Obama defends Iran deal as 'once-in-a-lifetime' opportunity

[chuckd]

Looking at a valid translation of the Iranian version,

Do you read Farsi? What are your qualifications to determine whether or not it is a "valid translation of the Iranian version"? Be honest, you see it as a "valid translation" simply because you agree with what it says.

The threads related to Iran on this forum are chock full of thoroughly debunked, deliberate mistranslations supposedly made by Iranian leadership. And this reeks of just another example of the same.

I see you didn't bother to check my link. It is an Iranian think tank under the auspices of Harvard University.

For your information, and that of our readers, following is the source of my translation:

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

Belfer Iran Experts Group

Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs has formed an Iran Experts Group, chaired by Professor Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center, and Dr. Gary Samore, executive director of research of the Belfer Center. The Belfer Experts Group will periodically review and assess the voluminous materials published around the world on the Iranian nuclear issue. We will then post recommendations on the Iran Matters website for the best and most interesting news and analysis that helps to advance understanding of the critical issues and warn against misleading or inaccurate work.

The Belfer Iran Experts Group is composed of:

Graham Allison, Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School; Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Matthew Bunn, Professor of Practice; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

R. Nicholas Burns, Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics, Harvard Kennedy School

Shai Feldman, Professor of Politics; Judith and Sidney Swartz Director of the Crown Center for Middle East Studies, Brandeis University

Charles Freilich, Senior Fellow, International Security Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Olli Heinonen, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

R. Scott Kemp, Assistant Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering, MIT; Associate, Project on Managing the Atom

Martin B. Malin, Executive Director, Project on Managing the Atom, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Steven E. Miller, Director, International Security Program; Editor-in-Chief, International Security; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Payam Mohseni, Inaugural Director of the Belfer Center's Iran Project and Fellow for Iran Studies at the Belfer Center, Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of Government at Harvard University.

Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Meghan O’Sullivan, Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School

Kevin Ryan, Director, Defense and Intelligence Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Gary Samore, Executive Director for Research, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

James K. Sebenius, Gordon Donaldson Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School

William Tobey, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Jim Walsh, Research Associate, Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/belfer-iran-experts-group

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

It certainly satisfied my curiosity about the translation. Anybody?

[chuckd]

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

I believe my government and the information it has provided as to what has been negotiated....any warmonger Republican disposed to challenge me on this point is welcome to challenge me, any time in any way.

You are free to believe anything you wish. I don't think anybody would be willing to challenge you on what you actually believe.

I would only challenge you on what has been negotiated, not what you believe has been negotiated.

So...exactly what has been negotiated and agreed to by both Iran and the P5+1?

According to up-country_sinclair in his post #78, the following is lifted from the State Departments quoted section on sanctions:

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

Sanctions

• Iran will receive sanctions relief, if it verifiably abides by its commitments.

• U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place.

• The architecture of U.S. nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be retained for much of the duration of the deal and allow for snap-back of sanctions in the event of significant non-performance.

• All past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment, Fordow, Arak, PMD, and transparency).

• However, core provisions in the UN Security Council resolutions – those that deal with transfers of sensitive technologies and activities – will be re-established by a new UN Security Council resolution that will endorse the JCPOA and urge its full implementation. It will also create the procurement channel mentioned above, which will serve as a key transparency measure. Important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, as well as provisions that allow for related cargo inspections and asset freezes, will also be incorporated by this new resolution.

• A dispute resolution process will be specified, which enables any JCPOA participant, to seek to resolve disagreements about the performance of JCPOA commitments.

• If an issue of significant non-performance cannot be resolved through that process, then all previous UN sanctions could be re-imposed.

• U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under the deal.

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

However if one bothers to obtain a translation of the Iranian understanding of this so called framework, it is considerably more succinct and to the point.

Looking at a valid translation of the Iranian version, this is what is says about the sanctions:

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

Removal of Sanctions

According to the reached solutions, after the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action, all of the UN Security Council resolutions will be revoked, and all of the multilateral economic and financial sanctions of the EU and the unilateral ones of the US including financial, banking, insurance, investment, and all related services, including oil, gas, petrochemicals, and automobile industries will be immediately revoked. In addition, nuclear-related sanctions against real and legal individuals, entities, and public and private institutions, including the Central Bank, other financial and banking institutions, SWIFT, shipping and aviation industries of the Islamic Republic of Iran, oil tanker companies, will be immediately removed. Also, the P5+1 member countries are committed to restraining from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.

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

The two sides couldn't possibly be any further apart, particularly when you consider Iran is calling for ALL sanctions to be removed, beginning with those originally applied by Congress in 1979. The rest of State Department agreement is also in dispute by the Iranians.

Believe what you want to believe. Just don't expect very many others to fall for it.

http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/blog/translation-iranian-factsheet-nuclear-negotiations

The 47 Republican senators who wrote to the Ayatollah offered their advice and counsel, perhaps consent.

They're hollering against this too, led by Sen. Tehran Tom Cotton from down there in the Ozarks.

The Republican Party is the Party of War.

And everyone knows it.

I accept what the P5+1 say is the Framework Agreement.

The Party of War keeps supporting what the Ayatollah says.

So let's be clear about what is going on here.

Your talking points are no better than your compatriot.

You do know there was never a letter written and delivered to any representative of Iran, don't you? All that kerfuffle is over a letter posted on Senator Cotton's web site.

Calling the Republican party as the party of war brings to mind one simple fact.

George Bush could not have embarked on the 2002 war with Iraq without the full complicity of 29 Senate members of the Democratic party and 82 House Democratic members who voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolutions Act.

The Republicans didn't have enough votes without them.

I simply can't figure out how you keep forgetting this fact.

Edited April 12, 2015 by chuckd

[ScarpoFongness4U]

Its all moot as the USA and Iran are about to start firing in the gulf of aden and the USA is going to do an end around Iran and finish off Syria with Iran next

Its on

[up-country_sinclair]

The poster who keeps using Israel firsters as a talking point is no more than a PLO propagandist spewing hate.

Ain't that the truth.

The chants of Death to America are remarkably easy to translate.

Oh, the irony!!!!!

"Death to America" is known mistranslation of "Marg bar Amrika!". An accurate translation would be, "Down with America".

"Remarkably easy to translate"

[losworld]

Here's an even better idea. I am sure Iran would be more than happy to shelve any nuclear projects including reactor for electricity if Israel would provide transparency, sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and disarm itself of 200-400 nukes including subs which can only be seen as aggressive and not for defensive purposes.

[Ulysses G.]

I'm pretty sure that even Iran would not want the likes of you speaking on their behalf.

[hawker9000]

Here's an even better idea. I am sure Iran would be more than happy to shelve any nuclear projects including reactor for electricity if Israel would provide transparency, sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and disarm itself of 200-400 nukes including subs which can only be seen as aggressive and not for defensive purposes.

LOL. How nice. Well, lil' ol' YOU may be sure that Iran, a country with no more credibility than N. Korea, would do this & that, but frankly, no one cares what you're sure of or not sure of. Others obviously aren't so sure. Very impressive presumption.

Secondly, if these nukes can ONLY be seen as aggressive and not for defensive purposes, then I guess that pretty much proves Israel has no aggressive intentions, since they've had them but have never used them in, what, almost 50 years/half a century!?

D-. Logic needs a lot of work. (An 'A' for hyperbole and bar-raising bloviation though. 'Sure you're not an Obama staff member? If not, you've missed your calling.)

Edited April 12, 2015 by hawker9000

[losworld]

Here's an even better idea. I am sure Iran would be more than happy to shelve any nuclear projects including reactor for electricity if Israel would provide transparency, sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and disarm itself of 200-400 nukes including subs which can only be seen as aggressive and not for defensive purposes.

LOL. How nice. Well, lil' ol' YOU may be sure that Iran, a country with no more credibility than N. Korea, would do this & that, but frankly, no one cares what you're sure of or not sure of. Others obviously aren't so sure. Very impressive presumption.

Secondly, if these nukes can ONLY be seen as aggressive and not for defensive purposes, then I guess that pretty much proves Israel has no aggressive intentions, since they've had them but have never used them in, what, almost 50 years/half a century!?

D-. Logic needs a lot of work. (An 'A' for hyperbole and bar-raising bloviation though. 'Sure you're not an Obama staff member? If not, you've missed your calling.)

No the nukes are for defensive purposes but who the hell needs 200-400 nukes to defend oneself in an area where no one has any lol. Also the subs are for offensive purposes but I am sure you can twist your argument to show how nuclear armed subs are necessary as defensive when one has 200 plus nukes and the U.S. arsenal backing itself up. If you do even the slightest bit of research you will see that the subs employing nuclear armaments were from Germany and they received them a short numbe of years back not 50 years. If you are going to act like you know something at least do a bit of research.

[Rimmer]

A personal attack on another poster has been removed, please see the following rule that you agreed to when you signed up to Thai Visa:

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

[chuckd]

Here's an even better idea. I am sure Iran would be more than happy to shelve any nuclear projects including reactor for electricity if Israel would provide transparency, sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and disarm itself of 200-400 nukes including subs which can only be seen as aggressive and not for defensive purposes.

LOL. How nice. Well, lil' ol' YOU may be sure that Iran, a country with no more credibility than N. Korea, would do this & that, but frankly, no one cares what you're sure of or not sure of. Others obviously aren't so sure. Very impressive presumption.

Secondly, if these nukes can ONLY be seen as aggressive and not for defensive purposes, then I guess that pretty much proves Israel has no aggressive intentions, since they've had them but have never used them in, what, almost 50 years/half a century!?

D-. Logic needs a lot of work. (An 'A' for hyperbole and bar-raising bloviation though. 'Sure you're not an Obama staff member? If not, you've missed your calling.)

No the nukes are for defensive purposes but who the hell needs 200-400 nukes to defend oneself in an area where no one has any lol. Also the subs are for offensive purposes but I am sure you can twist your argument to show how nuclear armed subs are necessary as defensive when one has 200 plus nukes and the U.S. arsenal backing itself up. If you do even the slightest bit of research you will see that the subs employing nuclear armaments were from Germany and they received them a short numbe of years back not 50 years. If you are going to act like you know something at least do a bit of research.

You are obviously not schooled on that old axiom..."The best defense is a good offense".

Israel has those German subs offshore so those nice Islamic nations that are trying to destroy them will also know they will be signing their own death certificates if they use nukes in a first strike against Israel.

You might want to heed your own advice.

[ricklev]

The saddest aspect of modern American possible is that we have lost the capacity to debate policy issues without attacking individuals.

[ricklev]

Oops. modern american politics.

[Jingthing]

This topic is not about Israel's program.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

Iran will be erased from history as sure as ancient Egypt fell

There is very little tolerance for middle east countries that have cost the us so many soldiers.

The Iranian nuclear program will smolder for days, and that will be the end of it, likely carried out by joint force led by the USA

They will not tolerate a menace like Iran holding them hostage and having the ability to deliver war heads

Their entire military will be decimated and there will be no response

[ABCer]

It is a one in a lifetime opportunity for Obama to leave something behind to be remembered for.

The fact that it's a bad thing doesn't bother Obama.

Better to be cursed than forgotten.

A general thought: Anybody signing any deal with a Muslim State is a fool or... Obama.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

Nuclear weapons were only a deterrent in the past when mutually assured destruction meant the end of parts of the soviet union and the USA

In the middle East its all or nothing, first to strike wins

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic, inflammatory, troll posts and replies removed.

Please stay on topic.

[hawker9000]

Nuclear weapons were only a deterrent in the past when mutually assured destruction meant the end of parts of the soviet union and the USA

In the middle East its all or nothing, first to strike wins

Exactly wrong. You don't understand "second strike" capability, which is the whole reason Israel has invested in those German subs. The Arabs can launch a "first-strike" against Israel, but if they do, no matter how successful or preemptive it might be, they will then still have to deal with Israel's second-strike from the sea. Still the same old nuclear deterrence.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

It is a deterrence if you have a country the size of the USA, but Israel is the size.of Rhode Island, and even smaller if you consider the population density.

They just took delivery of their 5th German specially equipped submarine

I dont believe Israel should wait for an attack,

They will have to strike first

[hawker9000]

It is a deterrence if you have a country the size of the USA, but Israel is the size.of Rhode Island, and even smaller if you consider the population density.

They just took delivery of their 5th German specially equipped submarine

I dont believe Israel should wait for an attack,

They will have to strike first

You still don't get it.

[losworld]

Nuclear weapons were only a deterrent in the past when mutually assured destruction meant the end of parts of the soviet union and the USA

In the middle East its all or nothing, first to strike wins

Exactly wrong. You don't understand "second strike" capability, which is the whole reason Israel has invested in those German subs. The Arabs can launch a "first-strike" against Israel, but if they do, no matter how successful or preemptive it might be, they will then still have to deal with Israel's second-strike from the sea. Still the same old nuclear deterrence.

What planet are you on? What arabs have first strike nuclear capablility? What arab countries have the u.s. backing them? In fact Saudi Arabia an arab country backs Israel? Are you afraid of the bogeyman too? If you understood Israel not signing the non proliferation treaty one of the key reasons is that it deters agressive nuclear armed nations from parking their subs off the coast of non nuclear nations? Duh...

[sirineou]

what many people are missing is that this negotiations are wot only with the US but with many other countries,

What is remarkable about the sanctions is that all the countries involved are adhering to them,

You can bet that if the US congress torpedoes these negotiations this adherence to the sanctions by other countries will fal apart

and the US will be the odd man out.

[hawker9000]

Nuclear weapons were only a deterrent in the past when mutually assured destruction meant the end of parts of the soviet union and the USA

In the middle East its all or nothing, first to strike wins

Exactly wrong. You don't understand "second strike" capability, which is the whole reason Israel has invested in those German subs. The Arabs can launch a "first-strike" against Israel, but if they do, no matter how successful or preemptive it might be, they will then still have to deal with Israel's second-strike from the sea. Still the same old nuclear deterrence.

What planet are you on? What arabs have first strike nuclear capablility? What arab countries have the u.s. backing them? In fact Saudi Arabia an arab country backs Israel? Are you afraid of the bogeyman too? If you understood Israel not signing the non proliferation treaty one of the key reasons is that it deters agressive nuclear armed nations from parking their subs off the coast of non nuclear nations? Duh...

...A planet where folks think, THEN post. 'Doesn't have to be a nuclear first strike. Same consequences if Israel's defenses should be overrun, as was feared was going to happen in the '67 war. 'Not afraid of the bogeyman, but ignorant fools afraid to engage the brain do give me pause.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

Congress approved a toothless bill this week in this regard because they couldn't pull together 2/3 for an over ride. Its now back in the hands of the ayatollahs who will not sign anything anyway, so I'm not even sure why there is discussion about it

And the nuclear first strike is all Israel has if they allow the ayatollahs a bomb.

Debka today reports the Russian decision to deliver upgraded ss300 missile technology is a red herring for two reasons

1)/ they are unable to train the Iranians in their use
And have given up which means they would have to send teams to operate them which means dead Russians on Iranian soil and

2)// they don't have any to spare anyway as they need all they have to deter upcoming us led aggression in xpexted soon

[ScarpoFongness4U]

Nuclear weapons were only a deterrent in the past when mutually assured destruction meant the end of parts of the soviet union and the USA

In the middle East its all or nothing, first to strike wins

Exactly wrong. You don't understand "second strike" capability, which is the whole reason Israel has invested in those German subs. The Arabs can launch a "first-strike" against Israel, but if they do, no matter how successful or preemptive it might be, they will then still have to deal with Israel's second-strike from the sea. Still the same old nuclear deterrence.

What planet are you on? What arabs have first strike nuclear capablility? What arab countries have the u.s. backing them? In fact Saudi Arabia an arab country backs Israel? Are you afraid of the bogeyman too? If you understood Israel not signing the non proliferation treaty one of the key reasons is that it deters agressive nuclear armed nations from parking their subs off the coast of non nuclear nations? Duh...

Pakistan does

It is rumored Saudi Arabia already does too

It is also likely that Turkey does

Not sure about Khazakastan and other places I can't spell that were in the Soviet sphere

And then there is of course, north Korea who will sell any Arab country anything and probably has, including to Saudi Arabia

[Steely Dan]

Congress approved a toothless bill this week in this regard because they couldn't pull together 2/3 for an over ride. Its now back in the hands of the ayatollahs who will not sign anything anyway, so I'm not even sure why there is discussion about it

And the nuclear first strike is all Israel has if they allow the ayatollahs a bomb.

Debka today reports the Russian decision to deliver upgraded ss300 missile technology is a red herring for two reasons

1)/ they are unable to train the Iranians in their use

And have given up which means they would have to send teams to operate them which means dead Russians on Iranian soil and

2)// they don't have any to spare anyway as they need all they have to deter upcoming us led aggression in xpexted soon

3/ The Israelis can jam their radars anyway.

P.s First or second strike deterrence has to be considered through the optic of whether great suffering is desired for ones own people. The insane Iranian twelvers do.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

I don't believe the Iranians would threaten the Israelis so loudly if the awoke one day to find the mountains that housed their nuclear programs and the arak facility was suddenly missing and in its place was a smoldering inferno and a massive hole.in the ground with maybe one or two oil gushers thrown in for good measure, that they would even announce it as

They have no capabilities to strike Israel And if they did, via Lebanon, that country would soon be on fire from weapons they never see coming,

The Israel military and intelligence agencies have already seeded every Arabian city and all their oil and water,so any strike on Israel and the entire arab world, including turkey would have no food or water in less than a week.

Israel runs the show

The USA plays the game

The British pull the strings on the USA and the Jesuit pope names the theater and the actors to star in the next killing field aka, the Colosseum

[chuckd]

How about a progress report on Obama's peace-in-the-world initiative?

They had a parade in Tehran showing how the Iranian government feels about it.

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

Iran marks Army Day with cries of ‘Death to Israel, US

BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF AND AP April 18, 2015, 6:54 pm 259

Iran on Saturday marked Army Day with a military parade featuring new weapons systems, as well as a truck carrying a massive banner reading “Death to Israel.”

A televised broadcast of the parade was punctuated by repeated cries of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

“If Israel makes a mistake,” the announcer on Iran television said during the broadcast, as heavy trucks carrying armored personnel carriers rolled past, “those in Tel Aviv and Haifa will not sleep at night, not one person.”

Broadcast on national television, military brass and political leaders, foremost President Hassan Rouhani, attended the procession south of the capital Tehran, which showcased the country’s military technologies.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-marks-army-day-with-cries-of-death-to-israel-us/

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

Seems Iran's leaders and military think peace is just around the corner...or at least a US surrender is.

[chuckd]

Talking about a US surrender, I wonder how Obama will spin the latest destruction of yet another of his infamous "red lines.

The inspections seem to be history as far as the Iranians are concerned.

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

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accuses US of creating nuclear weapons 'myth' as military commander says Iran would reject international inspections

'Senior Revolutionary Guard general says inspections would be like rolling out 'a red carpet for the enemy'

LUKE GARRATT Sunday 19 April 2015

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has accused the US of creating "myths" about his country's capability for nuclear weapons.

The Ayatollah's statement came as a senior commander in the Revolutionary Guard said international inspectors would be barred from military sites under any nuclear agreement with world powers.

Speaking in an address on state television, General Hossein Salami, deputy leader of the Guard, said his military would respond with "hot lead to those who speak of it" and warned against Iran becoming "a paradise for spies".

More here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-would-reject-nuclear-inspections-military-commander-says-as-ayatollah-khamenei-accuses-the-us-of-creating-wmd-myth-10188115.html

[ScarpoFongness4U]

USS Theodore Roosevelt and a boarding and strike force has just set sail to the Gulf of Aden to intercept Iranian flotilla of 9 ships heading to resupply the Houthis and to assist Egyptian naval vessels that may be targeted as they pound Yemen from off the coast

The Iranians and the PLO are cut from the same cloth and history will probably not even mention these failed negotiations as, there may not even be an Iran after the coming war