Obama vigorously challenges critics of landmark Iran deal

[webfact]

Obama vigorously challenges critics of landmark Iran deal
By JULIE PACE

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vigorously challenging his critics, President Barack Obama launched an aggressive and detailed defense of a landmark Iranian nuclear accord Wednesday, rejecting the idea that it leaves Tehran on the brink of a bomb and arguing the only alternative to the diplomatic deal is war.

"Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force, through war," Obama said during a lengthy White House news conference. "Those are the options."

The president spoke one day after Iran, the U.S. and five other world powers finalized a historic, yearslong agreement to curb Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Opposition to the deal has been fierce, both in Washington and Israel. Sunni Arab rivals of Shiite Iran also express concerns.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, perhaps the fiercest critic of Obama's overtures to Iran, showed no sign he could be persuaded to even tolerate the agreement. In remarks to Israel's parliament, Netanyahu said he was not bound by the terms of the deal and could still take military action against Iran.

"We will reserve our right to defend ourselves against all of our enemies," said Netanyahu, who sees Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon as a threat to Israel's existence.

In Congress, resistance comes not only from Republicans, but also Obama's own Democratic Party. Vice President Joe Biden spent the morning on Capitol Hill meeting privately with House Democrats, telling reporters as he left that he was confident they would get behind a deal.

The president said he welcomed a "robust" debate with Congress, but showed little patience for what he cast as politically motivated opposition. Lawmakers can't block the nuclear deal, but they can try to undermine it by insisting U.S. sanctions stay in place.

In Tehran, Iranians took to the streets to celebrate the accord, and even Iran's hard-liners offered only mild criticism — a far cry from the outspoken opposition that the White House had feared.

The nuclear accord has become a centerpiece of Obama's foreign policy, a high-stakes gamble that diplomatic engagement with a longtime American foe could resolve one of the world's most pressing security challenges. The importance of the deal to Obama was evident Wednesday, both in his detailed knowledge of its technical provisions and his insistence that no critique go unanswered.

An hour into the East Room news conference, Obama asked if reporters had other questions about Iran — a highly unusual inquiry from a president who is rarely so freewheeling in his exchanges with the press. He pulled a piece of paper out of his pocket, saying he had "made notes" about the main criticisms of the deal and wanted to ensure each had been addressed.

The accord requires Iran to dismantle key elements of its nuclear program, lower its uranium enrichment levels, and give up thousands of centrifuges. International inspectors will have access to Iran's declared nuclear facilities, but must request visits to Iran's military sites, access that isn't guaranteed. If Iran abides by the parameters, it will receive billions of dollars in relief from crippling international sanctions that have badly damaged the country's economy.

The deal does nothing to address Iran's broader support for terrorism in the Middle East or its detention of several American citizens, though some U.S. officials hold out hope it could eventually lead Tehran to reassess its role in the world.

Obama, however, outlined a narrower ambition, saying the deal should be judged solely on whether it stops Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. As to whether the agreement might change Iran's other behavior, he said, "We're not betting on it."

The president also sharply rebuffed a suggestion that he was content to let American detainees languish in Iran while he celebrated a deal. "That's nonsense," he said, adding that Iran would have taken advantage of any U.S. effort to link the nuclear accord to the release of U.S. citizens.

Showing a command of technical nuclear issues, Obama spent much of the news conference trying to knock down criticisms of the deal point by point.

To those who argue sanctions relief will leave Iran flush with cash to fund terrorism, Obama said Tehran is already backing Hezbollah and other groups on the cheap. He noted that the Iranian government is under pressure from citizens to use any influx of international funds to improve the country's struggling economy.

Obama insisted sanctions on Iran could be "snapped back" in place if Iran cheats on the deal, even if Russia and China object. He defended the 24-day window Iran would have before international inspectors gain access to suspicious sites, saying nuclear material "leaves a trace" and suggesting the U.S. has other means of monitoring facilities. And he shrugged off concerns that a United Nations arms embargo on Iran could be lifted in five years, saying the U.S. and its partners have others ways of preventing Iran from sending weapons to militant groups.

Taken together, Obama said, the deal marks a rare opportunity to cut off Iran's pathways to a bomb and bolster the safety of the U.S. and the rest of the world.

"If we don't choose wisely, I believe future generations will judge us harshly for letting this moment slip away," he said.
___

AP writer Josh Lederman contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-07-16

[pitrevie]

I am sure that Obama realizes that if he just announced that Monday was the first day of the week the usual crowd would come out and oppose it.

[JakeSully]

Are the opposition singing this same old song again?

[Katipo]

Obama is having a good run of late.

[pitrevie]

Obama is having a good run of late.

Well I think people are beginning to realize that wanting to bomb someone every time isn't always the best option.

[Thakkar]

I don't like this term being bandied about in news stories:

"If Iran abides by the parameters, it will receive billions of dollars in relief from crippling international sanctions"

Because dishonest media and politicians spin this as: "Iran will be rewarded with boatloads of money" and I'll-informed people buy it at face value.

Iran will simply be no longer prevented from doing normal trade.

The absence of punishment is not a reward. And they won't be getting free money. They will just be allowed to buy and sell, like any other country.

T

Edited July 16, 2015 by Thakkar

[Nuddy]

As if the Iran officials party to this agreement could or would control the elements involved is a joke.

Its all BS to portrate that something has been achieved and of course it has not!.

Regards

[MaxYakov]

Obama is having a good run of late.

A running of his mouth, as usual.

[Srikcir]

The first president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr characterized the deal as "a capitulation to outside powers by the regime of the ayatollahs that has brought this fate upon the Iranian people."

He believed that the U.S. has effectively gained "veto rights" over Iran's sovereignty as it concerns its national security. The US has effectively assured Saudi Arabia, Israel and their Arab allies that the Iranian regime will not play an extensive military role in the region.

Iran has virtually made an unconditional diplomatic surrender to the P6. And not a shot fired or a bomb dropped.

Compare this to President Bush's "victory: in Iraq.

[chuckd]

I don't like this term being bandied about in news stories:

"If Iran abides by the parameters, it will receive billions of dollars in relief from crippling international sanctions"

Because dishonest media and politicians spin this as: "Iran will be rewarded with boatloads of money" and I'll-informed people buy it at face value.

Iran will simply be no longer prevented from doing normal trade.

The absence of punishment is not a reward. And they won't be getting free money. They will just be allowed to buy and sell, like any other country.

T

The cash that is scheduled to be released with the lifting of the sanctions will be those funds that have been frozen and on hold since the original sanctions were issued after the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

the original amount was in the $12 Billion range but there have been additional bank accounts held and it is difficult to find a good source for an amount in total.

Rumors are they will receive some $100 Billion in cash when all the sanctions are removed but I can't back that up yet.

Here it is from the US Treasury Department but I don't have the time nor the patience to dig it out. Be my guest.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/iran.aspx

[Thakkar]

I don't like this term being bandied about in news stories:

"If Iran abides by the parameters, it will receive billions of dollars in relief from crippling international sanctions"

Because dishonest media and politicians spin this as: "Iran will be rewarded with boatloads of money" and I'll-informed people buy it at face value.

Iran will simply be no longer prevented from doing normal trade.

The absence of punishment is not a reward. And they won't be getting free money. They will just be allowed to buy and sell, like any other country.

T

The cash that is scheduled to be released with the lifting of the sanctions will be those funds that have been frozen and on hold since the original sanctions were issued after the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

the original amount was in the $12 Billion range but there have been additional bank accounts held and it is difficult to find a good source for an amount in total.

Rumors are they will receive some $100 Billion in cash when all the sanctions are removed but I can't back that up yet.

Here it is from the US Treasury Department but I don't have the time nor the patience to dig it out. Be my guest.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/iran.aspx

Yes, very likely. Whatever the amount, the money belongs to Iran and has been held under different pretexts long after the embassy occupation was settled. Perhaps this is "the boatload of money" being dishonestly hailed as if it was "free" money given to Iranians (presumably) by American taxpayers.

T

[Pinot]

You know if Cheney is outraged, it's a very good thing. Republicans don't want diplomacy, they want war. They are in lock step against this Iran deal because it was done by Obama. What the majority of Americans and the vast majority of the rest of the world (sans Israel) think, is all wrong and the end of the world according to the Repubs.

Obama is showing himself to be an outstanding President. He's on a roll. The Republicans are on a roll off a cliff.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Scott

[chuckd]

I don't like this term being bandied about in news stories:

"If Iran abides by the parameters, it will receive billions of dollars in relief from crippling international sanctions"

Because dishonest media and politicians spin this as: "Iran will be rewarded with boatloads of money" and I'll-informed people buy it at face value.

Iran will simply be no longer prevented from doing normal trade.

The absence of punishment is not a reward. And they won't be getting free money. They will just be allowed to buy and sell, like any other country.

T

The cash that is scheduled to be released with the lifting of the sanctions will be those funds that have been frozen and on hold since the original sanctions were issued after the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

the original amount was in the $12 Billion range but there have been additional bank accounts held and it is difficult to find a good source for an amount in total.

Rumors are they will receive some $100 Billion in cash when all the sanctions are removed but I can't back that up yet.

Here it is from the US Treasury Department but I don't have the time nor the patience to dig it out. Be my guest.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/iran.aspx

Yes, very likely. Whatever the amount, the money belongs to Iran and has been held under different pretexts long after the embassy occupation was settled. Perhaps this is "the boatload of money" being dishonestly hailed as if it was "free" money given to Iranians (presumably) by American taxpayers.

T

Just a few simple questions.

Is it your position that Iran should have suffered no penalties for attacking the US Embassy and taking and holding 52 American hostages for a total of 444 days?

Does diplomatic immunity mean nothing in your world?

Precisely how was the Embassy occupation "settled"?

[Thakkar]

I don't like this term being bandied about in news stories:

"If Iran abides by the parameters, it will receive billions of dollars in relief from crippling international sanctions"

Because dishonest media and politicians spin this as: "Iran will be rewarded with boatloads of money" and I'll-informed people buy it at face value.

Iran will simply be no longer prevented from doing normal trade.

The absence of punishment is not a reward. And they won't be getting free money. They will just be allowed to buy and sell, like any other country.

T

The cash that is scheduled to be released with the lifting of the sanctions will be those funds that have been frozen and on hold since the original sanctions were issued after the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

the original amount was in the $12 Billion range but there have been additional bank accounts held and it is difficult to find a good source for an amount in total.

Rumors are they will receive some $100 Billion in cash when all the sanctions are removed but I can't back that up yet.

Here it is from the US Treasury Department but I don't have the time nor the patience to dig it out. Be my guest.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/iran.aspx

Yes, very likely. Whatever the amount, the money belongs to Iran and has been held under different pretexts long after the embassy occupation was settled. Perhaps this is "the boatload of money" being dishonestly hailed as if it was "free" money given to Iranians (presumably) by American taxpayers.

T

Just a few simple questions.

Is it your position that Iran should have suffered no penalties for attacking the US Embassy and taking and holding 52 American hostages for a total of 444 days?

Does diplomatic immunity mean nothing in your world?

Precisely how was the Embassy occupation "settled"?

Iran 1979 embassy hostage taking:

It was a terrible ordeal for the hostages and they and their families shouldn't have had to live through it. But let's understand why it happened. The U.S./British run 1953 coup that overthrew a secular, democratic, elected Iranian government was run out of the American Embassy. The hated, horribly repressive and corrupt US installed regime was also pretty much run out of that same U.S. Embassy. After the 1979 revolution, there was credible fear that agents from the U.S. embassy would mount a counter revolution, hence the raid on the embassy. After that, things got out of hand as each side escalated the rhetoric. Revolutions are messy.

If the world were a fairer place the Iranians would more than just get back their money. They would also get compensated for 25 years of rip offs by U.S. oil companies under the U.S.-installed corrupt Shah who sold off state assets as if they were personal property.

It was "settled" when the hostages were freed. In the same way the revolution "settled" the U.S. Accusation it Iran by proxy for a generation.

T

[arjunadawn]

Obama is having a good run of late.

Well I think people are beginning to realize that wanting to bomb someone every time isn't always the best option.

Apparently Obama has not gotten that message. Perhaps its below common radar but Obama has killed thousands of people in undeclared acts of war for which there is little or no congressional or international authority. From Yemen to NWFP to Syria to Iraq to unknown places, thousands of died. Its a great stretch to assert people have "realize[d]" anything.

[Publicus]

I don't like this term being bandied about in news stories:

"If Iran abides by the parameters, it will receive billions of dollars in relief from crippling international sanctions"

Because dishonest media and politicians spin this as: "Iran will be rewarded with boatloads of money" and I'll-informed people buy it at face value.

Iran will simply be no longer prevented from doing normal trade.

The absence of punishment is not a reward. And they won't be getting free money. They will just be allowed to buy and sell, like any other country.

T

The cash that is scheduled to be released with the lifting of the sanctions will be those funds that have been frozen and on hold since the original sanctions were issued after the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

the original amount was in the $12 Billion range but there have been additional bank accounts held and it is difficult to find a good source for an amount in total.

Rumors are they will receive some $100 Billion in cash when all the sanctions are removed but I can't back that up yet.

Here it is from the US Treasury Department but I don't have the time nor the patience to dig it out. Be my guest.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/iran.aspx

Yes, very likely. Whatever the amount, the money belongs to Iran and has been held under different pretexts long after the embassy occupation was settled. Perhaps this is "the boatload of money" being dishonestly hailed as if it was "free" money given to Iranians (presumably) by American taxpayers.

T

Just a few simple questions.

Is it your position that Iran should have suffered no penalties for attacking the US Embassy and taking and holding 52 American hostages for a total of 444 days?

Does diplomatic immunity mean nothing in your world?

Precisely how was the Embassy occupation "settled"?

Whether or not the new regime of ayatollahs of the time initiated the US Embassy takeover, the mullahs and the rest of 'em have never recovered globally from that serious violation of sovereignty and they never will recover. The ayatollahs are notorious unrelenting global outlaws and everyone knows it.

Same as GW Bush & Co while they were in control of the US government have never recovered from the Words of Mass Deception invasion of Iraq and never will recover. The Bush family has always believed the US military is their own personal militia and that won't ever change either.

We are dealing in the much more severe nuclear weapons reality of the present concerning Iran. The reality is that no one in the world save perhaps North Korea wants to see a nuclear armed Iran, and even the Russians and Beijing do not trust the mullahs. So this deal is as good as it gets in this respect.

[Loptr]

Obama is having a good run of late.

Name 5 political leaders on the planet that think this is a good deal... You can include the US and Iran if you like...

[Jingthing]

Of course he's going to defend the deal.

He's heavily invested in the deal.

A big part of his presidential legacy depends on the deal going forward and working out (a BIG GAMBLE).

I can't blame him for any of that and not being God I don't know how the deal is going to work out.

Will the U.S. congress have the votes to override his veto of the expected initial rejection. Doubtful.

It's interesting that Hillary Clinton is positioning herself as supporting the deal. That's a gamble for her too but I guess she's betting on things not totally falling apart BEFORE she get elected.

[chuckd]

The cash that is scheduled to be released with the lifting of the sanctions will be those funds that have been frozen and on hold since the original sanctions were issued after the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

the original amount was in the $12 Billion range but there have been additional bank accounts held and it is difficult to find a good source for an amount in total.

Rumors are they will receive some $100 Billion in cash when all the sanctions are removed but I can't back that up yet.

Here it is from the US Treasury Department but I don't have the time nor the patience to dig it out. Be my guest.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/iran.aspx

Yes, very likely. Whatever the amount, the money belongs to Iran and has been held under different pretexts long after the embassy occupation was settled. Perhaps this is "the boatload of money" being dishonestly hailed as if it was "free" money given to Iranians (presumably) by American taxpayers.

T

Just a few simple questions.

Is it your position that Iran should have suffered no penalties for attacking the US Embassy and taking and holding 52 American hostages for a total of 444 days?

Does diplomatic immunity mean nothing in your world?

Precisely how was the Embassy occupation "settled"?

Iran 1979 embassy hostage taking:

It was a terrible ordeal for the hostages and they and their families shouldn't have had to live through it. But let's understand why it happened. The U.S./British run 1953 coup that overthrew a secular, democratic, elected Iranian government was run out of the American Embassy. The hated, horribly repressive and corrupt US installed regime was also pretty much run out of that same U.S. Embassy. After the 1979 revolution, there was credible fear that agents from the U.S. embassy would mount a counter revolution, hence the raid on the embassy. After that, things got out of hand as each side escalated the rhetoric. Revolutions are messy.

If the world were a fairer place the Iranians would more than just get back their money. They would also get compensated for 25 years of rip offs by U.S. oil companies under the U.S.-installed corrupt Shah who sold off state assets as if they were personal property.

It was "settled" when the hostages were freed. In the same way the revolution "settled" the U.S. Accusation it Iran by proxy for a generation.

T

Where in the world are you getting all this nonsense?

I lived in Tehran for the last five years of the Shah's regime, up to and including the revolution.

"The hated, horribly repressive and corrupt US installed regime was also pretty much run out of that same U.S. Embassy.

The Shah wasn't hated by the majority of the people. He was hated by the Islamic radicals and radicalized students from the bazaar area and Qom that wanted to have Islamic rule. Those people were the ones that led the revolution, certainly not the average every day Iranian citizen.

The majority of Iranians stayed safely in their homes, becoming part of the silent Islamic majority that, to this day, remains irrelevant.

The Iran I knew was peaceful and the citizens were happy and prosperous. Tehran, Isfahan and other cities I worked out of were bustling and productive.

It all turned pear shaped when Jimmy Carter showed up on New Year's Eve 1977. He convinced the Shah to relax his control of the media to allow dissension and the papers to print more radical Islamic editorials. The revolution quickly broke out down south until it spread throughout the country, ending in Tehran in the Autumn of 1978.

That, sir, is when the genie got out of the bottle in Iran.

The Shah's government was not run out of the American Embassy. Unfortunately he listened to Jimmy Carter and that is what led to his downfall and the situation as it exists now.

"there was credible fear that agents from the U.S. embassy would mount a counter revolution, hence the raid on the embassy. After that, things got out of hand as each side escalated the rhetoric. Revolutions are messy."

​I have no clue where you are getting this information. We were still dealing with people in Iran during this time frame and there was certainly no tension among them, other than their fears from the Islamic regime and the newly re-built SAVAK. All anybody has to do is realize who the sitting US President was to understand there would be no attempt at a counter revolution. That administration couldn't even handle a hostage rescue with the skids already greased.

Any counter revolutionary plans followed many months and years after the Embassy take-over.

Finally you state this little bit of fluff:

"If the world were a fairer place the Iranians would more than just get back their money. They would also get compensated for 25 years of rip offs by U.S. oil companies under the U.S.-installed corrupt Shah who sold off state assets as if they were personal property."

​What do you think would be fair compensation for the US to receive for the loss of one entire, fully functioning, US Embassy located on prime real estate in a major world city? The Embassy was located on Takht-e Jamshid Avenue right in the heart of the city. Fair is fair, after all.

We won't even get into all the industries that had been set up by US companies that were nationalized by the Ayatollah. Nor will we get into the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon, the Khobar Towers bombing and the USS Cole to name only a few.

As you can tell, I disagree with your perspective of history.

[Thakkar]

Where in the world are you getting all this nonsense?

I lived in Tehran for the last five years of the Shah's regime, up to and including the revolution.

"The hated, horribly repressive and corrupt US installed regime was also pretty much run out of that same U.S. Embassy.

The Shah wasn't hated by the majority of the people. He was hated by the Islamic radicals and radicalized students from the bazaar area and Qom that wanted to have Islamic rule. Those people were the ones that led the revolution, certainly not the average every day Iranian citizen.

The majority of Iranians stayed safely in their homes, becoming part of the silent Islamic majority that, to this day, remains irrelevant.

The Iran I knew was peaceful and the citizens were happy and prosperous. Tehran, Isfahan and other cities I worked out of were bustling and productive.

It all turned pear shaped when Jimmy Carter showed up on New Year's Eve 1977. He convinced the Shah to relax his control of the media to allow dissension and the papers to print more radical Islamic editorials. The revolution quickly broke out down south until it spread throughout the country, ending in Tehran in the Autumn of 1978.

That, sir, is when the genie got out of the bottle in Iran.

The Shah's government was not run out of the American Embassy. Unfortunately he listened to Jimmy Carter and that is what led to his downfall and the situation as it exists now.

"there was credible fear that agents from the U.S. embassy would mount a counter revolution, hence the raid on the embassy. After that, things got out of hand as each side escalated the rhetoric. Revolutions are messy."

​I have no clue where you are getting this information. We were still dealing with people in Iran during this time frame and there was certainly no tension among them, other than their fears from the Islamic regime and the newly re-built SAVAK. All anybody has to do is realize who the sitting US President was to understand there would be no attempt at a counter revolution. That administration couldn't even handle a hostage rescue with the skids already greased.

Any counter revolutionary plans followed many months and years after the Embassy take-over.

Finally you state this little bit of fluff:

"If the world were a fairer place the Iranians would more than just get back their money. They would also get compensated for 25 years of rip offs by U.S. oil companies under the U.S.-installed corrupt Shah who sold off state assets as if they were personal property."

​What do you think would be fair compensation for the US to receive for the loss of one entire, fully functioning, US Embassy located on prime real estate in a major world city? The Embassy was located on Takht-e Jamshid Avenue right in the heart of the city. Fair is fair, after all.

We won't even get into all the industries that had been set up by US companies that were nationalized by the Ayatollah. Nor will we get into the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon, the Khobar Towers bombing and the USS Cole to name only a few.

As you can tell, I disagree with your perspective of history.

While brief personal experiences are useful and informative, they are not a substitute for good ol' fashioned book learnin' The nature of personal experiences is that by its very definition they are a subset of the whole picture.

Your repeated use of the rhetorical "where do you get this from" in reference to my post does not automatically bestow greater validity to what you say.

The historical record, including from published US official accounts, tells us the following:

The Shah's regime was installed with the connivance of US and British Intelligence which overthrew an elected government.

The Shah immediately returned previously nationalised assets to British and American Oil companies.

The Shah soon went on a massive buying spree spending billions the country couldn't afford on US-arms purchases at a time the country faced little external threat while the economy suffered.

The regime was arbitrary, brutal and autocratic and its principal officers were trained by the U.S. military and intelligence services.

Corruption, poverty and inequality were widespread.

At the onset of the revolution the Shah himself admitted some of the above when, in a last ditch attempt to save himself, he said in a speech,

I commit myself to make up for past mistakes, to fight corruption and injustices and to form a national government to carry out free elections.

Why would he say that if everything was hunky-dory? In fact, why would there even have been a revolution? It wasn't a minor uprising; it was full-fledged revolution

Revolutions are bound to be messy and tend to unlock decades of pent up anger against the regime and its enablers. Often, the more brutal the regime, the more brutal the backlash that follows. The initial occupation of the American embassy was for two hours. Revolutionary Guards intervened against the attackers, and the mullahs apologized for the attack

Revolutionaries are a jittery bunch. The mood quickly changed when the escaped Shah was allowed into the United Sates*. Based on US actions in the past, there was fear that the U.S. Was conniving again to restore him to power. That's when some of the radicals, probably with Khomeini's blessing, re-entered the embassy and thus began the fateful and awful 444 days.

Allowing the Shah into the U.S. was a fatal error whose consequences were predicted by the U.S. ambassador William Sullivan who had warned against it saying, If they let him in, they will bring us [meaning the embassy staff] out in boxes.

Carter himself, during a policy meeting with aids had asked presciently, "What are you guys going to advise me to do if they overrun our embassy and take our people hostage?"

The embassy occupation was of course wrong and a breach of international law, but it's important to understand the sequence of events, all the way back to 1953, that led up to it. The U.S. instigated overthrow of a popularly elected government was also wrong and a breach of international law. Needless to say, I'm not implying that two wrongs make a right, just that they are two interrelated wrongs.

T

*For medical treatment. Carter was reluctant but was persuaded, in part, by Rockefeller's heavy lobbying. Rockefeller had a vested interest: his bank, Chase, had lent huge sums to the Shah's regime

Edited July 17, 2015 by Thakkar

[sdanielmcev]

I am sure that Obama realizes that if he just announced that Monday was the first day of the week the usual crowd would come out and oppose it.

Probably would because Sunday is the first day of the week.

[sdanielmcev]

"The president said he welcomed a "robust" debate with Congress, but showed little patience for what he cast as politically motivated opposition. Lawmakers can't block the nuclear deal, but they can try to undermine it by insisting U.S. sanctions stay in place."

So much for Obamas' knowledge of constitutional law. This is an executive action that expires after he leaves office. The Iranians and everybody else knows this. Except for Obama. Usurping the Constitution ain't gonna work.

[Seastallion]

Yes, very likely. Whatever the amount, the money belongs to Iran and has been held under different pretexts long after the embassy occupation was settled. Perhaps this is "the boatload of money" being dishonestly hailed as if it was "free" money given to Iranians (presumably) by American taxpayers.

T

Just a few simple questions.

Is it your position that Iran should have suffered no penalties for attacking the US Embassy and taking and holding 52 American hostages for a total of 444 days?

Does diplomatic immunity mean nothing in your world?

Precisely how was the Embassy occupation "settled"?

Iran 1979 embassy hostage taking:

It was a terrible ordeal for the hostages and they and their families shouldn't have had to live through it. But let's understand why it happened. The U.S./British run 1953 coup that overthrew a secular, democratic, elected Iranian government was run out of the American Embassy. The hated, horribly repressive and corrupt US installed regime was also pretty much run out of that same U.S. Embassy. After the 1979 revolution, there was credible fear that agents from the U.S. embassy would mount a counter revolution, hence the raid on the embassy. After that, things got out of hand as each side escalated the rhetoric. Revolutions are messy.

If the world were a fairer place the Iranians would more than just get back their money. They would also get compensated for 25 years of rip offs by U.S. oil companies under the U.S.-installed corrupt Shah who sold off state assets as if they were personal property.

It was "settled" when the hostages were freed. In the same way the revolution "settled" the U.S. Accusation it Iran by proxy for a generation.

T

Where in the world are you getting all this nonsense?

I lived in Tehran for the last five years of the Shah's regime, up to and including the revolution.

"The hated, horribly repressive and corrupt US installed regime was also pretty much run out of that same U.S. Embassy.

The Shah wasn't hated by the majority of the people. He was hated by the Islamic radicals and radicalized students from the bazaar area and Qom that wanted to have Islamic rule. Those people were the ones that led the revolution, certainly not the average every day Iranian citizen.

The majority of Iranians stayed safely in their homes, becoming part of the silent Islamic majority that, to this day, remains irrelevant.

The Iran I knew was peaceful and the citizens were happy and prosperous. Tehran, Isfahan and other cities I worked out of were bustling and productive.

It all turned pear shaped when Jimmy Carter showed up on New Year's Eve 1977. He convinced the Shah to relax his control of the media to allow dissension and the papers to print more radical Islamic editorials. The revolution quickly broke out down south until it spread throughout the country, ending in Tehran in the Autumn of 1978.

That, sir, is when the genie got out of the bottle in Iran.

The Shah's government was not run out of the American Embassy. Unfortunately he listened to Jimmy Carter and that is what led to his downfall and the situation as it exists now.

"there was credible fear that agents from the U.S. embassy would mount a counter revolution, hence the raid on the embassy. After that, things got out of hand as each side escalated the rhetoric. Revolutions are messy."

​I have no clue where you are getting this information. We were still dealing with people in Iran during this time frame and there was certainly no tension among them, other than their fears from the Islamic regime and the newly re-built SAVAK. All anybody has to do is realize who the sitting US President was to understand there would be no attempt at a counter revolution. That administration couldn't even handle a hostage rescue with the skids already greased.

Any counter revolutionary plans followed many months and years after the Embassy take-over.

Finally you state this little bit of fluff:

"If the world were a fairer place the Iranians would more than just get back their money. They would also get compensated for 25 years of rip offs by U.S. oil companies under the U.S.-installed corrupt Shah who sold off state assets as if they were personal property."

​What do you think would be fair compensation for the US to receive for the loss of one entire, fully functioning, US Embassy located on prime real estate in a major world city? The Embassy was located on Takht-e Jamshid Avenue right in the heart of the city. Fair is fair, after all.

We won't even get into all the industries that had been set up by US companies that were nationalized by the Ayatollah. Nor will we get into the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon, the Khobar Towers bombing and the USS Cole to name only a few.

As you can tell, I disagree with your perspective of history.

Hmm, yes, you were there, and that makes you better informed..... but you gloss over your credentials...You are American and you were, in your own words, in the "defence industry", so, being in Iran at that time, the chances are that you yourself were misinformed by your superiors, or, as a loyal subject, you would like to gloss over what was actually happening.

[Seastallion]

"The president said he welcomed a "robust" debate with Congress, but showed little patience for what he cast as politically motivated opposition. Lawmakers can't block the nuclear deal, but they can try to undermine it by insisting U.S. sanctions stay in place."

So much for Obamas' knowledge of constitutional law. This is an executive action that expires after he leaves office. The Iranians and everybody else knows this. Except for Obama. Usurping the Constitution ain't gonna work.

I think you're missing the point (that Obama knows very well) that it won't be a Republican on the Oval Office next year.

Incidentally...I would lay one hellava big wager that Obama's knowledge of constitutional law is far greater than yours. FAR greater.

[sdanielmcev]

"The president said he welcomed a "robust" debate with Congress, but showed little patience for what he cast as politically motivated opposition. Lawmakers can't block the nuclear deal, but they can try to undermine it by insisting U.S. sanctions stay in place."

So much for Obamas' knowledge of constitutional law. This is an executive action that expires after he leaves office. The Iranians and everybody else knows this. Except for Obama. Usurping the Constitution ain't gonna work.

I think you're missing the point (that Obama knows very well) that it won't be a Republican on the Oval Office next year.

Incidentally...I would lay one hellava big wager that Obama's knowledge of constitutional law is far greater than yours. FAR greater.

I'd have no problem going toe to toe with Obama, or anybody on Constitutional law. And, so far, many rulings have gone against Obama on Constitutional grounds. Whether or not there is a Republican or Democrat as the next president, this executive action expires at the end of Obamas' presidency. Ratification by the Senate is not a guarantee, therefore not a treaty, as we agree. Also ratification by the other countries, the U.N. and any other governing body is neither certain, nor appealing in its' current state.

Your prognostication of the next election would hinge upon you, Obama, or anybody being able to see the future in a realistic sense. Doesn't happen. With Clinton now sliding towards a Trey Gowdy-led oblivion, the dems would need some kind of candidate to put forth. Don't you think?

[chuckd]

<snip>

Hmm, yes, you were there, and that makes you better informed..... but you gloss over your credentials...You are American and you were, in your own words, in the "defence industry", so, being in Iran at that time, the chances are that you yourself were misinformed by your superiors, or, as a loyal subject, you would like to gloss over what was actually happening.

I'm not prone to glossing anything over. I posted what I observed and lived through.

If it doesn't agree with some college professor's version of history, I don't really care.

And as far as my chances of being misinformed at the time, I would only say the chances I was misinformed then were no greater than the chances you are misinformed now.

Ta.

[Publicus]

American right wingers in Iran during the Shah's fascist reign did not serve the long term interests of the United States among the people of Iran or throughout the region, all self-importance aside.

I'd suspect too that smug condescension were aggravating factors besides. The people in the US Embassy certainly got the brunt of it. Then there was September 11th for all the rest of us.

This very viable nuclear agreement might call attention to both the region and the world that the United States is at last positively involved in the region. That the Republican US Senator from Israel is against POTUS might foster a greater credibility for the US in the region as well.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

It's interesting that Hillary Clinton is positioning herself as supporting the deal. That's a gamble for her too but I guess she's betting on things not totally falling apart BEFORE she get elected.

"That's a gamble for her too but I guess she's betting on things not totally falling apart BEFORE she get elected."

Oh, we'll know how it worked out before 19 2084.

[Thakkar]

American right wingers in Iran during the Shah's fascist reign did not serve the long term interests of the United States among the people of Iran or throughout the region, all self-importance aside.

I'd suspect too that smug condescension were aggravating factors besides. The people in the US Embassy certainly got the brunt of it. Then there was September 11th for all the rest of us.

This very viable nuclear agreement might call attention to both the region and the world that the United States is at last positively involved in the region. That the Republican US Senator from Israel is against POTUS might foster a greater credibility for the US in the region as well.

The United States has a remarkable capacity for good. With the right leadership in The Whitehouse, it's possible to imagine a fairer world. Against incredible opposition, Obama has improved access to healthcare for millions of Americans, pushed the envelope more than any other president for equal LGBT rights and improved livelihoods after a crippling recession.

In Foreign policy, we're on the positive path to unshackle Cubans from crippling, unfair sanctions, against massive pushback from Hawks, he has avoided sending more American youth to kill and be killed and this nuclear deal with Iran could turn out to be a positive signature achievement.

A bumbling, profit-seeking, but at times also well-meaning super power like America is preferable to an autocratic, sinister super power like the Soviet Union, or a condescending, colonising one like Britain, or an exploitative, religious indoctrinating one like Spain, or the murderous Mongol hoards before that. I suppose that for humanity, this is progress of a sort.

T

[Steely Dan]

Obama is showing his contempt for congress by pushing the deal for security council ratification on Monday so sanctions will collapse anyway whatever congress does. The Israeli view of the deal is no secret but Obama has guaranteed a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, history won't be kind to him though his progressive lapdogs would be cheering until they themselves are effected by radioactive fallout.

Here is the Saudi view, when they take delivery of nuclear weapons from Pakistan Iran will itself speed towards the bomb evidently unopposed.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/07/16/Saudi-Prince-Bandar-Iran-deal-worse-than-North-Korean-deal-.html