This can't be simply a biased view..........can it?

[Buckrub]

I can't stand Obama. I don't like anything about him, and don't share one single view on anything. BUT, there is one recent thing that seems to go past partisan thought. There HAS to be some reason to this Iran deal that's not visible on the surface. It is hard to swallow.

First, an editorial that is pretty clear what's wrong with it.
Then, breaking news today that Iran is already saying the deal sucks! I mean, geez!!!

Even worse than that

By Charles Krauthammer

This article was published July 20, 2015 at 4:18 a.m.

WASHINGTON--When you write a column, as did I two weeks ago headlined "The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history," you don't expect to revisit the issue. We had hit bottom. Or so I thought. Then last week the final terms of the Iranian nuclear deal were published. I was wrong.

Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations?

When asked at his Wednesday news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the four American hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks.

Are conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional by definition means non-nuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes?

Because Iran, joined by Russia--our "reset" partner--sprung the demand at the last minute, calculating that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were so desperate for a deal that they would cave. They did. And have convinced themselves that they scored a victory by delaying the lifting by five to eight years. (Ostensibly. The language is murky. The interval could be considerably shorter.)

Obama claimed in his news conference that it really doesn't matter because we can always intercept Iranian arms shipments to, say, Hezbollah.

But wait. Obama has insisted throughout that we are pursuing this Iranian diplomacy to avoid the use of force, yet now blithely discards a previous diplomatic achievement--the arms embargo--by suggesting, no matter, we can just shoot our way to interdiction.

Moreover, the most serious issue is not Iranian exports but Iranian imports--of sophisticated Russian and Chinese weapons. These are untouchable. We are not going to attack Russian and Chinese transports.

The net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but to endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Imagine how Iran's acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship missiles would threaten our control over the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways we have kept open for international commerce for a half-century.

The other major shock in the final deal is what happened to our insistence on "anytime, anywhere" inspections. Under the final agreement, Iran has the right to deny international inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site. The denial is then adjudicated by a committee--on which Iran sits. It then goes through several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits. Even if the inspectors' request prevails, the approval process can take 24 days.

And what do you think will be left to be found, left unscrubbed, after 24 days? The whole process is farcical.

The action now shifts to Congress. The debate is being hailed as momentous. It is not. It's irrelevant.

Congress won't get to vote on the deal until September. But Obama is taking the agreement to the UN Security Council for approval within days. Approval there will cancel all previous UN resolutions outlawing and sanctioning Iran's nuclear activities.

Meaning: Whatever Congress ultimately does, it won't matter because the legal underpinning for the entire international sanctions regime against Iran will have been dismantled at the Security Council. Ten years of painstakingly constructed international sanctions will vanish overnight, irretrievably.

Even if Congress rejects the agreement, do you think the Europeans, the Chinese or the Russians will reinstate sanctions? The result: The United States is left isolated while the rest of the world does thriving business with Iran.

Should Congress then give up? No. Congress needs to act in order to rob this deal of, at least, its domestic legitimacy. Rejection will make little difference on the ground. But it will make it easier for a successor president to legitimately reconsider an executive agreement (Obama dare not call it a treaty--it would be instantly rejected by the Senate) that garnered such pathetically little backing in either house of Congress.

It's a future hope, but amid dire circumstances. By then, Iran will be flush with cash, legitimized as a normal international actor in good standing, recognized (as Obama once said) as "a very successful regional power." Stopping Iran from going nuclear at that point will be infinitely more difficult and risky.

Which is Obama's triumph. He has locked in his folly. He has laid down his legacy and we will have to live with the consequences for decades.

_________________________

Then, this news today:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...eal/ar-AAdgNd9

________________________________

I don't get it. What are 'we' trying to do??? My summary of the deal is that we gave Iran $100B so they COULD develop their nuclear program.........and established so many loopholes in checking to see that they don't, that it will be impossible to stop them.........and we got nothing out of the deal other than oil. If "W" had done this, don't you know everyone would be saying "There's NOTHING for us in this but Oil"????

Help me with this one!

[LJ3]

I don't get it either Bucky. The cynic in me wants to temper the conservative reaction to the deal but even if you remove sensationalism and hyperbole, the facts are pretty simple and seem like we accomplished little or nothing with the 'deal'. I still have more reading to do about but it doesn't look very good. Maybe BBP can explain it to us with his Thor-like liberal hammer

[Buckrub]

Maybe so. I am open to learning about it. But with the small info I have now.........well, I'm even amazed at the level of my own cynicism on this one!

[BarryBobPosthole]

There isn't a deal in the universe that the conservative politicians would have supported. Period. So it really comes down to....do we go with the status quo with no deal at the high risk of being the only country with sanctions in place while Iran goes about its business, gets a significant portion of the assets we're bitching about back anyway (the US isn't the only country holding their shit) or go forward with a deal that allows inspections (there's no such thing as any time anywhere) and puts us on at least some path towards reducing their capacity. Look at the progress they've made under the current sanctions and the progress they're allowed to make under this agreement and its a huge decrease.
Will they live up to it? Anybody's guess.
Will we know when they don't? Chances are.
Will we know more than we do now about their capabilities? By a mile.

That makes it a no brainer to me.

But no plan with Obama stink on it will pass muster with the conservatives, just because.

BKB

[Fido]

This whole deal scares the BEEEEEEEEJESUS out of me. They are going too sell their oil at the rate of 120 millon dollars a day! You can build up quite a war chest in a few months with that kind of money!

[Buckrub]

"Obama stink"............is that like "W stink" to you for 8 years?????

Or different??

[LJ3]

There isn't a deal in the universe that the conservative politicians would have supported. Period.

BKB

They may not have fully supported any deal struck by Obama but he certainly could have done better in representing US interests. Come on man. politics aside, the deal isn't very good at all.

[Buckrub]

It is an awful deal. The article I posted has a pretty good list. I started to call out Posty yesterday when he had to add "Republican" to his statement that Governors were arming NG folks. Now he says there's no sense in even discussing tenets of a deal with 'conservatives'. For a man who claims to never think about Politics, it seems he brings it up more than anyone else, at least to me. I guess it is inevitable, let's just choose up sides, pick a color, and fight amongst ourselves on every subject........

Ok wait........we're already there. And some colors are pretty clear to see........mine included I guess. But just seems we might as well stop the pretense.

[BarryBobPosthole]

What part of it isn't good Len? Wondering about specifics.

BKB

[Buckrub]

There's a whole long list in the article..............quite specific.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I read his article the day it came out. Its full of specifics that are unrealistic. Like we expect Iran to capitulate on everything. They didn't and they won't. So we either go forward with a deal or we don't. The current coalition thats sanctioning won't hold together so status quo is virtually no sanctions except ours and no verification at all.

I hope the congress overrides the president. That'll be an election year game changer if they do.

BKB

[Buckrub]

But after all the rhetoric, given Iran's history and current "leader", does anyone in America other than Obama have even a .02% belief that they will do even ONE of the things they say they will??? Isn't their ultimate goal clear???

[DeputyDog]

What part of it isn't good Len? Wondering about specifics.

BKB

What about the part that requires 24 days of notice prior to conducting an inspection? I bet they can hid a lot of shit in 3 weeks.

Isn't it true that the best compromise deals are the one's where no one comes out completely happy? What does Iran have to be unhappy about with this?

[DeputyDog]

What specifics can you give to show that it's a good deal for the US?

You want the people opposed to it to give some, so why don't you to convince us we're wrong?

[BarryBobPosthole]

Sure, here's a couple that I think are the meat of the nuclear part. In addition to these, I think it also strengthens our coalition. No deal effectively destroys the coalition. We ain't gonna stop anything on our own, unless we go to war, which most republicans seem to be for.


The deal would reduce Iran’s number of centrifuges — which enrich uranium — from about 19,000 to about 6,000 and would limit the level of enrichment to 3.67 percent, far below weapons grade, for at least 15 years.


At Natanz, Iran’s primary enrichment facility, which has roughly 16,000 first-generation centrifuges, about 5,000 will remain operational.

In the underground facility at Fordow, about one-third of the 3,000 centrifuges will remain, with none of them to be used for uranium enrichment for at least 15 years. Russia is to help Iran convert the remaining Fordow centrifuges to isotope production.
This is from a news article about the inter iew with Kerry.

Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium will be reduced by 98 percent, from about 10,000 kilograms to 300. The remainder, administration officials said, would likely be sold to Russia.

[LJ3]

Maybe I'm overly cynical. In order for us to verify that those conditions are being met, we give them 24 days notice? How hard is it to make a centrifuge look unused? Are they destroying them outright?

Who here believes Iran has any intent of following these guidelines?

And I am NOT for any type of war over this. Unless Iran gets their weapons grade warhead on a missile that can reach us. Then I would support going Truman on them. I mean that completely seriously.

No President or leadership in the US will ever 'fix' the middle east. They have hated us and everything we stand for and will continue to do so.

Either God, or Nostradamus, or both, said the apocalypse will come from the Middle East. I think those are two pretty smart fellers. I mean, look at how much multi-generational hate is in that part of the world.

[DeputyDog]

That sounds good. How can all this be verified that they are complying? I believe that Hitler said he was done after Austria and the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia.

[Captain]

But no plan with Obama stink on it will pass muster with the conservatives, just because. BKB

That is 110,000% true as the way I look at it. And on a side note that IS all the specifics I need to list to make my case. Everything else is just verbiage!

[LJ3]

It does look lovely on paper

Iran’s commitments

Halt production of near-20-percent enriched uranium and disable the centrifuges used to produce it.
Start neutralizing its near-20-percent enriched uranium stockpile.
Refrain from enriching uranium in nearly half the installed centrifuges at its Natanz site and three-quarters of centrifuges at its Fordow site.
Limit centrifuge production to what’s needed to replace damaged machines.
Refrain from building additional enrichment facilities and advancing research and development of enrichment.
Refrain from commissioning, fueling or adding reactor components to its Arak reactor and halt production and additional testing of fuel for the reactor.
Refrain from building a facility capable of reprocessing, which would allow Iran to separate out plutonium, which could be used to make nuclear bombs.


P5+1, EU commitments

Suspend implementation of sanctions on Iran’s petrochemical exports and on goods imported for use in its automotive industry.
Suspend sanctions on Iran’s import and export of gold and other precious metals.
Shelve efforts to further curtail Iranian crude-oil purchases by P5+1 countries.
Free up Iranian money to help pay the educational costs of young Iranians, many of whom are attending U.S. colleges and universities.
Raise tenfold the ceilings for money transfers to and from Iran.
Take actions to ease Iran’s access to $4.2 billion in restricted Iranian funds in several installments. The first installment of $550 million in frozen assets will be released to Iran in the first week of February

[BarryBobPosthole]

There is no such thing as any time any fucking where. Do some research. Find a treaty with anyone that provides or has provided that. How would that ne practical? No sovereign country would ever agree to that unless they were surrendering in a war.
The treaty allows inspections for 25 years. I'm not sure if there's anyone alive that expects this agreement to be in effect then.

BKB

[LJ3]

I didn't say any time anywhere. Do YOU think 24 days is a good interval? Don't be gettin' all sandy on me!

I agree this won't stay in effect long. If at all.

[BarryBobPosthole]

On site inspections are important but are just a piece of verification. In the governing treaty for nuclear arms that we have with Russia for example, the INF, we haven't done a physical inspection since 2001.

Yeah, I think 24 days is fine for compliance monotoring. If they break out of this treaty we're gonna know it.

Or I should say unless George Bush and Colin Powell are in charge we'll know it. Otherwise we'll just get told they have the hydrogen bomb.

BKb

[LJ3]

See how you are?

Honestly, I don't see anything coming from this other than political idiots saying "see? SEE?!?!?!"

They'll eventually have a nuk-a-lure (W) on a missile and this treaty won't slow that down at all. It's just a matter of when and this won't slow it down. It's naive to think ti will. But I'm pretty sure you don't think it will

[DeputyDog]

Do you feel comfortable enough with this treaty to move to Israel?

[BarryBobPosthole]

Yes, I think it will. Its harder to do than you think. I worry less about Iran and they're newly gained status as dangerous world power actually building an ICBM (which is what most of the detractors are breathlessly saying will happen) and more worried about what groups like ISIS will do with one they beg/borrow/steal from a former soviet union country. That's the real threat, not this shit. This issue is 99.9999% election year bullshit. A threat to embarass the president is all it is. If they do it, it'll be a niclear option that future congresses will use as well. And our power as negotiators will be fucked.



BKB

[BarryBobPosthole]

Do you feel comfortable enough with this treaty to move to Israel?

I don't have to be. They do just fine taking care of themselves.

BKb

[Buckrub]

I don't think it's 24 days based on what WE say alone. I think it's 24 days based on the findings of a "Committee" (or whatever they are called in the treaty), upon which Iran is a sitting member that has veto power.

Is that fair? Is that even meaningful?

And you say that the article I posted lists specifics that are not realistic. Is that a euphemism for "Not in Iran's favor"? Whose side are you on?? Of course they are realistic. We're talking about denying nuclear capability to a country that has publicly avowed to destroy Israel, and who disavows that the Holocaust happened. This is not like dealing with Norway!

And you never answered my question as to why you would claim that "Obama stink" is sufficient for conservatives to dislike a treaty, but you openly admitted for 8 years that "W stink" was plenty sufficient for you to have the same belief. And further, I said that if W had negotiated this treaty, you KNOW you would be yelling "This is JUST FOR THE OIL", wouldn't you? ??? ????

[Buckrub]

And oh, by the way........if you want to know WHY Americans hate anything with "Obama Stink" on it, here's what the sniveling dork has finally done ONLY after continued public outcry:

https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/vid...type=2&theater

Defend him all you want. He is a useless human being.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Well, except for the fact that oil companies are hating this deal and W and his Republican buddies would've never let it happen to their good buddies in the oil field. This is gonna drive more independants out of the market when crude tumbles again.

BKB

[Buckrub]

What????

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/038166e0-2...#axzz3gYpYu3pY

http://fortune.com/2015/07/15/iran-nuclear-deal/

Increased supply will help ease price pressure, yes. But "hating the deal"???? Don't see that.