will end up with a meaningless, and perhaps temporary, agreement.

Valerie didn't school these two enough but, then, perhaps this is what she wanted all the time.

Thirty-one percent of Americans oppose the negotiations, the Agreement, the deal. Sixty-one percent of Americans supported the negotiations, continue to support them, and now want to be assured the pending final agreement is efficacious, which will become evident between the final deal being consummated and the election in November next year.

The posts by the cache of former Cold Warriors who opposed every nuclear deal during the Cold War, are as wrong now as they were during the Cold War.

JFK negotiated the first nuclear test ban Treaty with the Russians when they were the Soviet Union. JFK did this while the extreme right hollered treason, betrayal, stupidity, foolishness. The treaty turned out to be an important and crucial first step.

Nixon, Kissinger, Prez Ford started detente. The right hollered and jumped up and down flapping their wings that the US was being hoodwinked, bamboozled, swindled to the point the communists would bury us in our graves in a better dead than red America.

Reagan carried forward the SALT negotiations and nuclear arms reduction Treaties. The right said Reagan was a genius when Reagan in fact used his predecessors landmarks to further reduce nuclear arms. As prez, RR dealt profoundly with the issues of nuclear arms, as any president should and would do.

The Soviet Union disappeared despite all the doomsday predictions of the Cold Warriors who said the US got taken to the woods every time it negotiated with the Russian Soviets to agree a Treaty. Turned out Cuba was the only country that got screwed by the Russian Soviets, from start to finish.

The posts are more of the same loser predictions from the same paranoid loser ideologues who suffer from a lifetime lack of the basic confidence Americans have in their own country and its character.

[Publicus]

Obama and Kerry bring to my mind that they would be the ideal customers for an Iranian carpet dealer.

Iranian carpet dealers are notorious for being difficult salesmen. They will drive hard bargains, often giving up nothing to gain what they finally want to achieve.

If they sense you are really hot to buy a particular carpet, you are dead in the water. You will end up losing all your ready cash and they will have a mortgage on your first born. You will then go home with your new purchase only to find out, in the light of day, it wasn't really as attractive as you thought and, in the end, doesn't really suit your needs.

The only way to deal with them is to offer them half of what they ask when the negotiations begin. Then as they come down, and they invariably will, you go up until you reach the price you want to pay. If they refuse to get to your price, you must be prepared to get in your car and go home without the carpet. I have been stopped many times as I was getting in my car and invited back in to talk some more. I usually ended up with the carpet at my price, but it took a few losses in the beginning to learn my lesson.

My ex-wife now owns some 25 Iranian carpets, ranging from a 9 X 12 Nain silk and wool to some Qom silk wall hangers.

My point in all this?

Obama and Kerry are amateurs dealing with the sharpest carpet sellers in the market. They are in over their heads and will end up with a meaningless, and perhaps temporary, agreement.

Valerie didn't school these two enough but, then, perhaps this is what she wanted all the time.

It appears they also sold Kerry a rug to go up top.

The only rug on top is on Donald Trump's head and he says no deal is better than a deal negotiated and agreed by the P5+1 and Iran endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly as this Agreement will be.

But then that's not good either out there of the lunar right.

How many others over there on the far right are btw wearing rugs?

[chuckd]

Obama and Kerry bring to my mind that they would be the ideal customers for an Iranian carpet dealer.

Iranian carpet dealers are notorious for being difficult salesmen. They will drive hard bargains, often giving up nothing to gain what they finally want to achieve.

If they sense you are really hot to buy a particular carpet, you are dead in the water. You will end up losing all your ready cash and they will have a mortgage on your first born. You will then go home with your new purchase only to find out, in the light of day, it wasn't really as attractive as you thought and, in the end, doesn't really suit your needs.

The only way to deal with them is to offer them half of what they ask when the negotiations begin. Then as they come down, and they invariably will, you go up until you reach the price you want to pay. If they refuse to get to your price, you must be prepared to get in your car and go home without the carpet. I have been stopped many times as I was getting in my car and invited back in to talk some more. I usually ended up with the carpet at my price, but it took a few losses in the beginning to learn my lesson.

My ex-wife now owns some 25 Iranian carpets, ranging from a 9 X 12 Nain silk and wool to some Qom silk wall hangers.

My point in all this?

Obama and Kerry are amateurs dealing with the sharpest carpet sellers in the market. They are in over their heads and will end up with a meaningless, and perhaps temporary, agreement.

Valerie didn't school these two enough but, then, perhaps this is what she wanted all the time.

Thirty-one percent of Americans oppose the negotiations, the Agreement, the deal. Sixty-one percent of Americans supported the negotiations, continue to support them, and now want to be assured the pending final agreement is efficacious, which will become evident between the final deal being consummated and the election in November next year.

The posts by the cache of former Cold Warriors who opposed every nuclear deal during the Cold War, are as wrong now as they were during the Cold War.

JFK negotiated the first nuclear test ban Treaty with the Russians when they were the Soviet Union. JFK did this while the extreme right hollered treason, betrayal, stupidity, foolishness. The treaty turned out to be an important and crucial first step.

Nixon, Kissinger, Prez Ford started detente. The right hollered and jumped up and down flapping their wings that the US was being hoodwinked, bamboozled, swindled to the point the communists would bury us in our graves in a better dead than red America.

Reagan carried forward the SALT negotiations and nuclear arms reduction Treaties. The right said Reagan was a genius when Reagan in fact used his predecessors landmarks to further reduce nuclear arms. As prez, RR dealt profoundly with the issues of nuclear arms, as any president should and would do.

The Soviet Union disappeared despite all the doomsday predictions of the Cold Warriors who said the US got taken to the woods every time it negotiated with the Russian Soviets to agree a Treaty. Turned out Cuba was the only country that got screwed by the Russian Soviets, from start to finish.

The posts are more of the same loser predictions from the same paranoid loser ideologues who suffer from a lifetime lack of the basic confidence Americans have in their own country and its character.

Did it really require all this shock and awe to tell me you think I am a "paranoid loser idealogue"?

[SheungWan]

Obama and Kerry bring to my mind that they would be the ideal customers for an Iranian carpet dealer.

Iranian carpet dealers are notorious for being difficult salesmen. They will drive hard bargains, often giving up nothing to gain what they finally want to achieve.

If they sense you are really hot to buy a particular carpet, you are dead in the water. You will end up losing all your ready cash and they will have a mortgage on your first born. You will then go home with your new purchase only to find out, in the light of day, it wasn't really as attractive as you thought and, in the end, doesn't really suit your needs.

The only way to deal with them is to offer them half of what they ask when the negotiations begin. Then as they come down, and they invariably will, you go up until you reach the price you want to pay. If they refuse to get to your price, you must be prepared to get in your car and go home without the carpet. I have been stopped many times as I was getting in my car and invited back in to talk some more. I usually ended up with the carpet at my price, but it took a few losses in the beginning to learn my lesson.

My ex-wife now owns some 25 Iranian carpets, ranging from a 9 X 12 Nain silk and wool to some Qom silk wall hangers.

My point in all this?

Obama and Kerry are amateurs dealing with the sharpest carpet sellers in the market. They are in over their heads and will end up with a meaningless, and perhaps temporary, agreement.

Valerie didn't school these two enough but, then, perhaps this is what she wanted all the time.

Thirty-one percent of Americans oppose the negotiations, the Agreement, the deal. Sixty-one percent of Americans supported the negotiations, continue to support them, and now want to be assured the pending final agreement is efficacious, which will become evident between the final deal being consummated and the election in November next year.

The posts by the cache of former Cold Warriors who opposed every nuclear deal during the Cold War, are as wrong now as they were during the Cold War.

JFK negotiated the first nuclear test ban Treaty with the Russians when they were the Soviet Union. JFK did this while the extreme right hollered treason, betrayal, stupidity, foolishness. The treaty turned out to be an important and crucial first step.

Nixon, Kissinger, Prez Ford started detente. The right hollered and jumped up and down flapping their wings that the US was being hoodwinked, bamboozled, swindled to the point the communists would bury us in our graves in a better dead than red America.

Reagan carried forward the SALT negotiations and nuclear arms reduction Treaties. The right said Reagan was a genius when Reagan in fact used his predecessors landmarks to further reduce nuclear arms. As prez, RR dealt profoundly with the issues of nuclear arms, as any president should and would do.

The Soviet Union disappeared despite all the doomsday predictions of the Cold Warriors who said the US got taken to the woods every time it negotiated with the Russian Soviets to agree a Treaty. Turned out Cuba was the only country that got screwed by the Russian Soviets, from start to finish.

The posts are more of the same loser predictions from the same paranoid loser ideologues who suffer from a lifetime lack of the basic confidence Americans have in their own country and its character.

One would think that this 'agreement' was an historic first or even an 'agreement' in a series of positive agreements arrived at between the USA and Iran. Actually it isn't. It is an agreement built on the sands of previous agreements which have systematically been broken and ignored by Iran who have ensured that the verification process has been unable to do its job. Is there anything to show as yet that the breaking of the verification process has changed? No. There is nothing to indicate that anything has changed other than the desperation of Obama to make an agreement on the back of capitulation. Unfortunately the capitulation in the current climate smells more like Neville Chamberlain than Ronald Reagan. The thing about detente is that it was with a country that already had nuclear weapons, so one assumes here that even if the historical analogy was relevant that our resident cheerleaders are already waving the white flag as it applies to Iran getting such weaponry. Their strategy? Roll over and tickle my tummy.

[Steely Dan]

No guesses needed as to how Iran would spend any money forthcoming from the easing of sanctions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11515603/Iran-is-intensifying-efforts-to-support-Hamas-in-Gaza.html

Of course this was yet another item completely omitted from the so called agreement.

[mikebike]

Hmmm... it seems the POTUS can deal with sanctions, at least on a temporary basis.

[Publicus]

Obama and Kerry bring to my mind that they would be the ideal customers for an Iranian carpet dealer.

Iranian carpet dealers are notorious for being difficult salesmen. They will drive hard bargains, often giving up nothing to gain what they finally want to achieve.

If they sense you are really hot to buy a particular carpet, you are dead in the water. You will end up losing all your ready cash and they will have a mortgage on your first born. You will then go home with your new purchase only to find out, in the light of day, it wasn't really as attractive as you thought and, in the end, doesn't really suit your needs.

The only way to deal with them is to offer them half of what they ask when the negotiations begin. Then as they come down, and they invariably will, you go up until you reach the price you want to pay. If they refuse to get to your price, you must be prepared to get in your car and go home without the carpet. I have been stopped many times as I was getting in my car and invited back in to talk some more. I usually ended up with the carpet at my price, but it took a few losses in the beginning to learn my lesson.

My ex-wife now owns some 25 Iranian carpets, ranging from a 9 X 12 Nain silk and wool to some Qom silk wall hangers.

My point in all this?

Obama and Kerry are amateurs dealing with the sharpest carpet sellers in the market. They are in over their heads and will end up with a meaningless, and perhaps temporary, agreement.

Valerie didn't school these two enough but, then, perhaps this is what she wanted all the time.

Thirty-one percent of Americans oppose the negotiations, the Agreement, the deal. Sixty-one percent of Americans supported the negotiations, continue to support them, and now want to be assured the pending final agreement is efficacious, which will become evident between the final deal being consummated and the election in November next year.

The posts by the cache of former Cold Warriors who opposed every nuclear deal during the Cold War, are as wrong now as they were during the Cold War.

JFK negotiated the first nuclear test ban Treaty with the Russians when they were the Soviet Union. JFK did this while the extreme right hollered treason, betrayal, stupidity, foolishness. The treaty turned out to be an important and crucial first step.

Nixon, Kissinger, Prez Ford started detente. The right hollered and jumped up and down flapping their wings that the US was being hoodwinked, bamboozled, swindled to the point the communists would bury us in our graves in a better dead than red America.

Reagan carried forward the SALT negotiations and nuclear arms reduction Treaties. The right said Reagan was a genius when Reagan in fact used his predecessors landmarks to further reduce nuclear arms. As prez, RR dealt profoundly with the issues of nuclear arms, as any president should and would do.

The Soviet Union disappeared despite all the doomsday predictions of the Cold Warriors who said the US got taken to the woods every time it negotiated with the Russian Soviets to agree a Treaty. Turned out Cuba was the only country that got screwed by the Russian Soviets, from start to finish.

The posts are more of the same loser predictions from the same paranoid loser ideologues who suffer from a lifetime lack of the basic confidence Americans have in their own country and its character.

One would think that this 'agreement' was an historic first or even an 'agreement' in a series of positive agreements arrived at between the USA and Iran. Actually it isn't. It is an agreement built on the sands of previous agreements which have systematically been broken and ignored by Iran who have ensured that the verification process has been unable to do its job. Is there anything to show as yet that the breaking of the verification process has changed? No. There is nothing to indicate that anything has changed other than the desperation of Obama to make an agreement on the back of capitulation. Unfortunately the capitulation in the current climate smells more like Neville Chamberlain than Ronald Reagan. The thing about detente is that it was with a country that already had nuclear weapons, so one assumes here that even if the historical analogy was relevant that our resident cheerleaders are already waving the white flag as it applies to Iran getting such weaponry. Their strategy? Roll over and tickle my tummy.

Don't want to bury any one in stats, but burying certain falsehoods is a public service so let's take a quick look at what desperation looks like for 77 million Iranians, with the word desperation spelled n-e-g-o-t-i-a-t-e-a-n-d-s-i-g-n.

The stats focus almost entirely on the point from the US imposition of its latest and most severe rounds of sanctions in 2012.....

GDP of $528bn in 2012 to GDP of $369bn entering Q2 2015.

GDP per capita in 2012 of $3314 to $3131 for year 2014.

GDP growth in January 2012 of 2.3% to -9% in July 2013.

Inflation 15% entering 2015

January 2015 interest rate of 14.5%

Unemployment rate entering 2015 of 10.5%

Industrial production 2014 -1.6%

Crude oil production in 2010 of 4100 BBL/D/1K to 3200 last year.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iran/gdp-growth-annual

There's so much more but that will do for now, so RIP to an infestation of bogus and politically bankrupt claims that POTUS was somehow the desperado in all of this. The nonsense statements come anyway from the Barack Obama usual suspect obsessives in the US who would continue to cuss Prez Obama if even tomorrow he cured cancer.

Actually, the killer sanction that drove the mullahs back to the negotiating table came in 2012 when the EU severed Iran from the SWIFT global electronic banking system based in Belgium that transacts $6 Trillion daily. Russia and China were not very thrilled about it, but they knew it would further the negotiations and improve the likelihood of an eventual agreement.

Which reminds us the carpers against the P5+1 Iran negotiations and agreement are themselves none too swift.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Publicus

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Obama and Kerry bring to my mind that they would be the ideal customers for an Iranian carpet dealer.

Iranian carpet dealers are notorious for being difficult salesmen. They will drive hard bargains, often giving up nothing to gain what they finally want to achieve.

If they sense you are really hot to buy a particular carpet, you are dead in the water. You will end up losing all your ready cash and they will have a mortgage on your first born. You will then go home with your new purchase only to find out, in the light of day, it wasn't really as attractive as you thought and, in the end, doesn't really suit your needs.

The only way to deal with them is to offer them half of what they ask when the negotiations begin. Then as they come down, and they invariably will, you go up until you reach the price you want to pay. If they refuse to get to your price, you must be prepared to get in your car and go home without the carpet. I have been stopped many times as I was getting in my car and invited back in to talk some more. I usually ended up with the carpet at my price, but it took a few losses in the beginning to learn my lesson.

My ex-wife now owns some 25 Iranian carpets, ranging from a 9 X 12 Nain silk and wool to some Qom silk wall hangers.

My point in all this?

Obama and Kerry are amateurs dealing with the sharpest carpet sellers in the market. They are in over their heads and will end up with a meaningless, and perhaps temporary, agreement.

Valerie didn't school these two enough but, then, perhaps this is what she wanted all the time.

And this brings to mind Time Magazine and paraphrase dressed as recollection.

See if the deal works. If it doesn't reimpose sanctions.

[hawker9000]

Well, technically the US isn't involved. Its president is and he has no authority to speak for anyone but himself. Any deal he might make isn't binding on the next president. It isn't binding on Congress or the American people.

Everyone except a few posters on here knows that and the majority of Congress and the American people don't like this deal.

Debate the merits all you like but don't forget what it really is and who's behind it. It's a belligerent ego trip by Obama.

Indication is the American people are very much split in opinion, the rest of the P5 s population are very much in favour of a peaceful deal.

The mood my dear chap is towards peace and negotiations over bombs and wars ... the public is nearly as sick of war now as it was after ww2.

IF the deal goes through the threat here and in the press is a new president would just overturn any agreement because they can right ? F everyone else they are claiming it will be torn up .... its a clear bullying threat nothing more, it wont happen and i'll tell you why.

Its not just about the US but also the P5 and they will be expecting the US when it signs an agreement to stand by it, regardless of the name on the whitehouse after the fact.

The right is acting like a spoiled child, it is telling everyone they will go ahead and effectively commit what is international treachery, that wont go down well.

IF that were to happen the word and reputation of the US would become totally worthless around the globe, in one action the US trust, its standing, its word, its bond, its credibility and respect as an ally, all would be seriously and permanently damaged.

And the right know it... so they have to resort to panic and open threats. They are making a noise now hoping people will believe the BS and be scared that will happen, its scaremongering.... just shows them for what they are ..........treasonous talking, untrustworthy, unstable, war loving cowards.

The reality is the right wing hard liners on all sides are scared stiff about one thing more than anything else. PEACE

An outbreak of global peaceful negotiations resolving problems rather than war, they only understand war makes them a LOT of money and peace does not... they cant make as much money out of peace you see, it also makes the whole right political wing redundant.... THAT is the real reason behind the whining.

Peace, non violence and negotiation is the mortal enemy of the war loving, pro violence right wing haters... or if you prefer good vs evil

And before anyone says anything about Israel its held hostage by its own megalomaniac.. no he dosnt want peace, what he wants is instability and fear to remain in the region, peace is a major threat to Israels looney right because it encourages stability, competition and growth in the region, with that comes education, wealth and influence and so on, all of it is a threat to Israel in Bibis mind and to him of course Israel hates the idea of that .. same as the looney hardliners in the US and Iran, they dont want peace either...for them they know war pays and peace does not, they know war breeds fear and enables easier population control... peace means less fear and less control..... these looneys are NOT the future, they are parasites on humanity offering nothing but death and misery and they are scared stiff now the world is slowly but surely waking up to it..

Bottom line ? the world is watching this one, if the US president makes a deal the next had better honour it or everyone will see first hand a peaceful nuclear International agreement means absolutely nothing to the USA . Its future presidents credibility and standing would go right down the toilet and into the gutter.

The right Ignores the peoples mood at their peril.

Don't know your nationality, but this has little to do with right and left. This is Congress vs. the Executive branches. As, the Senate voted 100-0 to make the agreement nonbinding. The US has a system in place for negotiating treaties, and the Senate has full authority on that account.

A bit off topic, but you say good vs. evil. Anyone that says murdering unborn children is okay is evil. I've met many hawks, but none want war. However, I seen many leftist that thrive on violence. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, come to mind.

I seen many leftist that thrive on violence. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, come to mind.

Revise the history books, Hitler was a leftist .

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei - (National Socialist German Workers' Party)

FYI...

[SheungWan]

I seen many leftist that thrive on violence. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, come to mind.

Revise the history books, Hitler was a leftist .

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei - (National Socialist German Workers' Party)

FYI...

I guess that those who can't tell us the difference might also tell us that the DPRK is democratic.......

Pinning the left Vs right (or should we say Democratic Party Vs Republican Party) label on the Iranian deal is a little more troublesome than at first thought....

Edited April 6, 2015 by SheungWan

[Seastallion]

Another little item our more bombastic posters seem to be missing are the US sanctions.

The US first placed sanctions on Iran in 1979 following the Embassy takeover. Those original sanctions are still in place while others have been added over the years.

Those sanctions were passed into law by both Houses of Congress and signed by whichever President was in office at the time.

They are the law of the US.

How does Obama propose getting around this simple fact? Will he add those laws to the ones he has ignored during his reign or will he approach Congress in an attempt to get them to ease the sanctions more to his liking?

My guess is he will issue an Executive Order trying to change existing law (think immigration), bypassing Congress completely.

It will then be up to the Courts to make the final decision.

I don't know the details, so this is just a guess.......The sanctions were passed into law making them legal...ok.

So, does the law state that the sanctions are legal, or does the law state that the sanctions must be enforced? If the former, then there is no prohibition on relaxing the sanctions.

To forego any semantic back and forth, let me put it this way.

Sanctions as passed by Congress and signed into law by a President are both legal and enforceable. It is the duty of the President to insure that these laws are faithfully executed but I have little faith in the present administration in that regard.

Some sanctions have been put in place by Presidential Executive Orders. Those are also legal and enforceable but only temporary in nature. They are not binding on any future administrations. In other words, Sanctions put in place by a Clinton Executive Order can be rescinded by an equally legal Obama Executive Order.

Laws are written by Congress in somewhat twisted manners at times. I have no idea whether any of the laws give any leeway to future Presidents to alter their terms of enforcement and have neither the time nor the inclination to read each and every sanction that has been passed since 1979 to find out.

If there is any leeway, this administration will either find it or make one up if that is their desire. They, however, cannot change the laws to suit themselves without Congressional approval.

FYI: http://www.cfr.org/iran/lengthening-list-iran-sanctions/p20258

You haven't got my point and it's not about semantics

A law is a law is a law...ok. And POTUS can't just change it...ok.

But do the laws WRT Iranian sanctions in effect state that sanctions must be imposed, or simply that sanctions can be imposed?

For example.... "US companies are prohibited from importing Iranian oil" is a prohibition that can't be ignored, whereas "The law allows sanctions to be imposed" and then a set of sanctions are decided upon but not specifically written into law as prohibitions is a different matter.

[snarky66]

I'm sure that the fact that the world price of oil has been cut in half had zero effect on the Iranian GDP. But if lunar leftists want to claim that was Obama's doing that is their delusion. Nice try though. Keep the smoke screen going.

Edited April 6, 2015 by snarky66

[chuckd]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Obama and Kerry bring to my mind that they would be the ideal customers for an Iranian carpet dealer.

Iranian carpet dealers are notorious for being difficult salesmen. They will drive hard bargains, often giving up nothing to gain what they finally want to achieve.

If they sense you are really hot to buy a particular carpet, you are dead in the water. You will end up losing all your ready cash and they will have a mortgage on your first born. You will then go home with your new purchase only to find out, in the light of day, it wasn't really as attractive as you thought and, in the end, doesn't really suit your needs.

The only way to deal with them is to offer them half of what they ask when the negotiations begin. Then as they come down, and they invariably will, you go up until you reach the price you want to pay. If they refuse to get to your price, you must be prepared to get in your car and go home without the carpet. I have been stopped many times as I was getting in my car and invited back in to talk some more. I usually ended up with the carpet at my price, but it took a few losses in the beginning to learn my lesson.

My ex-wife now owns some 25 Iranian carpets, ranging from a 9 X 12 Nain silk and wool to some Qom silk wall hangers.

My point in all this?

Obama and Kerry are amateurs dealing with the sharpest carpet sellers in the market. They are in over their heads and will end up with a meaningless, and perhaps temporary, agreement.

Valerie didn't school these two enough but, then, perhaps this is what she wanted all the time.

And this brings to mind Time Magazine and paraphrase dressed as recollection.

See if the deal works. If it doesn't reimpose sanctions.

"And this brings to mind Time Magazine and paraphrase dressed as recollection."

Are you being so foolish as to accuse me of lifting something from Time Magazine? Spit it out, with a link. I'd like to see it myself.

No link? How about a post clarifying your remark.

[chuckd]

Another little item our more bombastic posters seem to be missing are the US sanctions.

The US first placed sanctions on Iran in 1979 following the Embassy takeover. Those original sanctions are still in place while others have been added over the years.

Those sanctions were passed into law by both Houses of Congress and signed by whichever President was in office at the time.

They are the law of the US.

How does Obama propose getting around this simple fact? Will he add those laws to the ones he has ignored during his reign or will he approach Congress in an attempt to get them to ease the sanctions more to his liking?

My guess is he will issue an Executive Order trying to change existing law (think immigration), bypassing Congress completely.

It will then be up to the Courts to make the final decision.

I don't know the details, so this is just a guess.......The sanctions were passed into law making them legal...ok.

So, does the law state that the sanctions are legal, or does the law state that the sanctions must be enforced? If the former, then there is no prohibition on relaxing the sanctions.

To forego any semantic back and forth, let me put it this way.

Sanctions as passed by Congress and signed into law by a President are both legal and enforceable. It is the duty of the President to insure that these laws are faithfully executed but I have little faith in the present administration in that regard.

Some sanctions have been put in place by Presidential Executive Orders. Those are also legal and enforceable but only temporary in nature. They are not binding on any future administrations. In other words, Sanctions put in place by a Clinton Executive Order can be rescinded by an equally legal Obama Executive Order.

Laws are written by Congress in somewhat twisted manners at times. I have no idea whether any of the laws give any leeway to future Presidents to alter their terms of enforcement and have neither the time nor the inclination to read each and every sanction that has been passed since 1979 to find out.

If there is any leeway, this administration will either find it or make one up if that is their desire. They, however, cannot change the laws to suit themselves without Congressional approval.

FYI: http://www.cfr.org/iran/lengthening-list-iran-sanctions/p20258

You haven't got my point and it's not about semantics

A law is a law is a law...ok. And POTUS can't just change it...ok.

But do the laws WRT Iranian sanctions in effect state that sanctions must be imposed, or simply that sanctions can be imposed?

For example.... "US companies are prohibited from importing Iranian oil" is a prohibition that can't be ignored, whereas "The law allows sanctions to be imposed" and then a set of sanctions are decided upon but not specifically written into law as prohibitions is a different matter.

Go to post 139 for your answers.

I'm not going to be baited into some long and incessant semantic discussion about what the meaning of the word "is", is.

[Ulysses G.]

See if the deal works. If it doesn't reimpose sanctions.

That would be pretty much impossible and especially after Obama has already agreed to allow Iran to enrich uranium and keep nuclear facilities. The only solution would be to squash this stupid deal, before it is too late.

[JakeSully]

Are you nuts?

Show me 1 place in the official transcript where Iran is allowed to enrich weapons grade Uranium?

Less kool aid, more facts.

[SheungWan]

Are you nuts?

Show me 1 place in the official transcript where Iran is allowed to enrich weapons grade Uranium?

Less kool aid, more facts.

Show me where in the official transcript Iran will be subject to random inspections without notice any locations where weapons grade uranium development is suspected. No need to share the sugary drinks.