Sergeant Brodys sacrifice was not in vain.

Hahaha nice. Majid Javadi is holding up his part of the deal it seems!

mmm so far so good. The thing about the seas and changes is that tides are cyclical.

Netanyahu disappointed that he can’t launch “devastating war of self-defence” against Iran

July 14, 2015

Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu has launched a scathing attack on the historic nuclear deal with Iran, urging allies in the US Congress to derail the agreement.

“It’s a truly disappointing day for Israel,” he told reporters at the Knesset. “With this deal in place, our vulnerable, peace-loving country will truly struggle to launch a devastating, full-frontal war of self-defence against a nuclear-armed Iran.”

Netanyahu later admitted that he “wasn’t sure what he was now going to do” with Israel’s own stockpile of nuclear weapons.

http://www.panarabiaenquirer.com/wordpress/netanyahu-disappointed-that-he-cant-launch-devastating-war-of-self-defence-against-iran/

The Wall Street Journal has already blamed former president George W. Bush's flawed attack of Iraq for causing this by removing Iraq as a constraint on Iran's actions. Now Iran has an increased political presence in the world instead of being a regional player only in the Mid East. Iran hasn't lived up to similar terms in previous deals so this may be the new "Peace in Our Times" and Obama the new Prime Minister Chamberlain.

Besides Iran's real leader hasn't officially approved the deal.

"the new Prime Minister Chamberlain"

Is this the only analogy that anybody can come up with?

I'm waiting for the selfie of Obama kissing someone's shoe.

"Besides Iran's real leader hasn't officially approved the deal."

Does the US president not need to go back to congress/senate to ratify this aswell? Isn't that how these things go?

Back in May, the *Republican* Congress signed a bill that gave Obama authority to negotiate the treaty. That bill said Congress could only vote to *disapprove* of the treaty. This is why there is so much talk about Obama vetoing a Congressional bill to disapprove of the treaty which means that there would have to be a two-thirds Congressional vote to override the veto.

Effectively, they pre-approved whatever pact the G5+1 and Iran agreed to.

I am already tired of the bellyaching by Republicans. They specifically thought this out so that they could try to make this treaty political instead of looking at it on its own merits to further American interests by neutralizing Iran as a potential nuclear threat.

@Rando

Lol that's interpretive dance at its finest.

Alternate reality is leave Iraq strong then it goes and teams up with Iran and then you post bemoaning our politicians for not doing anything.

Prime Minister Chamberlain did nothing wrong.

Am I the only one that thinks this deal sucked? Iranian leaders were seen just a few days ago at a "Death to America" rally. Second, we still have FOUR American prisoners in Iranian jails that weren't even brought to the negotiation table. We also are giving permission to Iran to enrich uranium AND billions of dollars to fund their work AND lifting sanctions.

So...where's the good news that we won this negotiation?

The Iran deal states limited enrichment at "key locations". Who defines what a key location is? Sure we get inspections, but they're not surprise inspections and likely scheduled ones that take months to schedule if not longer. Additionally the caps to amount and enrichment levels are not forever, as Obama claims, but only for 15 years and some of that release after just 8 years.

And what did WE get:
--guaranteed nuclear free Iran? Nope.
--reduction in Iranian hate? Doubtful.
--peace between Iran and Israel? Definitely not.
--US prisoners returned home? Nope.

Furthermore, Iran is to give up 2/3 of its current nuclear stockpile away. To whom? Us? No. Likely to Russia, who are on the brink of war with the US over our naval presence in the South China Sea.


Let's face it, we screwed a great deal of people on this issue, and it's NOT just Republicans that are saying this.

@Tru

Those are some strong opinions considering no one has had adequate time to read and analyze the entire document. Perhaps we should wait a bit to see what it actually says, yes?

Fox News and the neocon blogosphere has already analyzed it as much as necessary. Anything contradictory can be duly ignored.

Especially if the analysis comes from Russia, China, Germany, France or England. ;)

I heard on the radio today that an ex-Mossad chief (likely Meir Dagan) has said that Iran capitulated in this deal and we came out ahead.

Those things I put can be found from a NUMBER of sources. I didn't once use Fox news, and my first look came from CNN. I've been watching the news all day.

I will reference my first post in this thread.

Republicans in Congress:
* Knew that a deal crippling Iran's nuclear program had to be made
* knew they could never, ever give their official stamp of approval to any sort of treaty the Obama administration negotiated because all they can do is say "NO!" because they are geopolitically myopic
* came up with a bill which convoluted the normal treaty process. Congress would have authority to AFFIRMATIVELY DISAPPROVE of the treaty instead of affirmatively approving it. This would likely trigger an expected veto by Obama which would almost certainly not reach a two-thirds Congressional override. They did this because they were cowards and couldn't dare be seen voting in the interests of the United States if it meant giving Obama a huge foreign policy win; and
* expected this outcome all along, so anything that happens now is just political theater. They'll reap lots of campaign donations for this election cycle.

Yes, REPUBLICANS WANTED THIS OUTCOME ALL ALONG. It is pathetic.

There are plenty of Democrats who don't like the deal either. It's not a Republican thing.

It's mostly a republican thing.

Why Nuclear Experts Love the Iran Deal

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8967147/iran-nuclear-deal-jeffrey-lewis

How about that "24/7" access to their research facilities. Oh wait, there's a process of up to 24 days of negotiation on whether an inspection will even occur. That must've been what they meant. 24 days, 7 steps.

So you genuinely believe that we will have 24/7 surveillance over their nuclear facilities? On what grounds? It's never been done before and I guarantee won't happen here.

Plus it still begs the question as to "key facilities" and who decides that.

Iran has a history of shady dealings as a country that funds terrorist groups and has a lethal hate for America.

Again, the fact we even came to the table with a deal that didn't include the 4 American prisoners is terrible.

Had we not agreed to give them $11 billion and received our prisoners back, I might chalk this up as a great deal because I DO agree that Iran giving up a significant portion of their nuclear capabilities is great. I DO believe us having inspections (guarantee they're not 24/7) is awesome. I am ok with lifting sanctions as a show of our good faith.

We went into this asking little and giving much. I'm not a Republican so I don't care if people want to argue that this is a Republican agenda. I believe people when they say that republicans have fought against Obama's policies just because he's a Democrat. Not everything Obama has done has sucked. I agree, for the vast part of it, with Obamacare.

This, however, was NOT a good deal.

Since implementing sanctions in 1979, six US Presidents have combined to toughen and tighten sanctions on 15 different occasions, and yet even the most crippling of sanctions have failed to dissuade the Iranians of their nuclear ambitions. It is naive to think a 16th round of sanctions would deter the Iranians. Worse, it's tired, lazy, and flawed thinking. This deal - though imperfect - ends the flawed, dangerous, and testosterone-driven Bush doctrine while opening a new chapter in American diplomacy: we don't have to bomb every single country with whom we disagree.

While Iran has agreed to give up nuclear material and equipment, there is no way to insure that the numbers are correct. They have already shown that they can build secret underground facilities. So hiding some and not telling the West and inspectors is probably a reasonable assumption.

"Iran has a history of shady dealings as a country that funds terrorist groups and has a lethal hate for America."

Yeah, they're so full of hate they held candlelight vigils for the 9/11 attacks and offered direct support against the Taliban immediately afterwards; an offer that was rudely ignored by the Bush regime, who instead turned around and declared Iran to be part of the "Axis of Evil" (along with Iran's mortal enemy, Iraq). Considering everything the American government has done to Iran over the last 35 years - including funding terrorist groups that kill Iranians, economic blockades, shooting down a civilian airliner, and even an outright undeclared war in 1987-1988, it looks an awful lot like America's rulers are the ones possessed by irrational hatred and shady dealings.

Why does this have to turn into a partisan argument?

First, there was not any argument made for why Iran hates America. It's not 1988 anymore. It's not the 90's. It's now. There were a lot of reasons we attacked Iran, and they made just as many poor choices but we didn't create a national holiday called "Death to Iran".

What we are dealing with now, regardless of how it was created, is a vengeful country whose citizenry and leadership are seeking the demise of our entire country.

What I am NOT saying (that many of you keep trying to put into my mouth for some reason) is that we should not negotiate and try to change our relationship with a long time enemy.

What I AM saying (that has been entirely ignored) is that the deal that was made was a terrible deal. We left 4 American prisoners in a country that kills and I'm prisons Christians routinely. We gave a country that seeks the death of America, many western nations and Israel $11.6 BILLION.

1. You keep saying this is not the 80s or 90s, but you keep spouting GOP rhetoric from that time. It's 2015 - who is Iran right now?

2. Well, we know that their Executive Cabinet has more PhDs from US Universities than France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain combined. We know that the UK, Germany, and France felt strongly enough about this issue to join with us.

3. Regarding the 11.6 billion that you felt the need to put in all caps. You do know that the US military spends $1.3 billion dollars a day. I'll say that again: $1.3 billion a day, so fretting about $11.6 billion is rather silly.

4. Iran's GDP, even with crippling sanctions, has doubled since 2006. And while $416 billion pales in comparison to other countries in the region, $11 billion is but 3% of Iran's GDP.

5. You keep saying you're not biased, yet you keep promoting the Fox News company line: it's a bad deal. Have you read the entire document? All of it? Other than the prisoner element, why exactly is this a bad NUCLEAR deal? Nearly every expert has come out and said we (the US and the other five nations) got far more than we could have hoped for, yet you disagree: why, specifically?

6. We're not a Christian nation, so trying to make this about Christian deaths makes absolutely no sense.

7. Since you dislike the deal, what specifically would you have done???

Not Tru, but agree with a lot of what he says.... So I will answer some of these questions.

1. No matter who they were in the 80's or 90's, they are holding Death to America rallies *now*. They are burning American flags *now*. They are supporting attacks on our allies *now*.

2. No comment

3. The fact that we are giving this country ANY money when they want to end our country, as well as keeping our citizens prisoners, is disturbing. The amount does not matter.

4. No comment.

5. He shares an opinion with a network. You share an opinion, ie, that it is good, with a lot of other people and networks. Yet you have not read the entire document either. You are being a hypocrite for saying he can't disagree with it because he does not know it, while at the same time approving of it.

6. No, we are not a Christian nation, but we should not be giving money or support to a country that kills blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, Muslims, LGBT or straights for those identities. Period. And yes, that goes for Saudi Arabia or any other "foreign interest" as well.

7. While I can't answer for Tru, I think that any deal where Iran ends up with a nuclear warhead is unacceptable. The world already has too many nuclear weapons, and the nuclear countries should all see this as a problem. I wouldn't support Argentina, Japan, or Switzerland having nukes either. But especially not folks who may or may not meet the criteria of the "rational actor" model.

Actually, I have read the document. I think it would be pretty ignorant to post in this thread if you haven't read it, so get your facts straight before you call people hypocrites.

So go read it:

http://justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/271545626-Iran-Deal-Text.pdf

Once you have, come back and answer specifically what YOU would do to curb Iranian nuclear ambitions and capabilities. You want to bash the deal, yet you haven't read it and haven't offered a better solution.

Quick tip: think twice before you categorize a country of 77 million based on the actions of a radical minority; it's the equivalent of them categorizing our country based on the actions of a group like the Klu Klux Klan.

I will read it, thank you for posting.

Also, that analogy fails as the current president isn't part of the KKK. When the Supreme Leader of Iran says, "Death to America" then I have a little to worry about. I am not judging the nation. I don't think that the average Iranian desires death for America. But when the people who you are handing nuclear weapons to do, they are the ones that matter.

The solution isn't to screw them over, the solution is to give them a reason to stop screaming "Death to America". Here's hope that that lesson is being learned.