Iranian hard-liner says Supreme Leader opposes nuclear deal

[Lite Beer]

Iranian hard-liner says Supreme Leader opposes nuclear deal
ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is opposed to a landmark nuclear deal reached with world powers, a prominent hard-liner claimed Saturday.

Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the daily newspaper Kayhan and a representative of Khamenei, made the comments in an editorial Saturday. It was the first time someone publicly claimed where Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters, stands on the deal.

Khamenei has not publicly approved or disapproved of the deal. However, he has repeatedly offered words of support for Iran's nuclear negotiators. Moderates believe the deal would have never been reached without Khamenei's private approval.

Iran's parliament and the Supreme National Security Council will consider the agreement in the coming days. The deal calls for limiting Iran's nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions.

Shariatmadari said in the editorial that many parts of the deal threaten Iran's independence, security and "the sacred system of the Islamic republic of Iran" and would be "disastrous" if implemented.

He also referred to a speech by Khamenei last month during which the ayatollah said, "Whether this text is approved or disapproved, no one will be allowed to harm the main principles of the (ruling) Islamic system."

The editorial noted: "Using the phrase 'whether this text is approved or disapproved' shows his lack of trust in the text of the deal. If His Excellency had a positive view, he would have not insisted on the need for the text to be scrutinized through legal channels ... It leaves no doubt that His Excellency is not satisfied with the text."

Another prominent hard-liner and Khamenei representative, Ayatollah Ahmad Alamolhoda, recently said the deal "crossed the red lines." He said Khamenei said outsiders should never be allowed access to Iran's security apparatus, but the deal violated that by allowing inspection of military sites.

However, Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces and a close Khamenei ally, backed the deal last week despite having concerns.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-16

[ezzra]

Of course, and with a piss weakling president like Obama, and a hoard of EU leaders and Russia, that all

they see of their eyes is how many zillions of dollars in business they can stand to gain by doing trade with Iran,

the hell with those Jews, we care about business now....

[Lissos]

Khameini neither approved 'nor' dissaproved of the deal, according to an article read a number of days back, so where does that leave anyone? I guess it was just another way of saying - 'cautious / suspicious', which is fair enough really as there are plenty over here who are also - 'cautious / suspicious' (including myself) rather than jumping up and down in celebration in belief that hostilities are over and that we're in a new era.

It is early days at the moment. Cautiously optimistic may be what the Ayatollahs mean with their response. As I see it, both sides are going to (or would be wise to) secretly have a mini knife strapped to their ankle as they lay their weapons down in front of them lest it all unravels. Hope for the best, but be fully prepared and primed to act decisively if need be.

The later is all I would ask for 'Caught out' scenarios are undesirable.

[Seastallion]

Khameini neither approved 'nor' dissaproved of the deal, according to an article read a number of days back, so where does that leave anyone? I guess it was just another way of saying - 'cautious / suspicious', which is fair enough really as there are plenty over here who are also - 'cautious / suspicious' (including myself) rather than jumping up and down in celebration in belief that hostilities are over and that we're in a new era.

It is early days at the moment. Cautiously optimistic may be what the Ayatollahs mean with their response. As I see it, both sides are going to (or would be wise to) secretly have a mini knife strapped to their ankle as they lay their weapons down in front of them lest it all unravels. Hope for the best, but be fully prepared and primed to act decisively if need be.

The later is all I would ask for 'Caught out' scenarios are undesirable.

Yeah, pretty much my take too.

"The editorial noted: "Using the phrase 'whether this text is approved or disapproved' shows his lack of trust in the text of the deal. If His Excellency had a positive view, he would have not insisted on the need for the text to be scrutinized through legal channels ... It leaves no doubt that His Excellency is not satisfied with the text.""

So, this hard-liner is drawing an inference from what is plainly ambiguous diplomatic-speak.

More moderate observers draw the opposite inference.

Nobody can draw any definite conclusions at this stage.

[Boon Mee]

Canada, which is the US biggest trading partner opposes the deal too.

Canada's foreign affairs minister, Rob Nicholson, had this to say:

Iran continues to be a significant threat to international peace and security owing to the regime’s nuclear ambitions, its continuing support for terrorism, its repeated calls for the destruction of Israel, and its disregard for basic human rights.

We will examine this deal further before taking any specific Canadian action

http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2015/07/14a.aspx?lang=eng

Appeasment in our time or what?

[Somtamnication]

Once you shut up the jewish lobby, suddenly the threats from Iran are palpable. Just sayin'.

[ggold]

Once you shut up the jewish lobby, suddenly the threats from Iran are palpable. Just sayin'.

I think it's more a case that the mullah knows how weak Obama's deal really is, That it really doesn't matter if Iran accepts the deal or not because it doesn't stop Iran from doing what it wants. so why sign something that lets them carry on regardless!

Obama can't even sell it to the Iranians! and so the fiasco continues.

[chuckd]

Iran has already won. With Obama's help and support, the UN Security Council has voted to approve it, thus all sanctions except those from the US will be lifted.

Oil will be sold by Iran, weapons will be purchased by Iran and the merry-go-round will start.

Hezbollah and Hamas are smiling.

[Ulysses G.]

The only negative for Obama is that he has not been able to trick the public into buying this crazy deal. He will go down in history alongside Neville Chamberlain.

A majority of Americans would vote to quash the nuclear deal with Iran if they were in Congress, according a survey released over the weekend, with most voters saying they don’t trust Tehran to keep to the terms of the deal.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/most-americans-would-vote-against-iran-deal-poll-finds/

[lifeincnx]

The only negative for Obama is that he has not been able to trick the public into buying this crazy deal. He will go down in history alongside Neville Chamberlain.

A majority of Americans would vote to quash the nuclear deal with Iran if they were in Congress, according a survey released over the weekend, with most voters saying they don’t trust Tehran to keep to the terms of the deal.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/most-americans-would-vote-against-iran-deal-poll-finds/

When it comes to war, listen to the generals, as they say. Many of our finest military minds support the deal. Even General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff embraces it. Their open letter follows another written earlier by leading scientists who called the Iran deal “technically sound, stringent and innovative” and said it would “provide the necessary assurance in the coming decade and more that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.”

Except for their politicians, interestingly enough, many Israeli citizens agree with the deal - link below. In fact, their top nuclear scientists along with intelligence branch of the Israeli Defense Forces and the Mossad told senior Israeli decision makers that they believed that this nuclear deal is a "reasonable agreement, and even a good agreement in that it includes the means to make it possible to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons in the coming decade.”

It is primarily hard liners in Iran, Israel and the US who oppose the deal - no surprise there.

President Obama will be remembered for this deal all right. But it will be far above and away from yours and and your fellow conservatives go-to 'Neville Chamberlain' talking point looking to get a quick dig in at President Obama's foreign policy. The Chamberlain comparison is a very tired notion; I suggest you read up on the actual Munich agreement and its immediate impact. There is simply NO parallel here.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/read-an-open-letter-from-retired-generals-and-admirals-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1689/

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/israel/2015-08-12/israels-iran-deal-enthusiasts

[MobileContent]

The Republicans too in the US oppose to the deal and so does the Israeli government. Looks to me the spiritual leader of Iran is not the only one so we have 3 dump groups that oppose the deal. Strangely the Iranian News Service don't carry anyting of the news.

[arjunadawn]

Regarding a previous post-

It is always wise to listen to the generals. However, following what history can only regard as a purge of US military officers (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/12/gordon-transforming-the-us-military/) and the current climate of the Obama administration's capacity to deceive relying on the guidance of military commanders must be taken with caution.

Gen. Dempsey can be called a buffoon at worst and at best. His deceit is stunning (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/attorney-benghazi-whistleblowers-says-joint-chiefs-chairman-lied-congress). His counsel can hardly be considered unbiased. I would take the testimony of the Benghazi whistle-blowers over this sycophants any day.

If any has ever dealt with Persian or even Arab negotiators they could easily reason the messaging of the Supreme Leader opposing the nuclear deal is actually a lifeline being thrown to Obama. After all, if he opposes the deal it must be good for the US, right? Well, this must at least be considered. As it is my position the deal is a non-deal the narrative that this is what Iran is telegraphing is evident.

[ABCer]

Iranian hard-liner says Supreme Leader opposes nuclear deal

ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press

May I ask a couple of silly questions, please?

Are the Sanctions already lifted? Are the Funds already released?

[lifeincnx]

Iranian hard-liner says Supreme Leader opposes nuclear deal

ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press

May I ask a couple of silly questions, please?

Are the Sanctions already lifted? Are the Funds already released?

No to both.

[Chicog]

Canada, which is the US biggest trading partner opposes the deal too.

Canada's foreign affairs minister, Rob Nicholson, had this to say:

Iran continues to be a significant threat to international peace and security owing to the regime’s nuclear ambitions, its continuing support for terrorism, its repeated calls for the destruction of Israel, and its disregard for basic human rights.

We will examine this deal further before taking any specific Canadian action

http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2015/07/14a.aspx?lang=eng

Appeasment in our time or what?

Who cares? They aren't involved in it.

[lifeincnx]

Regarding a previous post-

It is always wise to listen to the generals. However, following what history can only regard as a purge of US military officers (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/12/gordon-transforming-the-us-military/) and the current climate of the Obama administration's capacity to deceive relying on the guidance of military commanders must be taken with caution.

Gen. Dempsey can be called a buffoon at worst and at best. His deceit is stunning (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/attorney-benghazi-whistleblowers-says-joint-chiefs-chairman-lied-congress). His counsel can hardly be considered unbiased. I would take the testimony of the Benghazi whistle-blowers over this sycophants any day.

If any has ever dealt with Persian or even Arab negotiators they could easily reason the messaging of the Supreme Leader opposing the nuclear deal is actually a lifeline being thrown to Obama. After all, if he opposes the deal it must be good for the US, right? Well, this must at least be considered. As it is my position the deal is a non-deal the narrative that this is what Iran is telegraphing is evident.

Would you consider the military signatories of the open letter to the Washington Post, the nuclear scientists, as well as intelligence branch of the Israeli Defense Forces and the Mossad, all of whom support the deal in no uncertain terms buffoons as well?

[Srikcir]

"Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is opposed to a landmark nuclear deal reached with world powers"

YES and NO.

He is opposed to the idea that the G-7 have forced Iran into a non nuclear weapons agreement which would have effectively conceded Iranian sovereignty.

But he supports the agreement based on a PRINCIPLED MORAL position that pursuing nuclear weapons would be a violation of relligious edict. In this way Iran solely decides its fate - not the G-7.

Khamenei is engaged in a religious and military spin to calm the minoroty ultra-conservation portions of Iranian society while retaining the support of a majority educated middle class that would like to re-engage relations with Western societies. Thus, his pragmatic approach to accepting the nuclear deal.

[arjunadawn]

Regarding a previous post-

It is always wise to listen to the generals. However, following what history can only regard as a purge of US military officers (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/12/gordon-transforming-the-us-military/) and the current climate of the Obama administration's capacity to deceive relying on the guidance of military commanders must be taken with caution.

Gen. Dempsey can be called a buffoon at worst and at best. His deceit is stunning (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/attorney-benghazi-whistleblowers-says-joint-chiefs-chairman-lied-congress). His counsel can hardly be considered unbiased. I would take the testimony of the Benghazi whistle-blowers over this sycophants any day.

If any has ever dealt with Persian or even Arab negotiators they could easily reason the messaging of the Supreme Leader opposing the nuclear deal is actually a lifeline being thrown to Obama. After all, if he opposes the deal it must be good for the US, right? Well, this must at least be considered. As it is my position the deal is a non-deal the narrative that this is what Iran is telegraphing is evident.

Would you consider the military signatories of the open letter to the Washington Post, the nuclear scientists, as well as intelligence branch of the Israeli Defense Forces and the Mossad, all of whom support the deal in no uncertain terms buffoons as well?

Fair point. It certainly impacts my argument, but not my gut feeling. Its foolish to extend ulterior motive and foolishness to such an esteemed group of people. It must be assumed they genuinely think this way. No, not buffoons. However, I do wonder how many people reach the conclusions they do based on the premise of war as the alternative. Its a moot exercise but I wonder because the argument is fallacious, or not the only alternative. I would like to read more about this, do you have a link or source, please. Thanks.

[lifeincnx]

Regarding a previous post-

It is always wise to listen to the generals. However, following what history can only regard as a purge of US military officers (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/12/gordon-transforming-the-us-military/) and the current climate of the Obama administration's capacity to deceive relying on the guidance of military commanders must be taken with caution.

Gen. Dempsey can be called a buffoon at worst and at best. His deceit is stunning (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/attorney-benghazi-whistleblowers-says-joint-chiefs-chairman-lied-congress). His counsel can hardly be considered unbiased. I would take the testimony of the Benghazi whistle-blowers over this sycophants any day.

If any has ever dealt with Persian or even Arab negotiators they could easily reason the messaging of the Supreme Leader opposing the nuclear deal is actually a lifeline being thrown to Obama. After all, if he opposes the deal it must be good for the US, right? Well, this must at least be considered. As it is my position the deal is a non-deal the narrative that this is what Iran is telegraphing is evident.

Would you consider the military signatories of the open letter to the Washington Post, the nuclear scientists, as well as intelligence branch of the Israeli Defense Forces and the Mossad, all of whom support the deal in no uncertain terms buffoons as well?

Fair point. It certainly impacts my argument, but not my gut feeling. Its foolish to extend ulterior motive and foolishness to such an esteemed group of people. It must be assumed they genuinely think this way. No, not buffoons. However, I do wonder how many people reach the conclusions they do based on the premise of war as the alternative. Its a moot exercise but I wonder because the argument is fallacious, or not the only alternative. I would like to read more about this, do you have a link or source, please. Thanks.

Very well stated and certainly thought-through response Start here... this was in my original post, the other (in my 1st post) deals with the international scientific community. If you are not familiar with Foreign Affairs, the publication is a very good, solid, not always right, but well-respected source. Well worth it to sign up for a free subscription, though it is limited to just several articles per month.

None of us have all the answers on such a complex issue. But it seems apparent some seem to think they do here on TV. Cheers to you not being one of them.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Scott
Non functioning link edited out

[chuckd]

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a Presidential appointment, to be confirmed by the Senate.

General Dempsey was appointed by President Barack Obama.

Where do you think his loyalties lie?

His signature on the letter tells the answer.

[lifeincnx]

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a Presidential appointment, to be confirmed by the Senate.

General Dempsey was appointed by President Barack Obama.

Where do you think his loyalties lie?

His signature on the letter tells the answer.

You single out one name, fair enough, from my entire post. How about the the 30 US generals, many Israeli citizens, top nuclear scientists, the intelligence branch of the Israeli Defense Forces and the Mossad who support the deal? Perhaps just an oversight on your part.

[up-country_sinclair]

General Dempsey was appointed by President Barack Obama.

Where do you think his loyalties lie?

Like all true Americans, his loyalties lie with the United States of America. Not Israel. I realize that might come as a complete shock to someone like you.

And as has already been pointed out to you, General Dempsey has committed 40 years of his life to protecting the United States, and for you to try to besmirch his reputation in support of a foreign power is a shameful and traitorous act.

[up-country_sinclair]

What demands further examination is that the Israel Firsters have found common cause with the hard liners in Iran. Warmongering makes strange bedfellows.

[ABCer]

I would have examined this 'Deal' more closely if the idea of having any agreement, signed by anybody on either side meant something.

West is trying to deal with Islam. No deals from the position of Islam possible! Except to deceive and defeat! Use of Taqiyya is perfectly justified!

Obama needs a paper. He got it.

Iran needs money. They will get it.

Anything else exists in the mind of people. Nobody is responsible for that.

[Ulysses G.]

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a Presidential appointment, to be confirmed by the Senate.

General Dempsey was appointed by President Barack Obama.

Where do you think his loyalties lie?

His signature on the letter tells the answer.

NEWS FLASH:

July 1988: 29 scientists agree with Democrats that Florida will be underwater by the year 2000 because of climate change.

January 2009: 29 scientists agree Obamacare will lower healthcare premiums.

Aug 2015: 29 scientists agree that giving the world's most evil country (Iran) $180 billion dollars and stopping all nuclear inspections will make the world a safer place.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[FangFerang]

Of course, and with a piss weakling president like Obama, and a hoard of EU leaders and Russia, that all

they see of their eyes is how many zillions of dollars in business they can stand to gain by doing trade with Iran,

the hell with those Jews, we care about business now....

More commentary from yet another cum laud a graduate of the Rush Limbaugh Institute of History and Diplomacy, where students are commanded to leave all uncomfortable facts at the door before entering.

Congratulations, boys and girls.

Here's your sign.

[Pakboong]

When dealing with Israel nothing is ever as it appears. The votes for the deal could easily be deception. I maintain that what Israel really wants is another Iraq. If I go back to the killing of the Iranian nuclear scientists and the stuxnet virus which was planted could have been part of the deception; first of all, Israel did not need information from those scientists. They were simply killed randomly out in the open in public traffic suggesting that the Israelis needed no information about the program otherwise, these guys would have been kidnapped and tortured. The Israelis know everything that happens in the Iranian nuclear program. I expect that they want the world to believe they have tried everything and the Iranians continue to enrich uranium. But all that we know, is that, we don't know. Their endgame is always the same, somebody else to do the heavy lifting if at all possible. And of course, pick up the check.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Pakboong

[Ulysses G.]

Israel has fought and WON numerous wars started by Arabs with no troops but their own. No one else has ever done Israel's fighting.THAT Is the "heavy lifting". Your post does not compute.

[Chicog]

Israel has fought and WON numerous wars started by Arabs with no troops but their own. No one else has ever done Israel's fighting.THAT Is the "heavy lifting". Your post does not compute.

That would be almost heartwarming if it wasn't for the fact they've been doing it using weapons paid for and supplied by the US, without which they wouldn't be much to worry about (bar the nukes).

[Ulysses G.]

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about. It was not until Israel wiped out 5 Arab armies in 6 days in 1967 that the USA decided to become staunch allies. Israel had ready won a number of wars, mostly on their own dime. The Soviet Union was arming the Arabs and giving them intelligence, but they failed dismally over and over again. Israel did not begin to receive large amounts of assistance from America until 1974.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Ulysses G.