rickyp wrote:Fate

The only thing Congress would be doing is a favor to the Administration. He could actually leverage Congressional action in a deal with Iran to get them to comply and avoid whatever Congress does

US sanctions by themselves were never terribly effective.

Right, because of the whole seizing our embassy thing, not having normalized relations, etc. However, what the US has done is lead the world to put sanctions on that have had some genuine effect on the Iranian economy. New sanctions would mean other countries keeping theirs in place or, in some case, also ratcheting them up.

If more sanctions would have no effect, why does Obama care if they are passed or not? Because Iran might get its feelings hurt? Meanwhile, they topple the "model" government in Yemen, and Obama doesn't even give it a moment's thought.

So, more "ineffective" (your word) sanctions would be a deal-breaker, but supporting the overthrow of a government Obama has pointed to as THE model for dealing with counter-insurgency, that's a giant "meh?"

Your incoherence is showing. Again.

What happens if China ignores Congress...Which they probably will do... They are involved in sanctions only up to a point. If they go past the point of reason their participation will end.

"Whatiffery."

If the US insists on measures that will actually prevent nuclear proliferation, China will cut of its sanctions that were designed to force Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons?

More incoherence.

What Congress ignores, is that their partners in the sanctions don't particularly care about internal US politics. And their analysis of the deal is grounded in self interest and realistic expectations.

Do tell. How many of them are publicly supporting the non-deal?

Russia and China aren't interested in the fantasy of forced regime change or forcing Iran into concessions that have nothing to do with nuclear security (recognition of Israel for instance).

Specifically, who in Congress is proposing more sanctions so that Iran's regime will fall? Name names and give links. *crickets begin chirping*

fate

Never mind that this, essentially, is a treaty. Obama doesn't want a piece of paper known as "The Constitution" to get in the way of his legacy

.
Essentially not a treaty. According to precedents going back to Washington (The President not the city or state)

It is a treaty. Obama wants to call it an "executive agreement" so he can avoid Congressional review. He fancies himself Supreme Leader of the United States. He's wrong on both counts. And, given the rather sketchy history between the US and Iran, and the polls that show the overwhelming majority of Americans don't trust Iran, a treaty would be the sensible way to go.

Unless you view yourself as the unaccountable to anyone "Supreme Leader."

rickyp wrote:Fate

Right. Just trying to change the entire Middle East by force.

Always a bad idea. No matter which army is doing the invading and occupying.
The last time this happened in the Middle East it lead to the current mess.

BY the way, Russia has ended its sanctions with Iran ...

Yes, sending missiles. Great.

Yeah, there is a major difference between Iran and the US--one which likely escapes your notice: Iran is in the region and thus has the capacity to exert control and dominance over much of the region as long as it wishes. It won't be engaged in nation-building.

So, have a nice cup of shut up.

Btw, rickyp, why don't YOU explain which Supreme Leader is telling the truth. Iran's SL interpreted the agreement in a way that is completely opposed to America's SL. Which one is right?

Fate

Right, because of the whole seizing our embassy thing, not having normalized relations, etc. However, what the US has done is lead the world to put sanctions on that have had some genuine effect on the Iranian economy

US sanctions against Iran began 34 years ago. and they weren't effective in keeping Iran from developing nuclear capability.

U.S. allies promised virtually universal support for American efforts to press Iran's revolutionaries for the release of American diplomats. In practice, however, Japan moved to fill the void left by a U.S. ban on importing Iranian oil, and Japanese bankers worked to help Tehran mitigate the impact of the American freeze of Iran's overseas assets. During the 14-month crisis, European trade with Tehran rebounded, while Moscow scuttled any prospect of UN penalties. Belated European measures imposed months later had only a marginal impact at best

.
It wasn't until Bush went to the UN Security Council in 2006 that other nations became interested. And not until 2010 that an effective sanctions regimen was introduced.

and as you say:

New sanctions would mean other countries keeping theirs in place or, in some case, also ratcheting them up

.
But that's not likely to happen. Russia is so happy with the framework, forget the final agreement they have already signed deals that will start trade again in June.. And China is working with Pakistan on an important pipeline project...
They've both indicated that if the terms of the framework are generally met they are happy. And they won't give a fart on a wet Wednesday about Congressional action.
Meaning the prospect of increased or even sustained sanction brought about by Congressional action is unlikely. Especially if everyone thinks, as they seem to so far, that Iran is honoring its commitments.

fate

If the US insists on measures that will actually prevent nuclear proliferation, China will cut of its sanctions that were designed to force Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons

China thinks the framework, if signed, will accomplish the goal of preventing nuclear proliferation. If the US dishonors the deal by throwing in new terms, they won't play.
May because they have three nuclear nations in the neighborhood already, a fourth won't be hard to accommodate? And maybe because they were considered the supposedly irrational madmen with the bomb by western politiciians they have some affinity for Iran?

At any rate, congress screwing up the negotiations so that Iran won't sign on the original framework will guarantee a return to ineffective sanctions.

Fate

Specifically, who in Congress is proposing more sanctions so that Iran's regime will fall? Name names and give links. *crickets begin chirping

First, the goal of our policy must be clear: regime change in Iran. . . . Second, the United States should cease all appeasement, conciliation and concessions towards Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table, undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these negotiations isn’t an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak

.”
Tom Cotton (rep)

Robert Mendenez (dem) is an outspoken defender of the Mojahedin-e Khalq, a cult-like anti-regime Iranian exile group that was listed until September 2012 by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/02/n ... e-in-iran/

fate

: Iran is in the region and thus has the capacity to exert control and dominance over much of the region as long as it wishes. It won't be engaged in nation-building.

Nation building?
Well, the Iraqis government seems to think they are great allies. And yet, there is no occupying army from Iran.
Hasn't that been a vital component of recent nation building exercises in the Middle East?

rickyp wrote:Fate

Right, because of the whole seizing our embassy thing, not having normalized relations, etc. However, what the US has done is lead the world to put sanctions on that have had some genuine effect on the Iranian economy

US sanctions against Iran began 34 years ago. and they weren't effective in keeping Iran from developing nuclear capability.

Thanks for refuting an argument I did not make. No, really, nicely done!

Why is Iran negotiating? Is it because they desperately want someone to stop them from getting nuclear weapons? Or, is it because the sanctions have hurt their economy?

Do try to be logical. #missionimpossible

It wasn't until Bush went to the UN Security Council in 2006 that other nations became interested. And not until 2010 that an effective sanctions regimen was introduced.

Yes, that darned cowboy unilateralist! Bush made sanctions work.

and as you say:

New sanctions would mean other countries keeping theirs in place or, in some case, also ratcheting them up

.
But that's not likely to happen. Russia is so happy with the framework, forget the final agreement they have already signed deals that will start trade again in June.. And China is working with Pakistan on an important pipeline project...

Because that jackass Obama went on TV pronouncing the "deal" as the greatest single achievement in the history of international diplomacy. So, of course, Russia and China are ready to dispense with sanctions they never liked.

However, that is (again) not what I said. I said "other countries." That is not restricted to "Russia and China." There are other countries who would likely cooperate.

Obama is the one making a hash out of this, not me.

They've both indicated that if the terms of the framework are generally met they are happy. And they won't give a fart on a wet Wednesday about Congressional action.

Yes, but even Democrats can see this is a bad deal. So, who knows? Again, Obama, if he had ANY idea how to negotiate, would have leveraged this to get a better deal. Instead, he could not pat himself on the back hard enough.

He is a clueless rube.

Meaning the prospect of increased or even sustained sanction brought about by Congressional action is unlikely. Especially if everyone thinks, as they seem to so far, that Iran is honoring its commitments.

That's a mighty big "IF." Iran, by its own words, has indicated it is not going to keep this agreement.

fate

If the US insists on measures that will actually prevent nuclear proliferation, China will cut off its sanctions that were designed to force Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons

China thinks the framework, if signed, will accomplish the goal of preventing nuclear proliferation. If the US dishonors the deal by throwing in new terms, they won't play.

Wrong. You're so full of nonsense.

I wrote that in response to this from you: "What happens if China ignores Congress...Which they probably will do... They are involved in sanctions only up to a point. If they go past the point of reason their participation will end."

So, your premise is that the FRAMEWORK (it's not a DEAL--many, in fact most, of the details have not been negotiated) will stop proliferation and if the Congress gets involved, China will see that as unreasonable.

You must live in a cave. Several Iranians have boasted it won't prevent anything. They have said there will be no inspections of military bases, the sanctions will be lifted immediately, there will be no "snap-back" provisions etc. Their presentation of the FRAMEWORK is 180 degrees opposed to Obama's. One of them is wrong. Which one is it and how do you KNOW?

May because they have three nuclear nations in the neighborhood already, a fourth won't be hard to accommodate? And maybe because they were considered the supposedly irrational madmen with the bomb by western politiciians they have some affinity for Iran?

Or, maybe because they don't care if Iran launches nukes at Israel or the US?

At any rate, congress screwing up the negotiations so that Iran won't sign on the original framework will guarantee a return to ineffective sanctions.

Seriously, how do you KNOW that the FRAMEWORK is going to lead to a good deal? Everything Iran has said since the announcement stands in contrast to what Obama and Kerry have said.

Fate

Specifically, who in Congress is proposing more sanctions so that Iran's regime will fall? Name names and give links. *crickets begin chirping

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/02/neocons-want-regime-change-in-iran/

So, I went to the "about" page on your source:

I was forced to make Consortiumnews.com a part-time enterprise and took an editing job at Bloomberg News. One of our last stories before that break described how the news media was exaggerating Vice President Al Gore’s alleged exaggerations.

Though operating on a part-time basis, we managed to churn out a number of stories in the months before Election 2000 and kept tabs on the recount battle with stories including how Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor telegraphed her political agenda at an Election Night party and how George W. Bush dispatched thugs to Miami to intimidate vote counters.

In November 2001, we were the first to note that the big news outlets – which had conducted an unofficial recount of Florida’s ballots – had buried their own lead, the fact that Gore would have won Florida if all legal votes were counted.

In 2002, during the buildup to war in Iraq, we also picked up the pace, questioning the Bush administration’s case about weapons of mass destruction and criticizing the flag-waving coverage from the mainstream news media.

As Bush’s Iraq invasion was underway in March 2003, I consulted with some of my old military sources who warned of the disaster ahead. The article was entitled “Bay of Pigs Meets Black Hawk Down.”

Also in 2003, author Kevin Phillips cited the investigative work of Consortiumnews.com in his seminal book on the Bush family, American Dynasty. Phillips took note of our investigative series that examined the elder George Bush’s role in Republican dirty tricks during the 1980 campaign.

In other words, these are moonbats who selectively edit things and slap them together.

However, NOTHING you cited shows that the goal of more sanctions is regime change. They may want regime change, but that is not part of the "more sanctions" movement. It is more like they do not believe this is a decent deal.

In fact, rickyp, you most often remind me of the legendary (to her parents) Ms. Harf, State Department spokeswoman. Watch the video as she rickyp's to a question about an op-ed by those nobodies, Henry Kissinger and George Schultz.

Let's see, how about Aaron David Miller is a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars? A bit of his bio:

Miller worked for the United States Department of State for 24 years (1978–2003). Between 1988 and 2003, Miller served six secretaries of state as an advisor on Arab-Israeli negotiations, where he participated in American efforts to broker agreements between Israel, Jordan, Syria, and the Palestinians. He left the Department of State in January 2003 to serve as president of Seeds of Peace, an international youth organization founded in 1993. In January 2006, Miller joined the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, first a public policy scholar, and later as vice president for new initiatives. In 2014, Miller published his fifth book, The End of Greatness: Why America Can't Have (and Doesn't Want) Another Great President."

What does Miller think?

It may well be, given the constraints of the possible, that the U.S. never could have achieved what it initially wanted: no enrichment; centrifuges dismantled; nuclear facilities shuttered; Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium shipped abroad; full disclosure on the military dimensions of Iran’s program. But a deal-hungry Washington shifted goals. The U.S. went from seeking to dismantle a putative nuclear weapons program to trying to impose limitations on one. Score one for the mullahs. By the time a final agreement is reached, Iran’s right to enrich uranium and its nuclear infrastructure may be validated in a U.N. Security Council resolution. That would be another win for the mullahs.

. . .

Had the Obama administration made Iran’s behavior at home or in the region part of the negotiations, no framework agreement would have been reached. But in compartmentalizing, Washington has all but confirmed Iran as the key broker in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. I’ve long argued that one of the reasons the Obama administration has not been more aggressive militarily against the Assad regime is that the U.S. feared becoming embroiled in a proxy war in Syria—possibly involving killing Iranian Revolutionary Guard units—that would have undermined the nuclear negotiations with Iran. In Iraq, the implicit U.S. cooperation with Tehran against Islamic State has helped expand Iran’s influence. There is no indication that Washington will want to aggressively counter Iran in the region during the early phase of implementation of a final agreement. On the contrary, the logic is that engagement will, over time, produce changes in the regime so it’s best to give the reformists and moderates a chance to expand their influence.

So, the nuclear deal took precedence over stopping Iranian hegemony in the Middle East. Furthermore, it pretty much is a win for Iran overall.

Kerry and Obama--used car salesmen of the hapless variety.

I found the following article to be interesting. Something to consider, even if you are on the opposite side. I am not taking any position as to whether his arguments are correct, but I will be pondering at least some of them. He does appear to have somewhat of a bias against Israel.


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7055054? ... =WorldPost

fate

. So, of course, Russia and China are ready to dispense with sanctions they never liked.

However, that is (again) not what I said. I said "other countries." That is not restricted to "Russia and China." There are other countries who would likely cooperate

.
Like who? Paluau?
So you've admitted in this is that the sanctions regime put in place by the US unilaterally accomplished nothing. But that when Bush moved multilaterally, using the UN and other multilateral organization then China and Russia and most other nations came on board the sanctions worked...
You'll stipulate this? Good. because its historical fact.
Now, if Russia and China, who are on board with the current framework, and presumably a signed deal that meets the framework ..decide that any bad faith bargaining from the US lets them out of a deal ... and they end their participation in sanctions ....
How do you have an effective sanctions regimen? You may want to review the recently announced Iran/Russia trade agreement. The announcement of Chinese funding for the Pakistan Iran pipeline. The history of how Japan aided Iran during US Sanctions from 1984 for 25 years...

If the US scuttles the agreement because of Congressional action the sanctions will fall apart. And the US will be once again in a position like they were before. Alone. And those sanctions didn't work. Iran will have 18,000 + centrifuges and the IAEA will have no access to inspect anything... How is that a good thing?

Fate

Seriously, how do you KNOW that the FRAMEWORK is going to lead to a good deal

How do you know it won't? Find an example of Iran failing to live up to treaty obligations, trade agreements, or international agreements. They have never done so. If the framework goes through as negotiated, there will be safeguards in place to verify their actions and the ability to re-institute sanctions speedily.
If the US scuttles the deal, all bets are off and sanctions end

Fate

However, NOTHING you cited shows that the goal of more sanctions is regime change

So you don't take Tom Cotton at his word? Or Robert Mendenez? Or for that matter Banjamine Nethanyahu?
But you are willing to accept "several Iranians" as the official view of the Iranian government?
Iran's government, once committed, is more likely to carry through on its obligations than the US. Its the US congress that is threatening the process, not Iran.
And Iran, having made an international agreement that is backed up by the reinstatement of genuinely effective sanctions, will be motivated to carry their commitments out.
US Congressmen won't care about US commitments. They are far more reckless with risk and removed from a realistic view of the world. That's why they think increasing sanctions is a real alternative, when Russia and China have already signaled they won't go along.
.

rickyp wrote:fate

. So, of course, Russia and China are ready to dispense with sanctions they never liked.

However, that is (again) not what I said. I said "other countries." That is not restricted to "Russia and China." There are other countries who would likely cooperate

.
Like who? Paluau?
So you've admitted in this is that the sanctions regime put in place by the US unilaterally accomplished nothing.

You are, like your master, a liar. I said nothing of the sort.

I would be softer. I would say something like, "You misrepresent me," except this is not even close to what I said.

I have said sanctions drove Iran to the negotiating table. You ignored that statement, made up your own, and presented it as mine. That is a lie. There is no other way to describe it.

But that when Bush moved multilaterally, using the UN and other multilateral organization then China and Russia and most other nations came on board the sanctions worked...
You'll stipulate this? Good. because its historical fact.

Our sanctions had some effect, but with China and Russia having no scruples, they were willing to undermine them.

Now, if Russia and China, who are on board with the current framework, and presumably a signed deal that meets the framework ..decide that any bad faith bargaining from the US lets them out of a deal ... and they end their participation in sanctions ....

Repeating your argument does not strengthen it. You presume much that is not in evidence.

How do you have an effective sanctions regimen?

Look, Obama has done everything but ship nukes to Iran, so don't whine to me about HIS failures. I'm not President, that loser is.

You may want to review the recently announced Iran/Russia trade agreement. The announcement of Chinese funding for the Pakistan Iran pipeline. The history of how Japan aided Iran during US Sanctions from 1984 for 25 years...

No, you may want to review any business book on negotiations. Until a contract is signed, it doesn't exist. Your man, the Moron-in-Chief, could not wait to crow about a framework--not a signed deal, but an oral agreement that would form the boundaries for a signed deal.

That's just dumb. It gave Russia wiggle room, which they took advantage of since they want it. They love undermining the US.

If the US scuttles the agreement because of Congressional action the sanctions will fall apart.

Repeating your argument does not strengthen it. You presume much that is not in evidence.

And the US will be once again in a position like they were before. Alone. And those sanctions didn't work. Iran will have 18,000 + centrifuges and the IAEA will have no access to inspect anything... How is that a good thing?

How is the Iranian understanding of the framework a "good thing?"

The Iranians have called Obama a liar (regarding the American view of the framework). Obama's response was to say the Iranians are lying.

This sounds like a done deal to you?

Negotiating skill ratings:

Bottom of the barrel: John Kerry
Below bottom of the barrel: President Obama
So low it cannot be measured: rickyp

Fate

Seriously, how do you KNOW that the FRAMEWORK is going to lead to a good deal

How do you know it won't?

Wait. YOU are the one who is giving the Russians a pass because of the framework. The burden is yours.

Find an example of Iran failing to live up to treaty obligations, trade agreements, or international agreements. They have never done so.

I've got you here.

There is NO treaty or agreement! NONE!

If you can show me a signed or even enforceable treaty or agreement based on the framework, please do so--or have a nice cup of shut up.

If the framework goes through as negotiated, there will be safeguards in place to verify their actions and the ability to re-institute sanctions speedily.

This is foolishness.

The US and Iran have presented opposing portraits of what the framework is, which one do you believe?

The nuclear deal Iran and world powers are trying to negotiate hit a roadblock Thursday when Iran’s supreme leader said economic sanctions on his country must be lifted as soon as an accord is signed and Iran’s military facilities will remain off-limits to international inspectors.

His assertions contradict U.S. and French descriptions of the political framework that negotiators announced on April 2 in Switzerland, with three months left to work out the details before a June 30 deadline.

“Sanctions should be removed at once,” said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in his first public comment on the negotiations. He would have to approve whatever Iran’s negotiators work out with China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K. and U.S. . . .

The U.S. position is that sanctions relief could come only after Iran fulfills its initial commitments to curb its nuclear program, probably months after a deal is signed. In addition, U.S. and French “fact sheets” summarizing the framework hammered out in Switzerland say sanctions would “snap back” if Iran were caught cheating.

Other potential deal breakers include limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment and nuclear-related research and development, the extent of international inspections and steps to resolve questions about suspected past nuclear-weapons work.

Allowing international inspectors into Iranian military facilities is key to a credible inspection regime and to resolving questions about what are called the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear research.

For years, Iran has refused to let International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors into a suspect area of the Parchin military complex, southeast of Tehran, where the government allegedly conducted nuclear-weapons related experiments more than a decade ago. Iran denies that it’s carried out any work related to a nuclear device there.
Off Limits

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday that Iran must resolve the military questions, but Khamenei appeared to foreclose any inspections of Parchin, saying military authorities “are not -- under any circumstance -- allowed to let in foreigners” to Iran’s military facilities. That also could cripple plans for anywhere, anytime inspections to prevent Iranian cheating.

In his statement, Khamenei refrained from endorsing the political framework. He said he’s “neither for nor against” it, saying much remains to be resolved, and he questioned whether it’s possible to complete a comprehensive accord by the June 30 deadline.

“This three months time is not an unchangeable matter,” he said of the deadline. “If this period increases it’s not a problem at all.”

So, stop your bleeding prattling and tell us plainly: who is telling the truth? Those are not reconcilable positions. One is right and one is wrong. Who is it? What will be in the final agreement? How do you know? (hint: "Because Obama says so" is no more evidence than "because Khameini says so.")

If the US scuttles the deal, all bets are off and sanctions end

Blah, blah, blah. The problem is that few in Congress believe Obama knows what he's doing. And, why should they? This is the guy who is trying to normalize relations with Cuba while they are jailing an increasing number of dissidents. Obama received NOTHING from the Castros. He traded 5 Taliban leaders for a deserter.

Many compare Obama to Neville Chamberlain. What an insult to Chamberlain!

Fate

However, NOTHING you cited shows that the goal of more sanctions is regime change

So you don't take Tom Cotton at his word? Or Robert Mendenez? Or for that matter Banjamine Nethanyahu?

Did you even read what I said? You cited a source that took things out of context and did not connect a single comment to the new bill. Not one.

Oh, and Netanyahu is not in Congress. FYI.

But you are willing to accept "several Iranians" as the official view of the Iranian government?

The Supreme Leader?

Btw, no one I cited is a man on the street. They are people in authority.

Iran's government, once committed, is more likely to carry through on its obligations than the US.

You are Harry Reid. I can think of no worse insult.

Its the US congress that is threatening the process, not Iran.

It is Iran that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. It is Iran who pursued a nuclear weapon, ostensibly toward that end. It is Iran's Supreme Leader who loves those "Death to America" chants. It is Iran who is actively taking advantage of the vacuum Obama created to destabilize the Middle East.

You are contemptible.

And Iran, having made an international agreement that is backed up by the reinstatement of genuinely effective sanctions, will be motivated to carry their commitments out.

You've contradicted yourself. You said the sanctions won't be put back in place, now you say they will.

For the record, Kerry claims there are "snap-back" provisions. However, Iran says that is not the case.

US Congressmen won't care about US commitments. They are far more reckless with risk and removed from a realistic view of the world. That's why they think increasing sanctions is a real alternative, when Russia and China have already signaled they won't go along.

Why don't you take a few minutes to actually READ what Iran is saying about the framework instead of posting the inane excrement you have sullied this board with?
.

So this thread has moved on constructively since I last checked it...

danivon wrote:So this thread has moved on constructively since I last checked it...

That's a fine summary.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So this thread has moved on constructively since I last checked it...

That's a fine summary.

At least we aren't discussing whether Ricky is a Zionist, or anti-Zionist or both.

Based on what the (Iranian) Supreme Leader is saying it seems that the deal is worse than what Obama and Kerry had described. I'm also concerned that Russia is providing anti-missile systems to Iran. Presumably this would make destruction of Iranian nuclear equipment much harder.

freeman3 wrote:I found the following article to be interesting. Something to consider, even if you are on the opposite side. I am not taking any position as to whether his arguments are correct, but I will be pondering at least some of them. He does appear to have somewhat of a bias against Israel.


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7055054? ... =WorldPost

It's definitely well written, but I think the writer is in denial.

First, stuff like this really irks me:

the Jews who had lived under Persian/Iranian rule for 2,600 years since the Babylonian captivity, the Jews who had been liberated by King Cyrus, the Jews who achieved their first great humanist flowering in Persia, the Jews who were far better off through the ages there than anywhere in Christendom until the 19th century.

He makes it sound like Jews have been well treated in Persia/Iran for 2,600 years, but the reality is very different. From Wikipedia:

With the Islamic conquest of Persia, the government assigned Jews, along with Christians and Zoroastrians, to the status of dhimmis, non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic empire. Dhimmis were allowed to practice their religion, but were required to pay jizya to cover the cost of financial welfare, security and other benefits that Muslims were entitled to ...In 1255, Mongols led by Hulagu Khan invaded parts of Persia, and in 1258 they captured Baghdad putting an end to the Abbasid caliphate.[17] In Persia and surrounding areas, the Mongols established a division of the Mongol Empire known as Ilkhanate, creating a capitol in Tabriz. The Ilkhanate Mongol rulers abolished the inequality of dhimmis, and all religions were deemed equal. It was shortly after this time when one of the Ilkhanate rulers, Arghun Khan, preferred Jews for the administrative positions and appointed Sa'd al-Daula, a Jew, as his vizier. The appointment, however, provoked resentment from the Muslim clergy, and after Arghun's death in 1291, al-Daula was murdered and Persian Jews in Tabriz suffered a period of violent persecutions from the Muslim populace instigated by the clergy. The Orthodox Christian historian Bar Hebraeus wrote that the violence committed against the Jews during that period "neither tongue can utter, nor the pen write down".[18]

Ghazan Khan's conversion to Islam in 1295 heralded for Persian Jews in Tabriz a pronounced turn for the worse, as they were once again relegated to the status of dhimmis (Covenant of Omar). Öljeitü, Ghazan Khan's successor, destroyed many synagogues and decreed that Jews had to wear a distinctive mark on their heads; Christians endured similar persecutions. Under pressure, many Jews converted to Islam. The most famous such convert was Rashid-al-Din Hamadani, a physician of Hamadani origin who was also a historian and statesman; and who adopted Islam in order to advance his career in Öljeitü's court in Tabriz. However, in 1318 he was executed on charges of poisoning Öljeitü and his severed head was carried around the streets of Tabriz, chanting, "This is the head of the Jew who abused the name of God; may God's curse be upon him!" ... During the reign of the Safavids (1502–1794), they proclaimed Shi'a Islam the state religion. This led to a deterioration in their treatment of Persian Jews. Safavids Shi'ism assigns importance to the issues of ritual purity ― tahara. Non-Muslims, including Jews, are deemed to be ritually unclean ― najis. Any physical contact would require Shi'as to undertake ritual purification before doing regular prayers. Thus, Persian rulers, and the general populace, sought to limit physical contact between Muslims and Jews. Jews were excluded from public baths used by Muslims. They were forbidden to go outside during rain or snow, as an "impurity" could be washed from them upon a Muslim.

At least the author has the good sense to ignore the 19th century when it gets worse. I don't know what point he is trying to make, except it's weird that he claims the Jews were treated better in Persia/Iran when they were treated so poorly by the Muslims. I think he's burying the lead.

Work calls ... more soon.

I think his thesis is based on two points which to me are very much in dispute. The first:

In the light of these realities, the danger of the Iranian leadership changing its mind and going after a bomb clandestinely are remote - to say the least. Getting away with it, risking being caught at a great price, all for marginal gain - that makes little sense or cause for worry. Conclusion: the enormous amount of attention and angst in regard to the "breakout" scenario is unjustified. The very idea of a "breakout" in 3 months, or the one year now supposedly implicit in the terms of the preliminary agreement, has dubious validity. Talk to anyone truly knowledgeable about nuclear matters, and who has maintained a measure of detachment, and you quickly learn that it is not that simple. There are critical engineering and precision manufacturing tasks that have to be accomplished before anyone is near having a workable bomb; it is not just a matter of accumulating the requisite amount of high enriched uranium.

I'm not expert but I would think that Iranian technology and knowledge is way ahead of Pakistan 20 years ago and North Korea 10 years ago. I think he is understating Iranian capabilities.

Of all the issues that bedevil American engagement in the Middle East, Iran's nuclear potential is in reality secondary. If we set American national interests as the reference point, as properly the decision-makers in Washington should do, there is far more reason to worry about ISIL (a concern shared by Tehran), the Saudis (and, to a lesser extent, the Turks) continued backing of radical Salafist forces across the region, and the foreboding Sunni-Shia civil war within Islam.

This strikes me as a silly argument. No one is saying that Iranian nukes are our only concern in the Middle East. The reality is that the Middle East is a mess for all sort of reasons. The case against Iranian nuclear activities is that it is silly to add nuclear capabilities to this mess. (I'd like to cut off Ricky now "writing" something foolish about how Israel already has nukes. The point is that the middle east is a mess because of the Sunni / Shia split. We do not want one side to be closer to nukes.

I'll ignore the writer's evident anti-Israel bias and just stick to the weakness in his central argument.