US lawmakers should realise the world wants peace

[Lite Beer]

EDITORIAL
US lawmakers should realise the world wants peace
The Nation

WASHINGTON: -- Nuclear deal with Iran should be given a chance despite vocal campaign against it by lobbyists and republicans in Washington

This past week United States President Barack Obama delivered a key speech on the nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers - in exactly the same spot where President John F Kennedy gave a speech in 1963 on nuclear diplomacy.

Obama went after critics of the deal, pointing out that some were the very same people who played on public fear and thumped the drumbeat of war that pushed the States into battle with Iraq over a decade ago.

Needless to say, the consequences of that war are being played out today in the Middle East and it doesn't look good.

"Let's not mince words: The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some form of war - maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon," said Obama in the speech. "How can we in good conscience justify war before we've tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives?"

Obama wasn't just addressing his critics, he was also directing his message towards the Republicans, who are expected to vote as a block to shoot down the deal, and the Democrats who have yet to decide.

But, as Obama pointed out, the content of the deal speaks for itself, and for this very reason, it is worth being given a chance.

Yet politics will be politics and "knee-jerk partisanship that has become an all too familiar rhetoric, renders every decision to be a disaster, a surrender".

In this respect, there is common ground between the hardliners in Iran who chant "death to America" and the Republicans in the US.

Leading Republicans were resentful of the tone Obama employed in the speech, because they believe their concerns over this deal should not be dismissed in such a manner.

However, given the importance of this deal, and the shameful rhetoric from his critics that unfairly attack the agreement, Obama had no choice but to be frank and stern.

Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008 partly because did not back the war in Iraq. And like every other American president who has been re-elected, he wants to spend his second term achieving results.

However, this is not to suggest that Obama is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, provided his moves to leave a good legacy don't undermine his efforts to do the right thing.

Activists, lobbyists and diplomats have been running over Washington in recent weeks pleading to American lawmakers to reject or support the deal. Ads have been taken out and there is talk of a US$25 million package to attack the accord.

"If the rhetoric in these ads and the accompanying commentary sounds familiar, it should," Obama said. "Many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal."

While US lawmakers go through some soul-searching, they should also try and think beyond their constituencies. Most of the world - with the exception of Benjamin Netanyahu's Israel - backs this deal.

Certainly there are other issues that the US and the rest of the world will have to deal with as far as maintaining bilateral ties with Iran is concerned.

Apart from Israel, the rest of the Arab world - with the exception of Syria - is also concerned about Iran's growth in the region.

Then there are the human-rights issues as well as the case of Hezbollah, which continues to be a threat to Israel, not to mention Islamic State, which has been gaining ground in just about every sense of the word.

Though this nuclear deal with Iran does not address all these issues as it is meant to, it could open the door to closer cooperation between world powers and Tehran on these very subjects.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/US-lawmakers-should-realise-the-world-wants-peace-30266236.html

-- The Nation 2015-08-09

[Mango Bob]

Yes, the world wants peace, but doesn Iran?

[Credo]

One does have to wonder what it is that US lawmakers want.

[noitom]

Thais pontificating about world peace should tend their own garden in the Thai south. How many dead now in the Thai south? How many injured an/or maimed?

[Berkshire]

Thais pontificating about world peace should tend their own garden in the Thai south. How many dead now in the Thai south? How many injured an/or maimed?

So this is your argument when the author makes some very good points...?

[NeverSure]

The only way to get peace with the likes of Iran is to turn it into a glass parking lot.

Cheers.

[willyumiii]

The people of the world want peace.

They need peace to survive.

The corporations of the world want war.

They thrive on the profits made on wars.

As long as the corporations own the governments.

The people will lose.

Feel the Bern.

[JetsetBkk]

"However, given the importance of this deal, and the shameful rhetoric from his critics that unfairly attack the agreement, Obama had no choice but to be frank and stern."

Good grief. Who wrote this rubbish, Josh Earnest?

[geriatrickid]

One does have to wonder what it is that US lawmakers want.

They do not want to worry about the Iranians launching nuclear weapons at the USA. In case you forgot, the supreme leader of Iran leades his people in Death to America chants. Even the most ignorant and right wing of US politicians have never taken to the streets to lead rallies with the chants of death to Iran.

[chuckd]

If people want peace in the world...don't give the leading supplier of terror an extra $100-150 Billion to play with.

The sanctions were working or Iran would never have even come to the table. The sanctions should have been kept in place until the West got a deal that might have helped get some peace in the world.

Europe and China got what they want. Sanctions removed and a new, very viable trading partner back in play with a pocket full of money.

Obama/Kerry got what Obama wants. A legacy.

But how that legacy will look in a couple of years and how comfortable Europe will feel when the Iranians have perfected their ICBMs is the real elephant in the room.

This is a bad deal if for no other reason than the side deals between Iran and the IAEA.

The rest of the agreement is not much better, if at all. It was a total surrender to Iran's demands.

Edited August 9, 2015 by chuckd

[Credo]

One does have to wonder what it is that US lawmakers want.

They do not want to worry about the Iranians launching nuclear weapons at the USA. In case you forgot, the supreme leader of Iran leades his people in Death to America chants. Even the most ignorant and right wing of US politicians have never taken to the streets to lead rallies with the chants of death to Iran.

In theory, yes, but in reality if there is no agreement they are completely free to develop a bomb unimpeded. The politicians are playing politics, that's all.

The world is in a much better position to see what Iran is up to with an agreement than without one.

Is it a good agreement...probably not, but only time will tell.

The overall point is that nuclear weapons are getting more and more common. It is only a matter of time until a lot of countries and groups have them. Sad, but true.

[chuckd]

One does have to wonder what it is that US lawmakers want.

They do not want to worry about the Iranians launching nuclear weapons at the USA. In case you forgot, the supreme leader of Iran leades his people in Death to America chants. Even the most ignorant and right wing of US politicians have never taken to the streets to lead rallies with the chants of death to Iran.

In theory, yes, but in reality if there is no agreement they are completely free to develop a bomb unimpeded. The politicians are playing politics, that's all.

The world is in a much better position to see what Iran is up to with an agreement than without one.

Is it a good agreement...probably not, but only time will tell.

The overall point is that nuclear weapons are getting more and more common. It is only a matter of time until a lot of countries and groups have them. Sad, but true.

Permit me to counter with the idea that with this agreement currently in place, there are no "anytime, anywhere" inspections of any Iranian nuclear facility.

With a 24 day lead time before the first inspector can arrive on site, there is no way to determine if Iran is living up to the agreement or not. Just imagine what Iran can cover up with a 24 day grace period.

This is a farce, but, as far as Europe and China are concerned, it is a done deal after the UN Security Council voted. They are off the hook on the sanctions and can go after the big money contracts.

The only thing Congress can do is to pass legislation denying the agreement, which Obama will promptly veto.

After that, Congress may then override Obama's veto with a two thirds majority of both Houses of Congress. A slim possibility at best.

If they override his veto this would leave all US sanctions in place and those funds being held in US banks would not be released to Iran.

Since this is an Executive Agreement rather than a treaty, the next President can cancel it upon his inauguration, but the genie will already be out of the bottle.

[Lissos]

Giving the deal a chance is one thing.

Contingency plans if it manifests quite differently than gambled?

Well that is something else.

I hope there is one,and that it is primed to act rapidly and decisively.

"Hope for the best, prepare for the worst " etc.

In an infamous -"celebrate the peace deal" from the past, arguably Europe had its pants around its ankles and was now in a corner despite various indications earlier on that Germany was not standing down as gambled.

[ezzra]

The hippies and the beatniks use to sing the songs of world peace 45 years ago and still here we're

no peace but the opposite, more and more people and nations hating each other and wants what

the other side have and willing to do everything in their power to get it, so peace is the stuff of songs,

speeches and dreams,, and Iran, give them a chance? how? once they have the bomb that's it,

no putting the tooth paste back in tube again.... and Iran will have the bomb and much sooner that

what this gullible and silly world leaders anticipate....

[craigt3365]

Yes, the world wants peace, but doesn Iran?

Their creation and support of Hezbollah may indicate otherwise???

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

Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and was primarily formed to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation.^[3] Its leaders were followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards that arrived from Iran with permission from the Syrian government.^[20] After the 1982 invasion, Israel occupied a strip of south Lebanon, which was controlled by a militia supported by Israel, the South Lebanon Army. Hezbollah waged a guerilla campaign against them; with the collapse of the SLA, Israel withdrew on May 24, 2000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

And of course there was this:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/533506-3-foreigners-injured-in-bangkok-bomb-explosion/

[Steely Dan]

The whole framing of the debate as choosing either the deal or war is a dishonest illusory choice, made that way by a president desperately in search of a legacy with a foreign secretary in way above his depth. The deal makes war a certainty because Iran has no inducement to change its ways and 'the world' as mentioned in the o.p does not account for those directly in Iran's firing line, and this is not just Israel.

[Credo]

The whole framing of the debate as choosing either the deal or war is a dishonest illusory choice, made that way by a president desperately in search of a legacy with a foreign secretary in way above his depth. The deal makes war a certainty because Iran has no inducement to change its ways and 'the world' as mentioned in the o.p does not account for those directly in Iran's firing line, and this is not just Israel.

Good.

The ground work is laid to attack and it will be a legal attack and should include or be approved by other countries, as opposed to some cowboy type of action.

This alone makes it a good deal.

[Chicog]

The whole framing of the debate as choosing either the deal or war is a dishonest illusory choice, made that way by a president desperately in search of a legacy with a foreign secretary in way above his depth. The deal makes war a certainty because Iran has no inducement to change its ways and 'the world' as mentioned in the o.p does not account for those directly in Iran's firing line, and this is not just Israel.

You almost make a good point.

The deal does not preclude military action in the future but it does stifle Iran's nuclear ambition.

So it won't hurt to give it a try, will it?

[lap82]

The world wants peace... but how about the economics? They don't care about it, unfortunately. World peace wouldn't produce enough money for them.

[BuaBS]

It is in Iran's best interest to have nukes , being wedged between Israel , Pakistan & India , they too need a deterred to protect their country. If Gaddafi , Sadam & Assad had nukes , they would not have been invaded or in a civil war started by "outside forces" .

[chuckd]

The whole framing of the debate as choosing either the deal or war is a dishonest illusory choice, made that way by a president desperately in search of a legacy with a foreign secretary in way above his depth. The deal makes war a certainty because Iran has no inducement to change its ways and 'the world' as mentioned in the o.p does not account for those directly in Iran's firing line, and this is not just Israel.

You almost make a good point.

The deal does not preclude military action in the future but it does stifle Iran's nuclear ambition.

So it won't hurt to give it a try, will it?

"So it won't hurt to give it a try, will it?'

With "anytime, anywhere" inspections by qualified, including US and Canadian, inspectors, I can almost agree with your statement.

As it currently stands, the farm has been given away to Iran.

[sirineou]

One does have to wonder what it is that US lawmakers want.

They do not want to worry about the Iranians launching nuclear weapons at the USA. In case you forgot, the supreme leader of Iran leades his people in Death to America chants. Even the most ignorant and right wing of US politicians have never taken to the streets to lead rallies with the chants of death to Iran.

if the Iranian secret intelligence agency, overthrows the US government and replaces it with a puppet government that

prosecutes it's people , and then years later the US get's under the Iranian oppression,

Then I think the US politicians would lead rallies with the chants of death to Iran.

The Iranian people have good reason to be mad at as, and our current behavior is not doing a lot to change that.

If the Iranians need nuclear weapons, it is because the need to protect them selves from as.

We are the worlds worst nuclear proliferators , and the only ones to have ever used nuclear weapons!!!

[sunshine51]

US lawmakers should be more concerned with their own back yard (front yard too) before dictating how the

rest of the world's yards look.

[Boon Mee]

Heh...Chamberlien wanted peace in his tiime and look what that got him...

[lvr181]

And The Nation has spoken to ISIL as well? They want peace? KEEP DREAMING!

[Rancid]

Except for the odd sociopath wanting to nuke entire populations of course the world wants peace. Who doesn't want peace are bankers, religious nuts, Netanyahu, arms manufacturers and the majority of corrupt politicians on their payrolls. Now who will likely prevail?

[chuckd]

They do not want to worry about the Iranians launching nuclear weapons at the USA. In case you forgot, the supreme leader of Iran leades his people in Death to America chants. Even the most ignorant and right wing of US politicians have never taken to the streets to lead rallies with the chants of death to Iran.

if the Iranian secret intelligence agency, overthrows the US government and replaces it with a puppet government that

prosecutes it's people , and then years later the US get's under the Iranian oppression,

Then I think the US politicians would lead rallies with the chants of death to Iran.

The Iranian people have good reason to be mad at as, and our current behavior is not doing a lot to change that.

If the Iranians need nuclear weapons, it is because the need to protect them selves from as.

We are the worlds worst nuclear proliferators , and the only ones to have ever used nuclear weapons!!!

Having lived through several years of this terrible repression of the Iranian people, I can only say...you don't have a clue.

The Iranian "people" don't hate the US. The Islamic Republic of Iran hates the US.

Go spend some time there, but avoid Qom and the Tehran bazaar areas. That's where the fundamentalists are.

[Boon Mee]

Except for the odd sociopath wanting to nuke entire populations of course the world wants peace. Who doesn't want peace are bankers, religious nuts, Netanyahu, arms manufacturers and the majority of corrupt politicians on their payrolls. Now who will likely prevail?

Equating Bibi with religious nuts are you?

Wants to keep his Homeland secure so that makes hime an a**hole, eh?

[sgtsabai]

No, the entire world does not want peace and that is plain. The military/industrial/spy complex certainly doesn't. Thanks chuckd for the bit about the Iranian people. Much like most of the US, people want peace, those in power don't. Ahem a post back aways said "Even the most ignorant and right wing of US politicians have never taken to the streets to lead rallies with the chants of death to Iran". While not in the actual street, "bomb, bomb Iran" just might qualify.

[elgordo38]

Yes, the world wants peace, but doesn Iran?

Cooperation between world powers and Iran hardly. Iran through its actions since the deal was signed has pretty well summed up how things will play out. Sanctions will be dropped, frozen billions will be returned, oil will be pumped(hurting the frackers in the process) no inspectors will be allowed on MILITARY sites as outlined last week and mentioned on TV then America and its allies(the ones still on board which will be almost none) will have to start the whole process over again. The Iranians in the past have proven they are liars and have no intention dealing with "infidels" The timing will be just right Obama will look like an emperor with no clothes and the Repubs. will take the white house. That's when all hell will really break loose. The poor will be flattened ordered to get a job within a year or starve, women will loose all rights over their bodies, the military will double in size. The Koch brothers will no doubt be a package deal as the next presidents personal advisers and that kind of states it all. The the evil twins will finally have the "America" they want labor unions will be like dinosaurs. The police state mentality now in its infancy will mature and blossom. "God Bless America" it will truly need it.