“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

US president stresses that critics of historic agreement, including Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu, have failed to provide honest alternative to the deal

Barack Obama argued that the debate over the landmark nuclear agreement with Iran is a choice between diplomacy and war on Wednesday, urging critics in Israel and Washington to come clean that their only viable option to the globally agreed accord would be military action.
“There really are only two alternatives here: either Iran getting a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through negotiation,” Obama said. “Or it is resolved through force, through war. Those are the options.”
Under the deal, cemented between Iran and a coalition of world powers, international sanctions that have crippled Tehran’s economy will be gradually lifted once it shrinks and mothballs its nuclear infrastructure, accepting extensive surveillance at enrichment sites.
However, the agreement must first survive a longshot attempt by hawks in Washington to sabotage the accord with legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress
Speaking to reporters at the White House for close to an hour, Obama stressed that critics, including the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, had failed to provide an honest alternative to a deal he said was supported by virtually the entire global community.


In a message directed at wavering Democrats, who the White House needs to keep on board to ensure the deal survives an assault in Congress, Obama warned of another war in the Middle East. “Without a deal, we risk even more war in the Middle East, and other countries in the Middle East would feel compelled to develop their own nuclear weapons,” he said, adding that such a chain of events would risk a nuclear arms race “in the most dangerous region in the world”.
He added: “Future generations would judge us harshly if we let this moment slip away.”
The president at one stage said he was enjoying the debate over the nuclear deal, and repeatedly urged reporters to come up with arguments against it, insisting he was determined to tackle all of the criticisms head on. 
Critics of the deal, meanwhile, backed Netanyahu, insisted Tehran cannot be trusted, and have long argued the international community should not accept even a token nuclear program on Iranian soil, even if it is verifiably peaceful and subject to rigorous controls.
Obama did not deny that the agreement did not go as far as those critics would want, and was candid about the limits of what he said the US, working in concert with international allies, could achieve. Washington, he said, did not have the clout to “eliminate every vestige” of nuclear activity in Iran. “What we do have leverage to do is prevent them from getting a nuclear bomb, and that’s what we’ve done,” he said.
In the 24 hours since the agreement was unveiled in Vienna, attention has switched to the widely anticipated Republican fury, particularly among candidates seeking the party’s nomination for president, who have uniformly and forcefully rejected the deal. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, one of the frontrunners in the race, called the accord “dangerous, deeply flawed and short sighted”.
However, an agreement forged in April between the White House and Congress, setting out procedures for the legislature’s oversight of the agreement, limits the options available to congressional critics of the deal. Even though Republicans control both chambers, it will be hard for them to do much more than formally register the legislature’s disapproval. 
The White House has four more days to officially present the agreement to the Senate and House of Representatives, after which there will be a 60-day review period which will involve extensive congressional hearings. With Congress in recess during much of August, those are likely to take place in September, although committee chairmen are believed to be planning some hearings in the coming weeks.
Once that 60-day period is exhausted, Republican leaders will have 12 days to vote on a resolution disapproving of the deal. Obama has vowed to veto any such legislation, a promise he repeated on Wednesday. 
Overriding that presidential veto will require a second vote to be passed with a two-thirds majority in both chambers. That is a very high, and probably insurmountable hurdle, requiring at least 42 Democrats in the House and around a dozen Democratic senators to vote down the deal. 
The international alliance needed to implement the sanctions would quickly fall apart, the president said, if lawmakers found a way to kill the agreement. “If they saw us walking away, or more specifically the US Congress effectively vetoing the judgment of 99% of the world community that this is a deal that resolves the Iranian nuclear weapons program in an equitable way, the sanctions system unravels.”
Critics say the accord would allow Iran to upgrade nuclear technology after 10 years, accelerating the time it would take Tehran to develop a nuclear bomb. Under another compromise in the deal, a ban on selling ballistic missiles to Iran will expire after a maximum eight years, while an embargo on the trade of conventional arms would be lifted even sooner.
Obama insisted that the delay to the lifting of those arms embargoes was itself an important concession achieved by US negotiators, and said other steps would be taken, separately, to ensure that Iran did not destabilise other countries in the region. 
While a vote of disapproval – based on anything less than a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate – would not kill the deal, it would undermine it politically, raising difficult questions about the longevity of Washington’s commitment to an accord intended to last at least 15 years. 
Such a result would also embolden Republican contenders for the White House, such as Florida senator Marco Rubio and Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, who are making bold pledges about their reimposing sanctions to unwind the deal if they are elected. 
Whether Obama’s successor can, or would, reverse an agreement that is rooted in the phased removal of international sanctions – not just those imposed by Washington – is subject to some dispute. Most experts believe that if the nuclear agreement is deemed to be working, it would be extremely unlikely for a Republican victor like Rubio or Walker to reverse course.
By they time Obama’s successor takes office in 2017, international sanctions on Tehran would have been largely dismantled. The next president would therefore have to try to mobilise another international coalition, persuading countries that will be trading with Iran – not just Russia and China, but the likes of India, South Korea and Japan – to reconstruct another wall of sanctions that took years to construct.


Any new president hoping to unwind the deal would therefore only have the limited leverage of sanctions imposed directly from Washington, a largely symbolic gesture but one that would also have the effect of annulling an international accord keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons. 
Obama argued there was “no scenario” in which a future president would be in a stronger position as a result of the agreement. He said he has “not yet heard logic” that refutes the argument that the deal strengthens the US’s hand, even in the event that Iran fails to meet its side of the agreement. 
“It is incumbent upon the critics of this deal to explain how a US president is in a worse position 12, 13, 15 years from now,” he said. 
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who wields the ultimate power in Iran – on nuclear issues as all else – gave a clear sign on Wednesday that he supported the nuclear agreement. In a letter to the country’s president, Hassan Rouhani, he thanked Iranian nuclear negotiators “for their continuous and tireless efforts”, according to his official website. 
“The talks concluded and this is an important step. The text that has been produced should be carefully reviewed and its legal procedures followed [referring to the Iranian parliament review],” read the letter.

“If passed [by parliament], we should watch for any possible violations of the obligations by the other side and make sure that doesn’t happen. As you know well, some of the six governments on the other side are not to be trusted.”
On Tuesday night, Khamenei also played host to senior government officials, where he thanked them for their work on the nuclear agreement.

36 comments:

  1. It looks, right now, as if Obama is sitting right on 34 in the Senate. He loses one more, and the deal is toast.

    I hate the sonofabitches, but AIPAC is incredibly powerful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It aint AIPAC

      It's what is right for America

      As it stands now the BEST way to curb iranian misbehavior short of war is SANCTIONS

      Delete
    2. .

      Another bullshit argument.

      So far, sanctions have done zip to slow down Iran's progress on nuclear energy. The only thing that has done anything at all is progress on the nuclear agreement.

      Obama is right when he says, “It is incumbent upon the critics of this deal to explain how a US president is in a worse position 12, 13, 15 years from now,” he said.

      So far, the critics of this deal offer up 'more of the same', more of the same that hasn't worked, the definition of insanity.

      .

      Delete
    3. .

      It looks, right now, as if Obama is sitting right on 34 in the Senate. He loses one more, and the deal is toast.

      You are right. Just saw Chuck Schumer on TV. When asked what he thought of the deal, he said their are some aspects of the deal that are troubling but that he 'would have to talk to some people' before making a decision.

      Chucky wasn't specific as to which people he needed to talk to. I guess each of us will have to ponder who he will be conversing with.

      .

      Delete
    4. The country that needs to be sanctioned is Israel.

      Delete
  2. How many gays being hung, women being stoned and Jews being blown up does $150,000,000,000 buy?

    Oh yeah, and notice those 4 Americans being held hostage?

    Are they worth anything?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rufus IIWed Jul 15, 05:52:00 PM EDT
    It looks, right now, as if Obama is sitting right on 34 in the Senate. He loses one more, and the deal is toast.

    I hate the sonofabitches, but AIPAC is incredibly powerful.




    Ever ponder if you are on the wrong side of history? Morals?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fears and Lies?

    Hardly.

    Iran's progress blazes forward.

    How many centrifuges did Iran have when Obama took office? How many today?

    Does Iran not call for the destruction of BOTH Israel and America? repeatedly?

    Is Iran not working on ICBMs? Plutonium AND Uranium?

    Does Iran not have a war head program?

    The answer is easy to those that are reasonable and honest.

    Iran is not a peaceful nation. It's goal is to spread Shiite Islamic revolution across the globe.

    The are actively attempting to take over several arab states as we speak...

    Fear and Lies?

    Hardly...

    Israel faces 100 thousand Iranian supplied rockets by hezbollah and hamas...

    Do you deny this fact?

    Where does hamas get its cash to tunnel into Israel? to rebuild tunnels and rockets?

    Where does hezbollah?

    IRAN

    it's a fact that all honest people can agree....

    Iran threatens the very existence of Israel.

    The in fact BRAG of it...

    A nation 100 times the size of Israel, with 70 million people... Threaten Israel....

    They even have a holiday about it..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      How many centrifuges did Iran have when Obama took office? How many today?

      The number went through the roof. And that is exactly the point, it grew at an astronomical rate despite the SANCTIONS you are so hot on. The agreement freezes the number of centrifuges and prevents Iran from moving to the newer generation centrifuges.

      .

      Delete
    2. .

      Does Iran not call for the destruction of BOTH Israel and America? repeatedly?

      Easiest thing in the world to say, harder to do, that is if you want to live for more than 24 hours after.

      .

      Delete
    3. .

      The are actively attempting to take over several arab states as we speak...

      .

      Delete
    4. .

      The are actively attempting to take over several arab states as we speak...

      Nonsense.

      .

      Delete
    5. .

      Israel faces 100 thousand Iranian supplied rockets by hezbollah and hamas...

      Do you deny this fact?


      No.

      But it has nothing to do with this deal.

      .

      Delete
    6. .

      Is Iran not working on ICBMs? Plutonium AND Uranium?

      ICBM's? They might be working on them, Israel has them? Wouldn't Iran have the same justification for having ICBM's as Israel?

      Plutonium and Uranium?

      RESULT: Iran's 20,000 installed enrichment machines, including 10,000 that were running in 2013, will be reduced to about 5,000 for 10 years, while research and development on more efficient machines will be limited.

      Iran agreed to dilute or convert its entire stockpile of medium-enriched uranium into another form that would be monitored by international inspectors, and to ship its stockpile of low enriched uranium to another country.

      Iran agreed to repurpose the Fordow facility to isotope production and nuclear research rather than uranium enrichment, Kerry said Tuesday. The same process can also be used to enrich uranium. Hundreds of uranium enrichment machines in Fordow will be idled but not dismantled.

      Iran agreed to remove and destroy the core of the Arak reactor, Kerry said. Iran also agreed not to build a plutonium reprocessing plant, and to convert Arak "so it could only be used for peaceful purposes."


      http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/07/14/iran-deal-what-each-won-and-lost/30062147/

      .

      Delete
    7. QuirkWed Jul 15, 07:29:00 PM EDT
      .

      Is Iran not working on ICBMs? Plutonium AND Uranium?

      ICBM's? They might be working on them, Israel has them? Wouldn't Iran have the same justification for having ICBM's as Israel?


      At last check? Israel is not threatening America with destruction.

      Your argument is juvenile, again.

      Iran is a rogue state.

      Israel, whether you like it or not, is not.

      Iran, is the world leader in terrorism, Israel is not.

      To compare one verse the other is again, specious.

      You do this all the time when you lack anything valid to say.

      Delete
  5. QuirkWed Jul 15, 06:53:00 PM EDT
    .

    Israel faces 100 thousand Iranian supplied rockets by hezbollah and hamas...

    Do you deny this fact?

    No.

    But it has nothing to do with this deal.




    But yes it does. Sanctions that were enacted because of Iran's terrorism is now being lifted because of the deal.

    bone up on the deal quirk, you are getting pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. QuirkWed Jul 15, 06:52:00 PM EDT
    .

    The are actively attempting to take over several arab states as we speak...

    Nonsense.




    Syria? Lebanon? Yemen?

    To name a few, there are more...

    are you a river in egypt or what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gosh, maybe the Iranians might even build settlements in those places after they take over. Can't have that.

      Delete
    2. And they will insist that those settlements be accepted by all as Jewish... Errrrrr.... Persian.

      Delete
    3. Negotiators in Vienna had announced the Iran nuclear deal only an hour earlier, but Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican presidential candidate, was already on the airwaves denouncing it.

      “You have created a possible death sentence for Israel,” he declared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

      “This is a virtual declaration of war against Sunni Arabs,” he said.

      “This is the most dangerous, irresponsible step I have ever seen in the history of watching the Mideast. Barack Obama, John Kerry, have been dangerously naive,” he added.

      Tough stuff. But had Graham actually seen the deal?

      “No,” he admitted, when host Mika Brzezinski asked him.

      “I don’t understand,” another host, Mike Barnicle, told Graham, “how you can be so certain without having read the deal yet.”

      “Because I have been to the Mideast enough to know,” Graham replied.


      Of course Graham hadn’t read the deal — he couldn’t have. More than 100 pages of text and annexes went online about 6:30 a.m., and the European Union site where it was posted soon crashed. The Obama administration won’t get all the supplemental material to Congress for up to five days, and then there will be a battery of briefings.

      But Graham and his congressional colleagues are not reserving judgment until they know the facts. This is, perhaps, to be expected after 47 GOP senators sent a letter to Iran’s ayatollahs trying to block an agreement even before there was one. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), author of that letter, called the new deal “a terrible, dangerous mistake.”

      This is legislating by reflex — a mass knee-jerk by the Republican majority in Congress. Those who howled “read the bill” during the health-care debate couldn’t be bothered to read the nuclear agreement before sounding off.

      [Do Republicans really want to block the Iran deal?]

      They are perfectly entitled to oppose the deal (though opponents would need two-thirds of both chambers to disrupt the pact). But the reflexive reaction suggests they are against it because President Obama is for it — and that they oppose the very notion of negotiating with Iran.

      Whatever one thinks of the agreement, the alternative was not necessarily a “better deal,” as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. There may be war with Iran, or, more likely, the Europeans, who do think this is a good deal, will drop their sanctions even if the United States doesn’t — thereby leaving Iran relatively free to pursue its nuclear ambitions.

      Such considerations got lost in the reflexive response, kicked off by Netanyahu, who proclaimed an hour before the deal was announced that, based on “early reports,” it was “a historic mistake.”

      {...}


      Delete
    4. {...}

      From there, it was all leaping, little looking. “Israel blasts Iran deal as ‘dark day in history,’ ” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) tweeted, just as Obama went on TV to announce the agreement. As Obama spoke, Rep. Randy Weber (R-Tex.) tweeted: “What part of ‘Death to America’ did this Administration not understand?”

      These were among the first of a flurry of lawmakers’ tweets in the early minutes of the Iran deal’s life, saying that Obama “paves way for a nuclear Iran and gives Tehran millions to fund their global terror” and that he is “encouraging Iran’s nuclear capabilities.” A previously scheduled House hearing opened at 10 a.m. with witness Joe Lieberman, the hawkish former Democratic senator, calling the pact “a bad deal for America, a bad deal for Iran’s neighbors in the Middle East, and a bad deal for the world.”

      [Editorial: Obama’s costly, complex deal with Iran]

      Some Republicans were more responsible, saying they would “Look forward to studying details” (Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake), even if they would view them with “deep skepticism” (Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee).

      Those vying to lead the GOP, alas, were not so patient. Mike Huckabee said the hour-old agreement “empowers an evil Iranian regime to carry out its threat to ‘wipe Israel off the map.’ ” Marco Rubio and Scott Walker suggested future presidents would ditch the deal, and Ted Cruz called it a “staggeringly bad deal” and “a fundamental betrayal” of U.S. and Israeli security.

      Graham, who days earlier admitted the interim nuclear agreement “worked better than I thought,” toured the cable-news studios, telling CNN the deal empowers “religious Nazis.”

      By about 9 a.m., House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had both reached conclusions. Boehner said that Obama “abandoned his own goals,” that the deal would put Iran on “a break-out threshold to produce a nuclear bomb,” and that it would “only embolden Iran — the world’s largest sponsor of terror.”

      “It sounds,” a reporter later said to Boehner, “like you’ve already rejected it.”

      “I want to review all the facts,” the speaker replied.

      Verdict first — then the facts.

      Delete
    5. The fact is?

      iran just screwed the world...

      And you're either too stupid to understand or willing...

      Delete
  7. The Israeli-Firsters believe that the EU, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, the rest of most of the World will support the US Congress and Bibi Netanyahu and continue the Neocon dream for the nuclear apartheid theocracy occupying Palestine.

    Really?

    None of them will carry water for the liar Bibi Netanyahu. The American people will not tolerate another Israeli US inspired war in the ME.

    The US would isolate itself and Iran will have learned a valuable lesson:

    The only way to deal with nuclear bullying is to own a nuclear weapon system. It would be the dumbest exercise of political stupidity sine George Bush attacked Iraq and within months, Iran will have a nuclear weapon and most of the World would understand why they did it.

    It would be the jewel in the crown for the new vision of Russia and ironically counteract US diplomatic policy since 1950 and that is to keep Iran out of the Russian orbit.

    It would have one benefit. It would wake the US public up to get them to turf the Israelis out of US politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again you use fear and lies, distortion to sell your POV...

      Sad really.

      Delete
  8. Israel wants a “permanent stand-off” with Iran and would reject any deal on the country’s nuclear programme, Britain’s Foreign Secretary has said.

    Philip Hammond said Israel’s stance on its neighbour was against the interests of the UK and of the wider Middle East region as a whole.

    “The question you have to ask yourself is what kind of a deal would have been welcomed in Tel Aviv?” he told Parliament.

    “The answer, of course, is that Israel doesn’t want any deal with Iran. Israel wants a permanent state of stand-off and I don’t believe that’s in the interest of the region, I don’t believe it’s in our interest.”

    Mr Hammond warned that failure to reach a deal would have ultimately led to military conflict.

    “The real alternative to a deal that prevents Iran building a nuclear bomb almost at some stage would have been war. What we have averted with this agreement is the threat and a prospect of a war.”

    {...}

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to a question from an MP, Mr Hammond also noted that the head of Israel’s secret service Mossad believed that the failure to resolve the Palestinian conflict was a bigger threat to the country’s security than Iran.

      “Now that he’s reminded me of that I’ll certainly put it in my briefing note for the meeting [with Israeli government figures]” he said.

      The Foreign Secretary’s comments are the latest in a line of indications that relations between Israel and the West are cooling.

      Last month the British government condemned Israel’s “forced resettlement” of ethnic minority groups.

      In March it also accused the Middle Eastern state of illegally colonising Palestinian territory under the guise of moving into areas to protect historic archaeological sites.

      In the US, the White House was incensed after opposition politicians unilaterally invited Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress arguing against a deal with Iran.

      The US Government later warned that Israel “cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely” and said the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories had to end.

      Israel has argued again that Iran is an aggressor and that the West should not do a deal with it over its nuclear programme. Iran says its programme is for peaceful purposes.

      “If Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow,” PM Benjamin Netanyahu said in his speech to the US Congress.

      Israel doesn't want a deal with Iran, any deal just as much as it doesn't want a deal with the Palestinians. It has the GOP and the hawks in the US at it's beck and call. It has received over $42billion is US aid since 2001. A permanent state of beligerance is therefore useful to Israel.

      Delete
    2. The Israeli shakedown of the US Congress is well underway.

      Delete
    3. The Iranian shakedown of America is already accomplished.

      150 billion

      Delete
    4. Deuce: It has received over $42billion is US aid since 2001. A permanent state of beligerance is therefore useful to Israel.

      For which the vast majority is spent in the USA.

      Why lie and distort the facts?

      Oh yeah you have too..

      Delete
  9. The Israeli opposition to the nuclear diplomacy is nothing other than an expression of Israeli economic and political self-interest.

    It is this motive that stands above all other priorities for and if it damages American national interests and engenders military confrontation between the US and Iran, they don’t care.

    It is in their hegemonic self-interest that requires failure of any deal that would entail a closer, and worse yet, a strategic relationship between the US and Iran. When Rat said Israel prefers ISIS, he was right.

    The US Congress is little more that another Israeli settlement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Today, in his press conference, Obama stated that Syria would require a "Diplomatic/Political" Solution, and that buy-in from Iran, Turkey, and others would be absolutely necessary.

      Word is, Bibi is recovering.

      Delete
    2. The Israeli opposition is purely existential.

      Has nothing to do with economics.

      You just don't get it.

      Delete
  10. The reality is the World has had it with Israel and Iranian sanctions are over. Case in point:

    BEIJING, July 15. /TASS/. The comprehensive deal on Iran’s nuclear program reached in Vienna on Tuesday will allow Beijing to increase trade and cooperation with Tehran, China Daily has reported, citing a former Chinese ambassador to Egypt.

    "Iran has a strong desire to participate in China's Silk Road initiatives amid Tehran's ambitious plans to revive its economy. Closer economic links would also boost the “going global" strategy of Chinese enterprises and further elevate China's ties with other Middle East countries," the report says, citing An Huihou.

    An expert in Middle East studies at China’s Ningxia University, Li Shaoxian, said “the reopening of the Iranian market would increase economic competition between China and Western countries," according to the report.

    “China has advantages including rich knowledge of the local market and huge foreign exchange reserves that could be invested," the report reads.

    Policy director of the Brussels-based think tank Friends of Europe, Shada Islam, said Beijing could help Tehran to mitigate the impact of the sanctions by providing short-term “emergency aid".

    “In the long run, the focus will of course be on the development of Iran’s infrastructure and oil and gas sector,” Islam said adding: "Given its location and diverse regional interests, Iran will also inevitably play a crucial role in China's [new] Silk Road proposal.”


    Iran is now open for trade. If the US wants to be locked out, the Europeans, Chinese and Russians could care less. Iran already has friends in Latin America. If the Canadians are smart enough to dump the Conservatives in October, they will be there as well.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The world has had it with Israel?

    hardly deuce.

    The world has embraced Israel. It trades with Israel.



    The Iran issue is separate.

    As for the investment safety of Iran? LOL How safe is China or Russia?

    Is that your litmus test?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Teresita RedingerWed Jul 15, 09:09:00 PM EDT
    Gosh, maybe the Iranians might even build settlements in those places after they take over. Can't have that.


    Why are you being a simplistic twit?

    ReplyDelete