Letter to Iran

[B-Man]

Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals

By Editorial Board April 2 at 6:11 PM

THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration.

 

*None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed.

*Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled.

*Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country.

 

In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

 

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.

 

Mr. Obama argued forcefully — and sometimes combatively — Thursday that the United States and its partners had obtained “a good deal” and that it was preferable to the alternatives, which he described as a nearly inevitable slide toward war. He also said he welcomed a “robust debate.” We hope that, as that debate goes forward, the president and his aides will respond substantively to legitimate questions, rather than claim, as Mr. Obama did, that the “inevitable critics” who “sound off” prefer “the risk of another war in the Middle East.”

 

more at the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-iran-deal-falls-well-short-of-his-own-goals/2015/04/02/7974413c-d95c-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chef Jim]

wow

I know that moment that when you realize you've made an ass of yourself and you just want to slink away. I did that once.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Chef Jim

[Tiberius]

I know that moment that when your realize you've made an ass of yourself and you just want to skink away. I did that once.

No, your ignorance just surprises me. It shouldn't

[DC Tom]

How'd sanctions work?

 

Pretty well, since THEY GOT IRAN TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE.

 

You unbelievable twit.

[Doc]

Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals

By Editorial Board April 2 at 6:11 PM

THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration.

 

*None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed.

*Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled.

*Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country.

 

In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

 

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.

 

Mr. Obama argued forcefully — and sometimes combatively — Thursday that the United States and its partners had obtained “a good deal” and that it was preferable to the alternatives, which he described as a nearly inevitable slide toward war. He also said he welcomed a “robust debate.” We hope that, as that debate goes forward, the president and his aides will respond substantively to legitimate questions, rather than claim, as Mr. Obama did, that the “inevitable critics” who “sound off” prefer “the risk of another war in the Middle East.”

 

more at the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-iran-deal-falls-well-short-of-his-own-goals/2015/04/02/7974413c-d95c-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, that's a shocker!

[DC Tom]

Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals

By Editorial Board April 2 at 6:11 PM

THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration.

 

 

 

The Post's editorial board wrote that????

[B-Man]

 

The Post's editorial board wrote that????

 

 

Yes sir.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-iran-deal-falls-well-short-of-his-own-goals/2015/04/02/7974413c-d95c-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html

 

 

The "deal" is just that bad.

 

 

 

.

[truth on hold]

 

 

Yes sir.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-iran-deal-falls-well-short-of-his-own-goals/2015/04/02/7974413c-d95c-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html

 

 

The "deal" is just that bad.

 

 

 

.

Israeli expert on Iran: Claim of existential threat a fig leaf for occupation

Q&A with Prof. Haggai Ram, head of Middle East Studies Department at Ben-Gurion University.

 

"Iran serves as a fig leaf to the real danger to Israel’s fate – the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even Ehud Barak told Haaretz in an interview when he was defense minister under Netanyahu that he encouraged him to keep negotiating with the Palestinians – not for the sake of negotiations themselves but rather that in the end, if Israel decided to attack Iran, the pressure and criticism against Israel would be reduced because Israel would be seen as seeking peace. The whole Iranian issue, be it with Ariel Sharon, Barak or Benjamin Netanyahu, is meant in the end to distract attention from Israel’s central problem – the occupation and the defense budget."

 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.650322?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Edited April 3, 2015 by JTSP

[B-Man]

Israeli expert on Iran: Claim of existential threat a fig leaf for occupation

Q&A with Prof. Haggai Ram, head of Middle East Studies Department at Ben-Gurion University.

 

"Iran serves as a fig leaf to the real danger to Israel’s fate – the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

 

So.....................this isn't really about the U.S., or a nuclear Iran..........................it's the JEWS fault.

 

 

 

[Magox]

Israeli expert on Iran: Claim of existential threat a fig leaf for occupation

Q&A with Prof. Haggai Ram, head of Middle East Studies Department at Ben-Gurion University.

 

"Iran serves as a fig leaf to the real danger to Israel’s fate – the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even Ehud Barak told Haaretz in an interview when he was defense minister under Netanyahu that he encouraged him to keep negotiating with the Palestinians – not for the sake of negotiations themselves but rather that in the end, if Israel decided to attack Iran, the pressure and criticism against Israel would be reduced because Israel would be seen as seeking peace. The whole Iranian issue, be it with Ariel Sharon, Barak or Benjamin Netanyahu, is meant in the end to distract attention from Israel’s central problem – the occupation and the defense budget."

 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.650322?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

What a load of crap.

[B-Man]

A Deal with Iran Built on Lies
Washington Times, by Wesley Pruden

 

Original Article

 

Everything about the so-called deal with Iran, including the reputations of the men who negotiated it, is a lie. The world should mark well everyone responsible for it.

 

The first lie is that an agreement for more talk is already “a deal.” So far the only agreement is to further pursue “a deal.”

 

President Obama couldn’t wait to take a victory lap. But not even Mr. Obama, desperate to make something he can call “a deal,”says there’s an actual deal.

 

Look closely at the slippery “clinton clauses,” as they were once called, in his announcement Thursday.

Edited April 3, 2015 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

Just read a beautiful headline from The Guardian claiming that Congress is "in rebellion" against Obama over the Iran deal.

[B-Man]

Some tweets by the one and only, IowaHawk

 

 

David Burge @iowahawkblog Follow

Once again, Obama does an end zone dance after being tackled for a safety.

2:33 PM - 2 Apr 2015

1,125 Retweets 703 favorites

In short, we got Iran to maybe agree to a nuke deal that would lift sanctions on Iran for cheating on a nuke deal.

WH: we trust everything Iran says, except when they're kidding around with that "exterminate Israel" running gag.

Q: what language was the deal written in?

A: Farce-y.

.

[Chef Jim]

 

Some tweets by the one and only, IowaHawk

 

 

David Burge @iowahawkblog Follow

Once again, Obama does an end zone dance after being tackled for a safety.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nanker]

Geez even another Judith miller smoking gun article would be more convincing than those 2 knuckleheads agreeing on something.

You obviously overlooked the fact that they said that on April 1st.

[truth on hold]

Anyone want to see a well reasoned view from Israel as opposed to the hysterical nonsense of a fear mongering kook like netanyahu, read this:

 

Obama was right, Iran capitulated

 

Netanyahu should accept the American offer of dialogue on the draft agreement reached in Lausanne, instead of signalling his intent to scupper it out of hand.

 

Efraim Halevy

Published: 04.06.15, 15:04 / Israel Opinion

 

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4644691,00.html

[B-Man]

Anyone want to see a well reasoned view from Israel as opposed to the hysterical nonsense of a fear mongering kook like netanyahu, read this:

 

Obama was right, Iran capitulated

 

Netanyahu should accept the American offer of dialogue on the draft agreement reached in Lausanne, instead of signalling his intent to scupper it out of hand.

 

Efraim Halevy

Published: 04.06.15, 15:04 / Israel Opinion

 

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4644691,00.html

 

 

 

[Magox]

The crux of it all is simple, the Iranians want to build a nuclear weapon. U.S policy towards Iran should be based on that assumption. Period!

[Keukasmallies]

Don't 'cha just love the way POTUS pontificates that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon on his watch? Yo, POTUS, your watch is almost over (Thank you, Jesus) you nitwit!