Iran Deal, the reset..... and halt

benjs

badbrains said:

rr165892 said:

BS44325 said:

Maybe what I am confused by is that I thought this thread was about a deal to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That means whether you think "the deal" is good or whether you think "the deal" is bad most people, including the Obama administration, would still agree that preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is the optimal result. What I have now come to realize, thanks to BB and others, is that many on here are actually not bothered at all as to whether Iran gets a bomb. They feel it is hypocritical by trying to stop them. They see Iran as fighting the good fight against an imperial and evil west. They see Iranian rhetoric as fair game as long as they continue to be a counterweight to Israel. If that is your view, fine but please don't pretend that you are interested in a deal.

I don't disagree with everything above.Taking out the personal back and forth.
Many of these discussions do get turned back to Israel.One can question its relevance.Im not so sure that's needed on every issue discussed in the region.
If the question is about the deal brokering between the USA and Iran ,I don't see why this had to turn into a pro/against Israel convo AGAIN !!!!!
Shit it's crystal clear how some of you feel about it either way.Agree or not,every single Muslim/ Muslim country vs West issue turns into the same fucked up,go nowhere,hate filled conversation.
Seriously they all take the same road and tone.broken record stuff,imo That's why I don't do too much posting on these threads.
For the record Anything that lets the hard liners in Iran get closer to having their hands on a weapon of mass destruction is a bad thing.They have been supporters of global terror and have wanted much I'll will both publicly and privately toward the west and Israel.
If a deal keeps that from happening then it's a good deal.If it dosent then it's not.

Oh come on ryan, straight bullshit. This guy brought iran into the Indiana thread and you didn't say shit. This has everything to do with Israel and DONT fucken kid yourself by denying it. Who's been the most outspoken country against this deal? Israel, who came to our country crying wolf before his countries election? You're better then this and know it. The only reason israel doesn't want iran to have one is so they can throw their weight around threatening any country it wants without resistance. You know as does BS. Everybody with a 9th grade brain knows this.

Nart, to some degree you do have to consider the global consensus on the Jewish population at the time of Israel's inception. Israel was birthed out of a necessarily paranoid reality that the world simply would not have Jews in their midst. Even Canada and the US had restrictive quotas on how much Jewish immigration was acceptable at the time (probably why Jews and blacks bonded quite frequently and were largely responsible for uniting to create the music of the oppressed: jazz). What was formerly reality, in the physically and politically isolated environment of Israel, has now pivoted from a legitimate state of paranoia, to the same state of paranoia - minus the legitimacy. Each attack on Jews around the world reinforces this within Israeli confines, with no ability to analyze the causality of these attacks due to the tunnel vision and fear.

Are there those who see past this within Israel and aspire to seize or maintain power? Certainly: Netanyahu's the perfect example. He's also responsible to a large degree for the very successful propaganda dissemination experiment in seeing if a population can be manipulated to believe in its own imminent existential crisis. Whether Israel is fearful or simply playing on fear (I suspect both are nearly equally represented: don't underestimate the delusions of a formerly oppressed people), either way it's very easy to see why Israel (the one exclusively Jewish state not just in the Middle East, but the world) would not wish for Iran - a country who admits from time to time that Israel ought not to be on the map anymore - to possess anything close to nuclear weaponry abilities.

At the very least - this does not have everything to do with Israel - and I think we've all thoroughly stated the Israel-related opposition to the Iranian nuclear deal here, so let's at least contemplate the other reasons this may or may not be a good idea. Israeli politics and intervention in this topic may conflate or obfuscate the issue, but it certainly isn't the exclusive factor in this decision, nor the USA's.

badbrains

Look, I'm the first to call a spade a spade when it comes to islam. I don't hide or pretend there isn't some fucked up people trying to represent my religion. And to be honest, I really don't follow my religion to closely. To me it's more about the bullshit. It drives me crazy when people can't see what's going on. Especially when I concider some of you bright and smart. Some are just straight bigots. I have zero problem with jewish people or the religion. How can I when they're basically our fellow brothers of the faith in God. What bothers me is just like in islam, you got some fucked uo people who have hijacked he jewish faith and are using it for their own propaganda.

I understand what you state ben when u talked about what else was israel supposed to do when it was created. My response and not directed at you, is so the Palestinians have to suffer for the creation of Israel? That regime has been crying wolf about iran for some 20+ years about a bomb and for nothing. And for the iran wants Israel
Wiped off the map, they don't physically mean wipe them out. They want that to show palestine on the maps and no Israel because they feel like it's palestinian just like the Jews believe it's israel. No different. Everyone knows you can't physically remove Israel. Israel is here to stay just as is palestine. Now they have to find a way to exist together. If that's possible.

rr165892

As always Ben says it better and clearer then anyone else.Damn

BB,do you look at the Iran issue as a Muslim issue?
Because to be honest I was looking at this as countries on a map and governments and not about the demographic of its citizens.Just wanted to make sure I was clear on that.
But yours and Bens last 2 posts make me think maybe that is part of the equation.Maybe it is a much bigger issue.

badbrains

rr165892 said:

As always Ben says it better and clearer then anyone else.Damn

BB,do you look at the Iran issue as a Muslim issue?
Because to be honest I was looking at this as countries on a map and governments and not about the demographic of its citizens.Just wanted to make sure I was clear on that.
But yours and Bens last 2 posts make me think maybe that is part of the equation.Maybe it is a much bigger issue.

Tough call ryan. In a way it would seem that it's more an Arab problem then a muslim one cuz in Israel they have 2 villages of my people who are muslim and they HAVE to serve in the idf. Matter of fact, have some friends who are ex-idf. But the Arabs aren't allowed to join, I believe that to be true. So I would say more of an Arab/israeli problem. I could be wrong tho.

gimmesometruth27

BS44325 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

well what do you know.... bibi says this deal is a threat to the very existence of israel. i have been following the israel/palestine conflict for 10 years or so, and i can count on 2 hands things bibi has said are a threat to israel's existence.

After an Iranian General says destroying Israel is non-negotiable, what is Bibi supposed to say?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-militia-chief-destroying-israel-nonnegotiable/

he said that about the saudis too.

well maybe bibi can say "no, i am for real this time....all the other times i was lying for political gain, but this time i'm not. this deal is actually a threat to the existence of israel."

diane feinstein said it is not. i tend to respect her opinion more than bibis.

BS44325

badbrains said:

Look, I'm the first to call a spade a spade when it comes to islam. I don't hide or pretend there isn't some fucked up people trying to represent my religion. And to be honest, I really don't follow my religion to closely. To me it's more about the bullshit. It drives me crazy when people can't see what's going on. Especially when I concider some of you bright and smart. Some are just straight bigots. I have zero problem with jewish people or the religion. How can I when they're basically our fellow brothers of the faith in God. What bothers me is just like in islam, you got some fucked uo people who have hijacked he jewish faith and are using it for their own propaganda.

I understand what you state ben when u talked about what else was israel supposed to do when it was created. My response and not directed at you, is so the Palestinians have to suffer for the creation of Israel? That regime has been crying wolf about iran for some 20+ years about a bomb and for nothing. And for the iran wants Israel
Wiped off the map, they don't physically mean wipe them out. They want that to show palestine on the maps and no Israel because they feel like it's palestinian just like the Jews believe it's israel. No different. Everyone knows you can't physically remove Israel. Israel is here to stay just as is palestine. Now they have to find a way to exist together. If that's possible.

This is fantastically rational with all sincerity. The only place I would differ is that I don't think Iran (and when I say Iran I refer to the regime only and not the general population) truly cares about the plight of Palestinians other then how they can be used as pawns in their greater game of regional domination. Iran has much larger ambitions and uses the Palestinian cause as just another element in their covert expansion plans. I really believe Iran funds the worst elements of the resistance which ends up empowering the right in Israel and thereby makes future peace more difficult.

benjs

badbrains said:

Look, I'm the first to call a spade a spade when it comes to islam. I don't hide or pretend there isn't some fucked up people trying to represent my religion. And to be honest, I really don't follow my religion to closely. To me it's more about the bullshit. It drives me crazy when people can't see what's going on. Especially when I concider some of you bright and smart. Some are just straight bigots. I have zero problem with jewish people or the religion. How can I when they're basically our fellow brothers of the faith in God. What bothers me is just like in islam, you got some fucked uo people who have hijacked he jewish faith and are using it for their own propaganda.

I understand what you state ben when u talked about what else was israel supposed to do when it was created. My response and not directed at you, is so the Palestinians have to suffer for the creation of Israel? That regime has been crying wolf about iran for some 20+ years about a bomb and for nothing. And for the iran wants Israel
Wiped off the map, they don't physically mean wipe them out. They want that to show palestine on the maps and no Israel because they feel like it's palestinian just like the Jews believe it's israel. No different. Everyone knows you can't physically remove Israel. Israel is here to stay just as is palestine. Now they have to find a way to exist together. If that's possible.

Nart, my friend - I couldn't agree more about your first paragraph.

I also agree with you on your second paragraph: as I've said here before, Zionism by definition doesn't include or account for the subjugation of others for the Zionist dream to come into fruition. I find the perpetual ignoring of that byproduct offensive, and as you accurately said - a bastardization of the concept of Zionism, as well as the Jewish religion at large.

As far as your 'wiped off the map' part, I also agree with you though with a caveat. From my perspective, I don't see any long-term viable solution besides one state that does not identify as Palestinian or Jewish. In other words, by acknowledging the wrongful nature of seizure of territory by the Jewish people, it would be hypocritical to call then for the Palestinian people to take over the power position in the region. Secular governance of the region with equal representation by both cultures seems to me the only equitable way to manage the region. I believe the best-case scenario would involve the agglomeration of both Israel and Palestine as entities, though their cultures ought to live on within said secularly-run state.

To add to this, any land lost reveals an injustice and inequitable distribution of power. Jews ought to recognize this - Palestinians witness the harsh reality of this to the point where it would be impossibly hard to ignore. This is why I feel that a two-state solution simply will not be deemed acceptable - and from a moral standpoint, it's why I feel that it should not be deemed acceptable.

badbrains

I love you ben but give palestine $3 billion a year in aid and watch how they can govern themselves. After 60+ years, they deserve to rule themselves freely. It's a god damn shame that this is happening in this day and age. Didn't we go into Iraq to liberate the Iraqis? Why not palestine? And ben, none of this is directed at you,you know how I feel about you as a human being and that weighs more then any religion. Israel has tried its way for so long and it didn't work. It's time for something new. It wasn't that long ago what happened in gaza. It's time for all of it to stop and all of it to change.

badbrains

I apologize to the op for straying off topic. Back to iran.

benjs

badbrains said:

I love you ben but give palestine $3 billion a year in aid and watch how they can govern themselves. After 60+ years, they deserve to rule themselves freely. It's a god damn shame that this is happening in this day and age. Didn't we go into Iraq to liberate the Iraqis? Why not palestine? And ben, none of this is directed at you,you know how I feel about you as a human being and that weighs more then any religion. Israel has tried its way for so long and it didn't work. It's time for something new. It wasn't that long ago what happened in gaza. It's time for all of it to stop and all of it to change.

Nart, I hear you. My concern is that a two-state solution becomes permanent, when really, that's no form of reparation for a displaced population: two fragmented pieces of a nation with an adversarial body separating them, and an acceptance of loss of right to live freely in what's probably 80% of the region, due to Israeli rule.

For the record, I take none of this personally. You know you've got my respect, and you know I want a solution and the end of all of this shit as much as you do.

I second my friend's apologies for veering off topic

i_lov_it

Well I think it's a decent deal...anything that's a positive move in the region.

badbrains

i_lov_it said:

Well I think it's a decent deal...anything that's a positive move in the region.

Exactly, time for a change and new direction. It hasn't worked for all these years, let's try diplomacy. Like real diplomacy.

gimmesometruth27

badbrains said:

i_lov_it said:

Well I think it's a decent deal...anything that's a positive move in the region.

Exactly, time for a change and new direction. It hasn't worked for all these years, let's try diplomacy. Like real diplomacy.

good luck with that. today, israel said military strikes on iran are still on the table.

josevolution

gimmesometruth27 said:

badbrains said:

i_lov_it said:

Well I think it's a decent deal...anything that's a positive move in the region.

Exactly, time for a change and new direction. It hasn't worked for all these years, let's try diplomacy. Like real diplomacy.

good luck with that. today, israel said military strikes on iran are still on the table.

Unreal I'm convinced Israel will never be satisfied ....

benjs

josevolution said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

badbrains said:

i_lov_it said:

Well I think it's a decent deal...anything that's a positive move in the region.

Exactly, time for a change and new direction. It hasn't worked for all these years, let's try diplomacy. Like real diplomacy.

good luck with that. today, israel said military strikes on iran are still on the table.

Unreal I'm convinced Israel will never be satisfied ....

If Iran can play the "whose balls are bigger" game, it's only natural that Israel should play the same one, given that Israel does that naturally even without antagonism.

In addition, Israel would be threatened by loss of American support if it were to respond in such a way about an American-brokered deal, and therefore I don't see that happening (given that, without mass immigration of global Jewry, the state risks losing its predominantly Jewish status, based on Jewish procreation rates compared to Muslim procreation rates). If you believe the world's non-Jewish population answers to the Jewish lobby to some degree, I'd also argue that Israel answers to the Jewish lobby as well. Said Jewish lobby needs to present itself as pro-American, as well as pro-Israeli, in order to advocate in favour of pro-Israeli policies back in America. They're incapable of being pro-both unless Israeli and American goals are aligned. I think this would be seen as a betrayal of that alignment and bipartisanship relationship.

i_lov_it

josevolution said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

badbrains said:

i_lov_it said:

Well I think it's a decent deal...anything that's a positive move in the region.

Exactly, time for a change and new direction. It hasn't worked for all these years, let's try diplomacy. Like real diplomacy.

good luck with that. today, israel said military strikes on iran are still on the table.

Unreal I'm convinced Israel will never be satisfied ....

It will be interesting though to see in the future if the US does deals like this with other countries.

blacknapkins

http://nyti.ms/1DCa0EE

The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor
The Fruits of Diplomacy With Iran

By WILLIAM J. BURNS
APRIL 2, 2015

WASHINGTON — IN a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment in Iran, and its existing enrichment facilities would be dismantled. But we don’t live in a perfect world. We can’t wish or bomb away the basic know-how and enrichment capability that Iran has developed. What we can do is sharply constrain it over a long duration, monitor it with unprecedented intrusiveness, and prevent the Iranian leadership from enriching material to weapons grade and building a bomb.

Those are the goals that have animated recent American diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear issue, including during the back-channel talks with Iran that I led in Oman and other quiet venues in 2013. Against a backdrop of 35 years without sustained diplomatic contact, filled with mutual suspicion and grievance, it was hardly surprising that our discussions were difficult, and our Iranian counterparts as tough-minded and skeptical as they were professionally skilled. But our efforts helped set the stage for the interim agreement, or Joint Plan of Action, concluded in November 2013.

Much maligned at the time, the J.P.O.A. has proved its value, freezing and rolling back Iran’s nuclear program for the first time in a decade, applying innovative inspections measures, allowing only modest sanctions relief and keeping substantial pressure on Iran.

The understanding announced in Lausanne, Switzerland, on Thursday is an important step forward. Many crucial details still have to be resolved. But the understanding outlines a solid comprehensive agreement that would increase, for at least a decade, the time it would take Iran to enrich enough weapons-grade material for a single bomb from the current two-to-three-month timeline to at least one year. It would significantly reduce Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium, substantially limit the country’s enrichment capacity and constrain Iranian research and development on more advanced centrifuges. And it would cut off Iran’s other possible pathways to a bomb, including by effectively eliminating Iran’s potential capacity to produce weapons-grade plutonium at its planned Arak reactor and banning enrichment at the underground Fordow facility for at least 15 years.

In addition to these significant limitations, we would create an inspection regime unparalleled in intensity, going well beyond current international standards and ensuring that any breakout effort would be quickly detected. Only a negotiated deal gets us the verification and monitoring we need to close off any covert path to a weapon.

Through carefully phased sanctions relief with built-in procedures to reimpose sanctions immediately in case of Iranian noncompliance, we would also preserve ample enforcement leverage. With more eyes on less material in fewer places, and clarity about the harsh costs of cheating, we would be well positioned to deter and prevent Iranian breakout.

As consequential as this understanding is, much more remains to be done. Three challenges loom largest.

The first is the most obvious and immediate: the difficult, painstaking work of negotiating the details of a comprehensive agreement. Rigorous execution of such an agreement will be a critical priority for this administration and its successor, and that will depend on the quality of its verification and enforcement provisions. There is no reason to rush this effort, especially given the continued freeze on Iran’s program under the J.P.O.A. What’s crucial is to get it right.

The second and third challenges are more long-term, but equally important. Completing this comprehensive nuclear accord with Iran must be one part of a clear-eyed strategy for a Middle East in deep disarray. I do not assume that progress on the nuclear issue will lead anytime soon to relaxation of tensions with Tehran on other regional problems, or to normalization of United States-Iranian relations. Nor do I assume that the Iranian leadership will make an overnight transformation from a revolutionary, regionally disruptive force to a more “normal” role as another ambitious regional power.

That means we must work to reassure our partners in the region, whose concerns about both Iranian threats and the impact of a nuclear deal are palpable. We should urgently pursue new forms of security assurances and cooperation. Taking a firm stance against threatening Iranian actions in the region, from Syria to Yemen, not only shores up anxious longtime friends. It also is the best way to produce Iranian restraint, much as a firm stance on sanctions helped persuade Iran to reassess its nuclear strategy.

Similarly, it’s important to embed a comprehensive Iranian nuclear agreement in a wider effort to strengthen the global nuclear order. New inspection and monitoring measures applied through an Iran agreement may create useful future benchmarks. The Iranian problem has exposed significant vulnerabilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, especially the absence of a clear divide between civilian and military programs. The Iran case makes clear that the gray zone in the treaty between the right to use nuclear energy and the prohibition against manufacturing nuclear weapons is too wide. As nuclear technology and know-how become more diffuse and states turn to nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, building a sturdy firewall between military and peaceful activities will be an increasingly important task.

None of this will be easy. But the prospect of a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran in the next few months, if executed rigorously and embedded in wider strategies for regional order and global nuclear order, can be a significant turning point. It can also be a much-needed demonstration of the enduring value of diplomacy.

The history of the Iranian nuclear issue is littered with missed opportunities. It is a history in which fixation on the perfect crowded out the good, and in whose rearview mirror we can see deals that look a lot better now than they seemed then. With all its inevitable imperfections, we can’t afford to miss this one.

William J. Burns, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was deputy secretary of state from 2011 to 2014 and continues to advise the government on the Iran talks.

i_lov_it

Just a little bit of Manipulation here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11513971/Nuclear-deal-threatens-Israels-existence-Benjamin-Netanyahu-says.html

Israeli leader voices anger over Lausanne agreement with Iran in phone conversation with Barack Obama

Benjamin Netanyahu has denounced the framework agreement over Iran’s nuclear programme as a “bad and dangerous deal” that threatens Israel’s existence.

The Israeli prime minister launched his expected backlash against the settlement hatched between Tehran and six world powers almost immediately after details emerged from the Swiss town of Lausanne on Thursday, criticising it in a late night phone conversation with President Barack Obama.

Mr Netanyahu told the US leader that he “vehemently opposed” the agreement, saying it posed a “grave danger to Israel, the region and the world”.

A statement issued by the prime minister’s office afterwards was even more scathing, calling it a deal that “kowtows to Iranian dictates” and would pave the way to a “military nuclear programme”.

“This is a bad framework that will lead to a bad and dangerous deal,” the statement said. “If an agreement is reached based on the guidelines of this framework that would be a historic mistake which will transform the world into a much more dangerous place. The framework gives Iran’s nuclear programme, the sole purpose of which is to produce nuclear bombs, international legitimacy.”

Mr Netanyahu convened his security cabinet on Friday to discuss the issue.

His negative response had been widely predicted. As negotiations unfolded in Lausanne, the Israeli prime minister had compared the event to the infamous 1938 Munich conference at which the Western allies colluded with Adolf Hitler to dismember Czechoslovakia in an effort to avert war.

He also pointed to a quote attributed to an Iranian general who was reported to have said this week that Israel’s destruction was non-negotiable.

“An Iranian official said that Israel’s destruction is non-negotiable,” Mr Netanyahu said. “However, giving Iran’s murderous regime, the bomb is negotiable.”

While Mr Netanyahu’s strident approach has put him in the forefront of Israeli opposition to attempts at negotiating a deal, his stance on a nuclear-armed Iran reflects a broad consensus of Israel’s political spectrum.

Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni, joint founders of the centre-Left Zionist Union opposition, reacted to Thursday’s agreement by calling for close cooperation with America to “roll back Iran’s nuclear programme and prevent it from getting nuclear weapons”.

Yair Lapid, leader of the centrist Yesh Atid party who was sacked last year as finance minister by Mr Netanyahu, said domestic political differences were set aside when it came to Iran.

“On the Iranian nuclear issue there is no opposition and coalition,” he said. “We are all concerned that the Iranians will circumvent the deal and Israel must protect its own security interests.”

Nahaum Barnea, one of Israel’s most experienced commentators, suggested Mr Netanyahu’s efforts to pressure Mr Obama over Iran – which reached a peak when he addressed the US congress last month in a clear affront to the US president – meant that the Lausanne deal amounted to a personal defeat.

“The truth should be told: this was a resounding failure for Israel,” Mr Barnea wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth. “As the clash between Netanyahu and Obama on the Iranian issue heightened, Israel’s influence on the course of the negotiations and its outcome lessened.”

BS44325

Iran has not agreed to inspections.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940119001411

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/08/iran-military-sites-off-limits-to-inspectors/


The deal is a farce.

badbrains

Hypocrisy is great isn't it?