Kerry calls talk of better Iran deal a 'fantasy'

[chuckd]

I bet there are plenty of smart people on overtime working on Stuxnet 2.0 . . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Including Iranians

Along with the assistance of the Obama administration.

Part of the "agreement" calls for the signatories to assist Iran with the protection of their nuclear program. That could put the US government firmly on the side of the Iranian nuclear program if the Israeli government should decide to take some sort of action.

Obama/Kerry might just have switched sides from Israel to the Iranians.

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

John Kerry gave a revealing answer on whether the US will help protect Iran's nuclear program from an Israeli cyber-attack

ARMIN ROSEN JUL 24 2015, 6:31 AM 1

Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday to answer senators’ questions on the historic nuclear agreement reached with Iran last week.

Republican presidential candidate and US Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) asked about a provision of the agreement that seems to obligate the US and its negotiating partners to help protect Iranian nuclear sites against potential outside attack.

According to Annex III, the agreement’s section on “civil nuclear cooperation,” the signatories commit to “co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.

More details revealed here: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/john-kerry-iran-deal-israel-cyber-attack-2015-7

Edited July 27, 2015 by chuckd

[Chicog]

I bet there are plenty of smart people on overtime working on Stuxnet 2.0 . . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Including Iranians

Along with the assistance of the Obama administration.

Part of the "agreement" calls for the signatories to assist Iran with the protection of their nuclear program. That could put the US government firmly on the side of the Iranian nuclear program if the Israeli government should decide to take some sort of action.

Obama/Kerry might just have switched sides from Israel to the Iranians.

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

John Kerry gave a revealing answer on whether the US will help protect Iran's nuclear program from an Israeli cyber-attack

ARMIN ROSEN JUL 24 2015, 6:31 AM 1

Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday to answer senators’ questions on the historic nuclear agreement reached with Iran last week.

Republican presidential candidate and US Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) asked about a provision of the agreement that seems to obligate the US and its negotiating partners to help protect Iranian nuclear sites against potential outside attack.

According to Annex III, the agreement’s section on “civil nuclear cooperation,” the signatories commit to “co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.

More details revealed here: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/john-kerry-iran-deal-israel-cyber-attack-2015-7

Well I think the US has a right to stop the warmongering Israelis from attempting to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, as long as they are being used for peaceful purposes.

Plus, to provide adequate protection, the US would have to have detailed knowledge of the whole Iranian infrastructure. Which might come in handy later on. Sounds like a win-win.

[sdanielmcev]

I bet there are plenty of smart people on overtime working on Stuxnet 2.0 . . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Including Iranians

Along with the assistance of the Obama administration.

Part of the "agreement" calls for the signatories to assist Iran with the protection of their nuclear program. That could put the US government firmly on the side of the Iranian nuclear program if the Israeli government should decide to take some sort of action.

Obama/Kerry might just have switched sides from Israel to the Iranians.

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

John Kerry gave a revealing answer on whether the US will help protect Iran's nuclear program from an Israeli cyber-attack

ARMIN ROSEN JUL 24 2015, 6:31 AM 1

Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday to answer senators questions on the historic nuclear agreement reached with Iran last week.

Republican presidential candidate and US Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) asked about a provision of the agreement that seems to obligate the US and its negotiating partners to help protect Iranian nuclear sites against potential outside attack.

According to Annex III, the agreements section on civil nuclear cooperation, the signatories commit to co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Irans ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.

More details revealed here: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/john-kerry-iran-deal-israel-cyber-attack-2015-7

Well I think the US has a right to stop the warmongering Israelis from attempting to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, as long as they are being used for peaceful purposes.

Plus, to provide adequate protection, the US would have to have detailed knowledge of the whole Iranian infrastructure. Which might come in handy later on. Sounds like a win-win.

Now who's living in a fantasy land? Iran is going to control the inspections. Where are they going to get this detailed knowledge from? Iran knew Obama didn't have the gumption to just walk away. He wanted, maybe needed, to show the world he is a statesman. The fantasy of this whole situation is negotiating with a country that doesn't keep its' promises.

So, maybe, yes, this is the best deal that can be got. But it would've been better to wait until Iran put something on the table before negotiating with them.

[Chicog]

Have you read the agreement yet?

[chuckd]

I haven't read it entirely yet. I have started but keep getting interrupted having to answer stupid questions on the forum.

I sometimes do rely on others that have read parts or all of it, and in line with liberal policies, I have found a comedian that is discussing the agreement.

He isn't Jon Stewart or Bill Maher. They're on the other side.

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

Jackie Mason: NYC restaurants subject to tougher inspections than Iran under nuclear deal

Legendary Jewish comic Jackie Mason joined the list of critics of the nuclear deal signed between world powers and Iran Sunday, jesting that New York restaurants face a harsher inspections regime than Iran's nuclear facilities will under the terms of the agreement.

Speaking during an interview to air Sunday night on "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on New York's AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia's NewsTalk 990 AM, Mason, an outspoken advocate of Israel, quipped that US Secretary of State John Kerry should pay the American people back for the cost of his airfare to and from the Iran talks.

"This secretary of state, Kerry, negotiated with them for a year-and-a-half and accomplished nothing. He ought to give us back for all the trips he made. He cost us millions of dollars in airplane fares and he came back with nothing except a bad foot."

Article here: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Jackie-Mason-NYC-restaurants-subject-to-tougher-inspections-than-Iran-under-nuclear-deal-410203

[Chicog]

Yeah I bet he's read it....

[sdanielmcev]

Have you read the agreement yet?

What is available, yes. Have you?

[chuckd]

Yeah I bet he's read it....

I'm assuming you have read it so why don't you explain exactly how this "anytime, anywhere" IAEA inspection procedure is supposed to operate.

Both President Obama and Secretary Kerry promised "anytime, anywhere" was in the agreement.

"Anytime, anywhere" would tend to mean the IAEA inspectors can show up unannounced at any location run by Iran on the nuclear program, march right in and see what is going on.

I gather the actual procedure isn't quite that simple. Please expand on it.

[Linky]

If Obama devided all bets were off and Iran was to be bombed the Republicans would still find something to bitch about.

If Obama said no deal and kept sanctions the Republicans would still bitch that he's done nothing.

If only the Republicans could stop salivating like rabid dogs at the name Obama.

The majority of the world thinks this is a good deal. The US isnt the be all and end all of the world.

As others are forever saying how strong Israel's military is then it is best they started looking after themselves instead of begging the US to do their bidding for them.

[chuckd]

If Obama devided all bets were off and Iran was to be bombed the Republicans would still find something to bitch about.

If Obama said no deal and kept sanctions the Republicans would still bitch that he's done nothing.

If only the Republicans could stop salivating like rabid dogs at the name Obama.

The majority of the world thinks this is a good deal. The US isnt the be all and end all of the world.

As others are forever saying how strong Israel's military is then it is best they started looking after themselves instead of begging the US to do their bidding for them.

I am not exactly salivating like a rabid dog but I am questioning the decisions of this administration regarding the Iran situation.

Our crack team of negotiators have been out maneuvered, out foxed, flummoxed and generally blown out of the water by a bunch of carpet salesmen from the bazaar of Tehran.

We entered the negotiations hat-in-hand and the battle was lost at that point in time. The Iranians knew that Obama wanted, needed, desired and was desperate to get something, anything, signed, sealed and delivered.

The remaining P5+1 were quite simply happy to get things moving so they could get the trade sanctions relieved and jump on all that good business that would be coming out of Tehran, particularly in the conventional weapons arena.

Why did we agree to ease the sanctions on conventional weapons? This agreement is about their nuclear program and should have nothing to do with conventional weapons.

Why did we agree to the complete absence of an "anytime, anywhere" inspection regime?

Why are we agreeing to lift all the financial sanctions when only a portion of them are in place because of the Iranian nuclear program. Many of them were put in place due to the Tehran Embassy takeover in 1979 and the further actions of the Iranian regime in the ensuing years.

There are so many faults with this agreement that it is hardly worth talking about. It will be a done deal because our Republican Congress members gave the store away too.

While you say the US isn't the be all and end all of the world, for the purposes of this thread, the US participation is what it is about.

Israel has been thrown under the bus by this administration. You better hope the world doesn't find out what the Israeli military is really capable of.